GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8476

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Tantsura Request for Comments: 8476 Apstra, Inc. Category: Standards Track U. Chunduri ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei Technologies

                                                             S. Aldrin
                                                          Google, Inc.
                                                             P. Psenak
                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                         December 2018
            Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF

Abstract

 This document defines a way for an Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
 router to advertise multiple types of supported Maximum SID Depths
 (MSDs) at node and/or link granularity.  Such advertisements allow
 entities (e.g., centralized controllers) to determine whether a
 particular Segment Identifier (SID) stack can be supported in a given
 network.  This document only refers to the Signaling MSD as defined
 in RFC 8491, but it defines an encoding that can support other MSD
 types.  Here, the term "OSPF" means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476.

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 publication of this document.  Please review these documents
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
    1.1. Terminology ................................................4
    1.2. Requirements Language ......................................4
 2. Node MSD Advertisement ..........................................5
 3. Link MSD Sub-TLV ................................................6
 4. Procedures for Defining and Using Node and Link MSD
    Advertisements ..................................................7
 5. IANA Considerations .............................................7
 6. Security Considerations .........................................8
 7. References ......................................................9
    7.1. Normative References .......................................9
    7.2. Informative References ....................................10
 Acknowledgements ..................................................11
 Contributors ......................................................11
 Authors' Addresses ................................................11

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

1. Introduction

 When Segment Routing (SR) paths are computed by a centralized
 controller, it is critical that the controller learn the Maximum SID
 Depth (MSD) that can be imposed at each node/link on a given SR path.
 This ensures that the Segment Identifier (SID) stack depth of a
 computed path doesn't exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable
 of imposing.
 [PCEP-EXT] defines how to signal MSD in the Path Computation Element
 Communication Protocol (PCEP).  However, if PCEP is not supported/
 configured on the head-end of an SR tunnel or a Binding-SID anchor
 node, and the controller does not participate in IGP routing, it has
 no way of learning the MSD of nodes and links.  BGP-LS (Distribution
 of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP) [RFC7752] defines a way
 to expose topology and associated attributes and capabilities of the
 nodes in that topology to a centralized controller.  MSD signaling by
 BGP-LS has been defined in [MSD-BGP].  Typically, BGP-LS is
 configured on a small number of nodes that do not necessarily act as
 head-ends.  In order for BGP-LS to signal MSD for all the nodes and
 links in the network for which MSD is relevant, MSD capabilities
 SHOULD be advertised by every OSPF router in the network.
 Other types of MSDs are known to be useful.  For example, [ELC-ISIS]
 defines Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD), which is used by a
 head-end to insert an Entropy Label (EL) at a depth where it can be
 read by transit nodes.
 This document defines an extension to OSPF used to advertise one or
 more types of MSDs at node and/or link granularity.  In the future,
 it is expected that new MSD-Types will be defined to signal
 additional capabilities, e.g., ELs, SIDs that can be imposed through
 recirculation, or SIDs associated with another data plane such
 as IPv6.
 MSD advertisements MAY be useful even if SR itself is not enabled.
 For example, in a non-SR MPLS network, MSD defines the maximum label
 depth.

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

1.1. Terminology

 This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770].
 BGP-LS:  Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP
 OSPF:    Open Shortest Path First
 MSD:     Maximum SID Depth - the number of SIDs supported by a node
          or a link on a node
 SID:     Segment Identifier as defined in [RFC8402]
 Label Imposition:  Imposition is the act of modifying and/or adding
          labels to the outgoing label stack associated with a packet.
          This includes:
  • replacing the label at the top of the label stack with a

new label

  • pushing one or more new labels onto the label stack
 The number of labels imposed is then the sum of the number of labels
 that are replaced and the number of labels that are pushed.  See
 [RFC3031] for further details.
 PCEP:    Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
 SR:      Segment Routing
 LSA:     Link State Advertisement
 RI:      Router Information

1.2. Requirements Language

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
 capitals, as shown here.

