wdiff rfc8510.original rfc8510.txt

Open Shortest Path First IGP
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Psenak, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8510 K. Talaulikar
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: May 8, 2019
ISSN: 2070-1721 W. Henderickx
Nokia
P. Pillay-Esnault
Huawei
November 4, 2018 USA
January 2019

OSPF LLS Link-Local Signaling (LLS) Extensions for Local Interface ID
Advertisement
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-09

Abstract

Every OSPF interface is assigned an identifier, Interface ID, which ID that uniquely
identifies the interface on the router. In some cases cases, it is useful
to know the assigned Interface ID on the remote side of the adjacency
(Remote Interface ID).

This draft document describes the extensions to OSPF link-local signalling signaling
(LLS) to advertise the Local Interface Identifier.

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
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. ID.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2019.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8510.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ....................................................3
1.1. Interface ID Exchange using Using Link Local TE Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 3 .......3
1.2. Requirements Language ......................................4
2. Interface ID Exchange using Using OSPF LLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ............................4
2.1. Local Interface Identifier ID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .....................................4
3. Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ............................5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .............................................5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .........................................5
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. ......................................................6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. .......................................6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .....................................7
Acknowledgments ....................................................7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .................................................8

1. Introduction

Every OSPF interface is assigned an Interface ID, which ID that uniquely
identifies the interface on the router. [RFC2328] uses this
Interface ID in the Router-LSA Router Link State Advertisement (Router-LSA) Link
Data for unnumbered links and uses the value of the MIB-II IfIndex ifIndex
[RFC2863]. [RFC4203] refers to these Interface IDs as the Link
Local/Remote Identifiers and defines a way to advertise and use them
for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) GMPLS purposes. [RFC7684] [RFC8379] defines a way to advertise
Local/Remote Local/
Remote Interface IDs in the OSPFv2 Extended Link Opaque LSA.

There is a known OSPFv2 protocol problem in verifying the bi-
directional
bidirectional connectivity with parallel unnumbered links. If there
are two parallel unnumbered links between a pair of routers and each
link is only advertised from a single direction, such two
unidirectional parallel links could be considered as a valid single
bidirectional link during the OSPF route computation on some other
router. If each link is advertised with both its Local and Remote
Interface IDs, the advertisement of each link from both sides of
adjacency can be verified by cross-checking the Local and Remote
Interface IDs of both advertisements.

From the perspective of the advertising router, the Local Interface
Identifier
ID is a known value, however value. However, the Remote Interface Identifier ID needs to be learnt
learned before it can be advertised. [RFC4203] suggests
to use using the TE
Link Local LSA [RFC3630] to communicate the Local Interface
Identifier ID to
neighbors on the link. Though such a mechanism works, it has some
drawbacks.

This draft document proposes an extension to OSPF link-local signalling signaling
(LLS) [RFC5613] to advertise the Local Interface Identifier. ID.

1.1. Interface ID Exchange using Using Link Local TE Opaque LSA

Usage of the Link Local TE Opaque LSA to propagate the Local
Interface Identifier ID to the neighbors on the link is described in [RFC4203].
This mechanism has the following problems:

o LSAs can only be flooded over an existing adjacency that is in
Exchange state or greater. The adjacency state machine progresses
independently on each side of the adjacency and, as such, may
reach the Full state on one side before the TE Link Local TE Opaque
LSA arrives. The consequence of this is that the link can be
initially advertised without the Remote Interface Identifier. ID. Later, when
the TE Link Local TE Opaque LSA arrives, the link must be advertised again,
again but this time with the valid Remote Interface Identifier. ID.
Implementations may choose to wait before advertising the link,
but there is no guarantee that the neighbor will ever advertise
the TE Link Local TE Opaque LSA with the Interface Identifier. ID. In summary,
the existing mechanism does not guarantee that the Remote
Interface Identifier ID is known at the time the link is advertised.

o The Link Local TE Opaque LSA is defined for MPLS Traffic
Engineering, but the knowledge of the Remote Interface Identifier ID is
useful also for cases where MPLS TE is not used. One example is
the mentioned lack of a valid 2-way connectivity check for
parallel point-to-
point point-to-point links between OSPF routers.

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.

