[OSPF] Advertising Tunnelling Capability in OSPF
"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 12 May 2017 22:41 UTC
Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC8E1201FA; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X5x0WWzILpEc; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F63312E058; Fri, 12 May 2017 15:37:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=110657; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1494628632; x=1495838232; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=qqkUPTQovPnjTm1tYHe28B4WmwJXoBeC52NPmWD1f7w=; b=a73CQ5dcgQgvkTVtSag4jWuUtHhmsEaPxxZ+vbhZZIPxq9uM6WjKr37a HcaFQ6MAIJLYbXX2Xj7cKngiVaRZD3+RNoY9peB+O/XihTobBXLXlRG4Y imP5jZSQoCFUwXJ624/YDpB0M2YqMYVaT3BPuQYNdDIqoNityGGZ6imvf k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DOAACSOBZZ/40NJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm48K4F1g2SKGKdTgg+GJByEfz8YAQIBAQEBAQEBax0LhTkBCEQSEgEaJgEJAgQwFxAEDooorwWCJopPAQEBAQEBAQMBAQEBAQEBAQEfiD2HW4M1gmAFiUSGXoZNhxsBkxqRa5RCAR84gQpwFYc7hyWBL4ENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.38,332,1491264000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="26743233"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 12 May 2017 22:37:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (xch-aln-013.cisco.com [173.36.7.23]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4CMb2sb002939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 May 2017 22:37:02 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) by XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com (173.36.7.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 12 May 2017 17:37:01 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 12 May 2017 17:37:01 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap@ietf.org>
CC: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>, Routing ADs <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Advertising Tunnelling Capability in OSPF
Thread-Index: AQHSy3BFUIfaOCRoZkW6xS2MHWkatA==
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:37:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D53BB147.AEBF7%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.114.46]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D53BB147AEBF7aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/Hd7HPg4AJmlFh3PBAe4UQjIe8r4>
Subject: [OSPF] Advertising Tunnelling Capability in OSPF
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:41:12 -0000
Hello OSPF Tunneling Capability Authors, As we reach the end of a successful WG last call, I’d like to remind you again that the guideline for authors is 5. While I’m not a supporter of this low limit (ADs copied), for this particular draft, I don’t think it makes sense for me to fight for more authors since it is a relatively draft and is not the result of the merger of multiple drafts or multiple implementations. One has to chose their battles and I have far too many choices ;^) Also, see some suggested editorial changes below. Note that many of the suggested changes are related to consistency for “Sub-TLV” or “sub-TLV”. I prefer “Sub-TLV” as I believe it reads better. Thanks, Acee *** draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-02.txt.orig 2017-05-12 12:04:29.000000000 -0400 --- draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-02.txt 2017-05-12 16:04:25.000000000 -0400 *************** *** 22,31 **** Abstract ! Some networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress. This document defines how ! to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router Information. Requirements Language --- 22,32 ---- Abstract ! Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress. This document defines how ! to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router Information ! Link State Advertisements (LSAs). Requirements Language *************** *** 80,89 **** 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ! 5.1. Tunnel Parameters sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ! 5.2. Encapsulated Protocol sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ! 5.3. End Point sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ! 5.4. Color sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry . . . . . . . . . 6 --- 81,90 ---- 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ! 5.1. Tunnel Parameters Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ! 5.2. Encapsulated Protocol Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ! 5.3. End Point Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ! 5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry . . . . . . . . . 6 *************** *** 97,108 **** 1. Introduction ! Some networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as: o Partial deployment of MPLS-SPRING as described in [I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction], where IP tunnels ! are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers so as to traverse ! non- MPLS routers. o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in Section 6.9 of [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture], where IP tunnels are used between --- 98,109 ---- 1. Introduction ! Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as: o Partial deployment of MPLS-SPRING as described in [I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction], where IP tunnels ! are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to traverse ! non-MPLS routers. o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in Section 6.9 of [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture], where IP tunnels are used between *************** *** 114,134 **** Internet-Draft April 2017 ! MPLS-BIER-capable routers so as to traverse non MPLS-BIER [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] routers. ! o Partial deployment of IPv6 (resp. IPv4) in IPv4 (resp. IPv6) networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers. ! o Remote Loop Free Alternate repair tunnels as described in [RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local Repair and the selected PQ node. The ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress. This document describes how to use OSPF Router ! Information to advertise the egress tunnelling capabilities of nodes. ! In this document, OSPF means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. 