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

2. Node MSD Advertisement

 The Node MSD TLV within the body of the OSPF RI Opaque LSA [RFC7770]
 is defined to carry the provisioned SID depth of the router
 originating the RI LSA.  Node MSD is the smallest MSD supported by
 the node on the set of interfaces configured for use by the
 advertising IGP instance.  MSD values may be learned via a hardware
 API or may be provisioned.
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type                       |  Length                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    MSD-Type   |  MSD-Value    |  MSD-Type...  |  MSD-Value... |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                        Figure 1: Node MSD TLV
 Type: 12
 Length: variable (multiple of 2 octets); represents the total length
 of the value field in octets.
 Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1-octet MSD-Type and
 1-octet MSD-Value.
 MSD-Type: one of the values defined in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry
 defined in [RFC8491].
 MSD-Value: a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types, 0
 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any depth;
 any other value represents that of the node.  This value MUST
 represent the lowest value supported by any link configured for use
 by the advertising OSPF instance.
 This TLV is optional and is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
 The scope of the advertisement is specific to the deployment.
 When multiple Node MSD TLVs are received from a given router, the
 receiver MUST use the first occurrence of the TLV in the Router
 Information (RI) LSA.  If the Node MSD TLV appears in multiple RI
 LSAs that have different flooding scopes, the Node MSD TLV in the RI
 LSA with the area-scoped flooding scope MUST be used.  If the Node
 MSD TLV appears in multiple RI LSAs that have the same flooding
 scope, the Node MSD TLV in the RI LSA with the numerically smallest
 Instance ID MUST be used and other instances of the Node MSD TLV MUST
 be ignored.  The RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

 opaque flooding scopes (link, area, or Autonomous System (AS)).  For
 the purpose of Node MSD TLV advertisement, area-scoped flooding is
 RECOMMENDED.

3. Link MSD Sub-TLV

 The Link MSD sub-TLV is defined to carry the MSD of the interface
 associated with the link.  MSD values may be learned via a hardware
 API or may be provisioned.
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type                       |  Length                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    MSD-Type   |  MSD-Value    |  MSD-Type...  |  MSD-Value... |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                      Figure 2: Link MSD Sub-TLV
 Type:
    For OSPFv2, the link-level MSD-Value is advertised as an optional
    sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV as defined in [RFC7684]
    and has a type of 6.
    For OSPFv3, the link-level MSD-Value is advertised as an optional
    sub-TLV of the E-Router-LSA TLV as defined in [RFC8362] and has a
    type of 9.
 Length: variable; same as defined in Section 2.
 Value: consists of one or more pairs of a 1-octet MSD-Type and
 1-octet MSD-Value.
 MSD-Type: one of the values defined in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry
 defined in [RFC8491].
 The MSD-Value field contains the Link MSD of the router originating
 the corresponding LSA as specified for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.  The Link
 MSD is a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types, 0
 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any depth;
 any other value represents that of the particular link when used as
 an outgoing interface.
 If this sub-TLV is advertised multiple times for the same link in
 different OSPF Extended Link Opaque LSAs / E-Router-LSAs originated
 by the same OSPF router, the sub-TLV in the OSPFv2 Extended Link

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

 Opaque LSA with the smallest Opaque ID or in the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA
 with the smallest Link State ID MUST be used by receiving OSPF
 routers.  This situation SHOULD be logged as an error.

4. Procedures for Defining and Using Node and Link MSD Advertisements

 When Link MSD is present for a given MSD-Type, the value of the Link
 MSD MUST take precedence over the Node MSD.  When a Link MSD-Type is
 not signaled but the Node MSD-Type is, then the Node MSD-Type value
 MUST be considered as the MSD value for that link.
 In order to increase flooding efficiency, it is RECOMMENDED that
 routers with homogenous Link MSD values advertise just the Node MSD
 value.
 The meaning of the absence of both Node and Link MSD advertisements
 for a given MSD-Type is specific to the MSD-Type.  Generally, it can
 only be inferred that the advertising node does not support
 advertisement of that MSD-Type.  However, in some cases the lack of
 advertisement might imply that the functionality associated with the
 MSD-Type is not supported.  Per [RFC8491], the correct interpretation
 MUST be specified when an MSD-Type is defined.