2. Interface ID Exchange using Using OSPF LLS

To address the problems described earlier and to allow the Interface
Identifier
ID exchange to be part of the neighbor discovery process, we propose
to extend OSPF link-local signalling signaling to advertise the Local Interface Identifier
ID in OSPF Hello and Database Description (DD) packets.

2.1. Local Interface Identifier ID TLV

The Local Interface Identifier ID TLV is a an LLS TLV. It has the following
format:

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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface Identifier ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where:

Type: TBD 18

Length: 4 octets

Local Interface Identifier: ID: The value of the local Local Interface
Identifier. ID.

Local Interface Identifier ID TLV signalling signaling using LLS is applicable to all OSPF
interface types other than virtual links.

3. Backward Compatibility with RFC 4203

If the Local Interface ID signaling via the Link Local TE Opaque LSA
is supported in addition to the new LLS mechanism, implementations which
that support Local Interface ID signalling signaling using LLS MUST prefer the
Local Interface ID value received through LLS over the value received
through the Link Local TE Opaque LSA if both are received from the
same OSPF router.

Implementations which that support Local Interface ID signalling signaling via the
Link Local TE Opaque LSA MAY continue to do so to ensure backward
compatibility. If they also support Local Interface ID signalling signaling
using LLS as described herein, in the document, they MUST signal the same
Local Interface ID via both mechanisms.

During the rare conditions, when conditions in which the Local Interface ID changes, a
timing interval may exist, exist where the received values of the Local
Interface ID advertised through LLS and the Link Local TE Opaque LSA
may differ. Such a situation is temporary temporary, and received values via
both mechanisms should become equal as soon as the next Hello and/or
Link Local TE Opaque LSA is re-generated regenerated by the originator.

4. IANA Considerations

This specification allocates a single

IANA has allocated the following code point from in the "Link Local
Signalling TLV Identifiers (LLS Types)" subregistry of the "Open
Shortest Path First (OSPF) Link Local Signalling (LLS) - Type/Length/
Value Identifiers (TLV)" registry.

Following value is allocated:

o TBD

18 - Local Interface Identifier ID TLV

5. Security Considerations

The security considerations for "OSPF Link-Local Signaling" [RFC5613]
also apply to the Local Interface Identifier ID TLV described herein. in this document.
The current usage of a neighbor's Local Interface Identifier ID is to
disambiguate parallel links between OSPF routers. Hence,
modification of the advertised Local Interface Identifier ID TLV may result in
the wrong neighbor interface identifier Interface ID being advertised in the OSPFv2
Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC7684] and could prevent the link from
being used. If authentication is being used in the OSPF routing
domain [RFC5709], [RFC5709][RFC7474], then the Cryptographic Authentication TLV
[RFC5613] SHOULD also be used to protect that the contents of the Link-Local
Signaling (LLS) LLS
block.

Receiving a malformed LLS Local Interface Identifier ID TLV MUST NOT result in a
hard router or OSPF process failure. The reception of malformed LLS
TLVs or Sub-TLVs sub-TLVs SHOULD be logged logged, but such logging MUST be rate-
limited to prevent Denial-of-Service denial-of-service (DoS) attacks.

The interface Interface ID is assigned by the advertising OSPF router as a
locally unique identifier and need not be unique in any broader
context; it is not expected to contain any information about the
device owner or traffic transiting the device, so there are no
privacy oncerns concerns associated with its advertisement.

6. Acknowledgments

Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his extensive review and useful
comments.

7. References

7.1.

6.1. 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>.

[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.

[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.

[RFC5613] Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D.
Yeung, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling", RFC 5613,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5613, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5613>.

[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>.

[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>.

7.2.

[RFC8379] Hegde, S., Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Nanduri, M., and L.
Jalil, "OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown", RFC 8379,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8379, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8379>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
MIB", RFC 2863, DOI 10.17487/RFC2863, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2863>.

[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.

[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>.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Tony Przygienda for his extensive review and useful
comments.

Authors' Addresses

Peter Psenak (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Apollo Business Center
Mlynske nivy 43
Bratislava 821 09
Slovakia

Email: ppsenak@cisco.com

Ketan Jivan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
S.No. 154/6, Phase I, Hinjawadi
PUNE, MAHARASHTRA
Pune, Maharashtra 411 057
India

Email: ketant@cisco.com

Wim Henderickx
Nokia
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium

Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

Padma Pillay-Esnault
Huawei USA
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
United States of America

Email: padma@huawei.com