2. Terminology --- 115,136 ---- Internet-Draft April 2017 ! MPLS-BIER-capable routers to traverse non-MPLS-BIER [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] routers. ! o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv6 in IPv4 networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers. ! o Remote Loop-Free Alternate (rLFA) repair tunnels as described in [RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local Repair and the selected PQ node. The ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by the egress. This document describes how to use OSPF Router ! Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the egress ! tunneling capabilities of OSPF routers. In this document, OSPF refers ! to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. 2. Terminology *************** *** 136,157 **** 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability ! Routers advertises their supported encapsulation type(s) by advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA ! [RFC7770], referred to as Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is recommended that it SHOULD be domain- wide. The Type code of the Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, and the Value field contains one or more ! Tunnel Encapsulation Type sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type sub-TLVs indicates a particular encapsulation format that the advertising router supports. 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type ! The Tunnel Encapsulation Type sub-TLV is structured as follows: 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 --- 138,159 ---- 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability ! Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA ! [RFC7770], referred to as the Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is recommended that it SHOULD be domain- wide. The Type code of the Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, and the Value field contains one or more ! Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV indicates a particular encapsulation format that the advertising router supports. 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type ! The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows: 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 *************** *** 159,165 **** | Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ! | Value | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --- 161,169 ---- | Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | ! o ! Sub-TLVs ! o | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ *************** *** 170,176 **** Internet-Draft April 2017 ! Tunnel Type (2 octets): identifies the type of tunneling technology being signaled. This document defines the following types: --- 174,180 ---- Internet-Draft April 2017 ! Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling technology being signaled. This document defines the following types: *************** *** 182,194 **** 4. IPsec in Tunnel-mode [RFC5566] : Type code=4; ! 5. IP in IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type code=5; 6. MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type code=6; ! 7. IP in IP [RFC2003] [RFC4213]: Type code=7; 8. VXLAN [RFC7348] : Type code=8; --- 186,198 ---- 4. IPsec in Tunnel-mode [RFC5566] : Type code=4; ! 5. IP-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type code=5; 6. MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type code=6; ! 7. IP-in-IP [RFC2003] [RFC4213]: Type code=7; 8. VXLAN [RFC7348] : Type code=8; *************** *** 210,219 **** Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. ! Length (2 octets): unsigned integer indicating the total number of ! octets of the value field. ! Value (variable): zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub- TLVs as defined in Section 5. --- 214,223 ---- Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. ! Length (2 octets): Uunsigned 16-bity integer indicating the ! total number of octets of the value field. ! Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub- TLVs as defined in Section 5. *************** *** 228,234 **** 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute ! The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLV is structured as as follows: +-----------------------------------+ --- 232,238 ---- 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute ! The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV is structured as as follows: +-----------------------------------+ *************** *** 240,276 **** | | +-----------------------------------+ ! Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): each sub-TLV type defines a certain ! property about the tunnel TLV that contains this sub-TLV. The following are the types defined in this document: ! 1. Encapsulation Parameters: sub-TLV type = 1; (See Section 5.1) ! 2. Encapsulated Protocol: sub-TLV type = 2; (See Section 5.2) ! 3. End Point: sub-TLV type = 3; (See Section 5.3) ! 4. Color: sub-TLV type = 4; (See Section 5.4) ! Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): unsigned integer indicating the total ! number of octets of the sub-TLV value field. ! Sub-TLV Value (variable): encodings of the value field depend on ! the sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections ! define the encoding in detail. ! Any unknown sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped. However, if the TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be ignored just because it ! contains an unknown sub-TLV. ! If a sub-TLV is erroneous, this specific Tunnel Encapsulation MUST be ! ignored and skipped. However, others Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be considered. ! 5.1. Tunnel Parameters sub-TLV ! This sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] under the name ! Encapsulation sub-TLV. --- 244,280 ---- | | +-----------------------------------+ ! Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain ! property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. The following are the types defined in this document: ! 1. Encapsulation Parameters: Sub-TLV type = 1; (See Section 5.1) ! 2. Encapsulated Protocol: Sub-TLV type = 2; (See Section 5.2) ! 3. End Point: Sub-TLV type = 3; (See Section 5.3) ! 4. Color: Sub-TLV type = 4; (See Section 5.4) ! Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): Unsigned 8-bit integer indicating the ! total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field. ! Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on ! the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections ! define the encodings in detail. ! Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped. However, if the TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be ignored just because it ! contains an unknown Sub-TLV. ! If a Sub-TLV is invalid, this specific Tunnel Encapsulation MUST be ! ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be considered. ! 5.1. Tunnel Parameters Sub-TLV ! This Sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] under the name ! Encapsulation Sub-TLV. *************** *** 282,314 **** Internet-Draft April 2017 ! 5.2. Encapsulated Protocol sub-TLV ! This sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] under the name Protocol Type. ! 5.3. End Point sub-TLV The value field carries the Network Address to be used as tunnel destination address. ! If length is 4, the Address Family (AFI) is IPv4. ! If length is 16, the Address Family (AFI) is IPv6. ! 5.4. Color sub-TLV ! The valued field is a 4 octets opaque unsigned integer. The color value is user defined and configured locally on the ! routers. It may be used by the service providers to define policies. 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. OSPF Router Information This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from ! registry OSPF Router Information (RI). Value TLV Name Reference ----- ------------------------------------ ------------- --- 286,319 ---- Internet-Draft April 2017 ! 5.2. Encapsulated Protocol Sub-TLV ! This Sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] under the name Protocol Type. ! 5.3. End Point Sub-TLV The value field carries the Network Address to be used as tunnel destination address. ! If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address. ! If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address. ! 5.4. Color Sub-TLV ! The valued field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer. The color value is user defined and configured locally on the ! advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define ! policies. 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. OSPF Router Information This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from ! the OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. Value TLV Name Reference ----- ------------------------------------ ------------- *************** *** 338,344 **** Internet-Draft April 2017 ! Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type. Value Name Reference ------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- --- 343,349 ---- Internet-Draft April 2017 ! Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type Value Name Reference ------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- *************** *** 347,355 **** 2 GRE This document 3 Transmit tunnel endpoint This document 4 IPsec in Tunnel-mode This document ! 5 IP in IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document 6 MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document ! 7 IP in IP This document 8 VXLAN This document 9 NVGRE This document 10 MPLS This document --- 352,360 ---- 2 GRE This document 3 Transmit tunnel endpoint This document 4 IPsec in Tunnel-mode This document ! 5 IP-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document 6 MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document ! 7 IP-in-IP This document 8 VXLAN This document 9 NVGRE This document 10 MPLS This document *************** *** 372,378 **** Encapsulation Attribute Types" with the following registration procedure: ! Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types. Value Name Reference ------- ------------------------------------ ------------- --- 377,383 ---- Encapsulation Attribute Types" with the following registration procedure: ! Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Value Name Reference ------- ------------------------------------ ------------- *************** *** 401,410 **** Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel ! protocols signaled through this IGP capability extension are inherited. ! If a third party is able to modify any of the information that is used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped. --- 406,415 ---- Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel ! protocols signaled through this OSPF capability extension are inherited. ! If a third-party is able to modify any of the information that is used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped.
- [OSPF] Advertising Tunnelling Capability in OSPF Acee Lindem (acee)