5. IANA Considerations

 This specification updates several existing OSPF registries.
 IANA has allocated TLV type 12 from the "OSPF Router Information (RI)
 TLVs" registry as defined by [RFC7770].
    Value     Description                      Reference
    -----     ---------------                  -------------
    12        Node MSD                         This document
                         Figure 3: RI Node MSD
 IANA has allocated sub-TLV type 6 from the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
 Sub-TLVs" registry.
    Value     Description                      Reference
    -----     ---------------                  -------------
    6         OSPFv2 Link MSD                  This document
                       Figure 4: OSPFv2 Link MSD

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

 IANA has allocated sub-TLV type 9 from the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
 Sub-TLVs" registry.
    Value     Description                      Reference
    -----     ---------------                  -------------
    9         OSPFv3 Link MSD                  This document
                       Figure 5: OSPFv3 Link MSD

6. Security Considerations

 Security concerns for OSPF are addressed in [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and
 [RFC7166].  Further security analysis for the OSPF protocol is done
 in [RFC6863].  Security considerations as specified by [RFC7770],
 [RFC7684], and [RFC8362] are applicable to this document.
 Implementations MUST ensure that malformed TLVs and sub-TLVs defined
 in this document are detected and do not provide a vulnerability for
 attackers to crash the OSPF router or routing process.  Reception of
 malformed TLVs or sub-TLVs SHOULD be counted and/or logged for
 further analysis.  Logging of malformed TLVs and sub-TLVs SHOULD be
 rate-limited to prevent a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack (distributed
 or otherwise) from overloading the OSPF control plane.
 Advertisement of an incorrect MSD value may have negative
 consequences.  If the value is smaller than supported, path
 computation may fail to compute a viable path.  If the value is
 larger than supported, an attempt to instantiate a path that can't be
 supported by the head-end (the node performing the SID imposition)
 may occur.
 The presence of this information may also inform an attacker of how
 to induce any of the aforementioned conditions.
 There's no DoS risk specific to this extension, and it is not
 vulnerable to replay attacks.

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
            Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
 [RFC7684]  Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
            Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
            Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684,
            November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
 [RFC7770]  Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
            S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
            Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
            February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
            RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
 [RFC8362]  Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
            F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
            Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362,
            April 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
 [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
            Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
            Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
            July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
 [RFC8491]  Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
            "Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

7.2. Informative References

 [ELC-ISIS] Xu, X., Kini, S., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., and S.
            Litkowski, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy
            Readable Label-stack Depth Using OSPF", Work in Progress,
            draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-07, September 2018.
 [MSD-BGP]  Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Mirsky, G., and S. Sivabalan,
            "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth) using Border Gateway
            Protocol Link-State", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-idr-
            bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-02, August 2018.
 [PCEP-EXT] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
            and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
            Work in Progress, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14,
            October 2018.
 [RFC4552]  Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
            for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
 [RFC6863]  Hartman, S. and D. Zhang, "Analysis of OSPF Security
            According to the Keying and Authentication for Routing
            Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC 6863,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6863, March 2013,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6863>.
 [RFC7166]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
            Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
 [RFC7474]  Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
            "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
            Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
 [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
            S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
            Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 8476 Signaling MSD Using OSPF December 2018

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Ketan Talaulikar, Tal
 Mizrahi, Stephane Litkowski, and Bruno Decraene for their reviews and
 valuable comments.

Contributors

 The following person contributed to this document:
 Les Ginsberg
 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

Authors' Addresses

 Jeff Tantsura
 Apstra, Inc.
 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
 Uma Chunduri
 Huawei Technologies
 Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com
 Sam Aldrin
 Google, Inc.
 Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
 Peter Psenak
 Cisco Systems
 Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

Tantsura, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8476.txt · Last modified: 2018/12/12 18:18 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki