1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
|
<pre>Network Working Group P. Psenak
Request for Comments: 4915 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track S. Mirtorabi
Force10 Networks
A. Roy
L. Nguyen
P. Pillay-Esnault
Cisco Systems
June 2007
<span class="h1">Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document describes an extension to Open Shortest Path First
(OSPF) in order to define independent IP topologies called Multi-
Topologies (MTs). The Multi-Topologies extension can be used for
computing different paths for unicast traffic, multicast traffic,
different classes of service based on flexible criteria, or an in-
band network management topology.
An optional extension to exclude selected links from the default
topology is also described.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
1.1. Differences between Multi-Topology and TOS-Based
Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Base MT Functional Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. MT Area Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Adjacency for MTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Sending OSPF Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
3.4. Advertising MT Adjacencies and the Corresponding IP
Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.4.1">3.4.1</a>. Inter-Area and External Routing . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Flushing MT Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.6">3.6</a>. MT SPF Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>. MT-ID Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-3.8">3.8</a>. Forwarding in MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Default Topology Link Exclusion Functional Specifications . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Exclusion of Links in the Default Topology . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. New Area Data Structure Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Adjacency Formation with Link Exclusion Capability . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. OSPF Control Packets Transmission over Excluded Links . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
4.5. OSPF LSA Advertisement and SPF Computation for
Excluded Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
5. Interoperability between MT-Capable and Non-MT-Capable
Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Demand Circuit Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Migration from Non-MT-Area to MT-Area . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. MT Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
7.1. Create Dedicated Management Topology to Include All
the Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Extend the Default Topology to All the Nodes . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. OSPF Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.1">B.1</a>. Router-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-13">13</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.2">B.2</a>. Network-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-15">15</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.3">B.3</a>. Summary-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-16">16</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.4">B.4</a>. AS-external-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-17">17</a>
<a href="#appendix-B.5">B.5</a>. Type-7 AS-external-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-18">18</a>
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
OSPF uses a fixed packet format, therefore it is not easy to
introduce any backward-compatible extensions. However, the OSPF
specification [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>] introduced Type of Service (TOS) metric in an
earlier specification [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>] in order to announce a different
link cost based on TOS. TOS-based routing as described in [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>]
was never deployed and was subsequently deprecated. [<a href="#ref-M-ISIS" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS"">M-ISIS</a>]
describes a similar mechanism for ISIS.
We propose to reuse the TOS-based metric fields. They have been
redefined and are used to advertise different topologies by
advertising separate metrics for each of them.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Differences between Multi-Topology and TOS-Based Routing</span>
Multi-Topology routing differs from [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>] TOS-based routing in
the following ways:
1. With TOS routing [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>], the TOS or Diffserv Code Point
(DSCP) in the IP header is mapped directly to the corresponding
OSPF SPF calculation and routing table. This limits the number
and definition of the topologies to the 16 TOS values specified
in Section 12.3 of [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>]. With Multi-Topology routing, the
classification of what type of traffic maps to which topology is
not within the scope of this document.
2. With TOS routing [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>], traffic that is unreachable in the
routing table associated with the corresponding TOS will revert
to the TOS 0 routing table. With Multi-Topology routing, this is
optional.
3. With TOS routing [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>], individual links or prefixes could
not be excluded from a topology. If the Link State Advertisement
(LSA) options T-bit was set, all links or prefixes were either
advertised explicitly or defaulted to the TOS 0 metric. With
Multi-Topology routing, links or prefixes that are not advertised
for a specific topology do not exist in that topology.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Notation</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>
[<a href="#ref-RFC-KEYWORDS" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC-KEYWORDS</a>].
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. Terms</span>
We use the following terminology in this document:
Non-MT router
Routers that do not have the MT capability.
MT router
Routers that have MT capability as described in this document.
MT-ID
Renamed TOS field in LSAs to represent Multi-Topology ID.
Default topology
Topology that is built using the TOS 0 metric (default metric).
MT topology
Topology that is built using the corresponding MT-ID metric.
MT
Shorthand notation for MT topology.
MT#0 topology
Representation of TOS 0 metric in MT-ID format.
Non-MT-Area
An area that contains only non-MT routers.
MT-Area
An area that contains both non-MT routers and MT routers, or only
MT routers.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Base MT Functional Specifications</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. MT Area Boundary</span>
Each OSPF interface belongs to a single area, and all MTs sharing
that link need to belong to the same area. Therefore, the area
boundaries for all MTs are the same, but each MT's attachment to the
area is independent.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Adjacency for MTs</span>
Each interface can be configured to belong to a set of topologies. A
single adjacency is formed with neighbors on the interface even if
the interface is configured to participate in multiple topologies.
Furthermore, adjacency formation is independent of the topologies
configured on the local interface and the neighboring router.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Sending OSPF Control Packets</span>
Sending OSPF control packets is unchanged from [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>]. For OSPF
control packets sent to the remote end of a virtual link, the transit
area path MUST be composed of links participating in the default
topology and the OSPF control packets MUST be forwarded using the
default topology.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Advertising MT Adjacencies and the Corresponding IP Prefixes</span>
The TOS metric field is reused to advertise topology specific metric
for links and prefixes belonging to that topology. The TOS field is
redefined as MT-ID in the payload of Router, Summary, and Type-5 and
Type-7 AS-external-LSAs (see <a href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>).
MT-ID metrics in LSAs SHOULD be in ascending order of MT-ID. If an
MT-ID exists in an LSA or router link multiple times, the metric in
the first MT-ID instance MUST be used.
When a router establishes a FULL adjacency over a link that belongs
to a set of MTs, it advertises the corresponding cost for each MT-ID.
By default, all links are included in the default topology and all
advertised prefixes belonging to the default topology will use the
TOS 0 metric as in [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
Each MT has its own MT-ID metric field. When a link is not part of a
given MT, the corresponding MT-ID metric is excluded from the LSA.
The Network-LSA does not contain any MT information since the
Designated Router (DR) is shared by all MTs. Hence, there is no
change to the Network-LSA.
<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4.1" href="#section-3.4.1">3.4.1</a>. Inter-Area and External Routing</span>
In Summary-LSAs and Type-5 and Type-7 AS-external-LSAs, the TOS
metric fields are redefined as MT-ID metric fields and are used to
advertise prefix and router reachability in the corresponding
topology.
When a router originates a Summary-LSA, or Type-5 or Type-7 AS-
external-LSA that belongs to a set of MTs, it includes the
corresponding cost for each MT-ID. By default, the prefix
participates in the default topology and uses the TOS 0 metric for
the default topology, similar to standard OSPF [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
Setting the P-bit in Type-7 AS-external-LSA is topology independent
and pertains to all MT-ID advertised in the body of the LSA.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.5" href="#section-3.5">3.5</a>. Flushing MT Information</span>
When a certain link or prefix that existed or was reachable in a
certain topology is no longer part of that topology or is unreachable
in that topology, a new version of the LSA MUST be originated
excluding metric information representing the link or prefix in that
topology.
The MT metric in the Router-LSA can also be set to the maximum
possible metric to enable the router to become a stub in a certain
topology [<a href="#ref-STUB" title=""OSPF Stub Router Advertisement"">STUB</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.6" href="#section-3.6">3.6</a>. MT SPF Computation</span>
By considering MT-ID metrics in the LSAs, OSPF computes multiple
topologies and finds paths to IP prefixes for each MT independently.
A separate SPF will be computed for each MT-ID to find independent
paths to IP prefixes.
Network-LSAs are used by all topologies during the SPF computation.
During the SPF for a given MT-ID, only the links and metrics for that
MT-ID are considered. Entries in the Router Routing table are also
MT-ID specific.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.7" href="#section-3.7">3.7</a>. MT-ID Values</span>
Since AS-External-LSAs use the high-order bit in the MT-ID field
(E-bit) for the external metric-type, only MT-IDs in the 0 to 127
range are valid. The following MT-ID values are reserved:
0 - Reserved for advertising the metric associated
with the default topology (see <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>)
1 - Reserved for advertising the metric associated
with the default multicast topology
2 - Reserved for IPv4 in-band management purposes
3-31 - Reserved for assignments by IANA
32-127 - Reserved for development, experimental and
proprietary features [<a href="./rfc3692" title=""Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful"">RFC3692</a>]
128-255 - Invalid and SHOULD be ignored
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.8" href="#section-3.8">3.8</a>. Forwarding in MT</span>
It is outside of the scope of this document to specify how the
information in various topology specific forwarding structures are
used during packet forwarding or how incoming packets are associated
with the corresponding topology. For correct operation, both
forwarding behavior and methods of associating incoming packets to a
corresponding topology must be consistently applied in the network.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Default Topology Link Exclusion Functional Specifications</span>
The Multi-Topologies imply that all the routers participate in the
default topology. However, it can be useful to exclude some links
from the default topology and reserve them for some specific classes
of traffic.
The Multi-Topologies extension for the default topology link or
prefix exclusion is described in the following subsections.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. Exclusion of Links in the Default Topology</span>
OSPF does not have the notion of an unreachable link. All links can
have a maximum metric of 0xFFFF advertised in the Router-LSA. The
link exclusion capability requires routers to ignore TOS 0 metrics in
Router-LSAs in the default topology and to alternately use the MT-
ID#0 metric to advertise the metric associated with the default
topology. Hence, all routers within an area MUST agree on how the
metric for the default topology will be advertised.
The unused T-bit is defined as the MT-bit in the option field in
order to ensure that a Multi-Topology link-excluding capable router
will only form an adjacency with another similarly configured router.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DN |O |DC |EA |NP |MC |E |MT |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 1: OSPF Option Bits
MT-bit: If DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled, the bit MUST
be set in Hello packets and SHOULD be set in Database
Description packet (see <a href="#section-4.2">Section 4.2</a>).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. New Area Data Structure Parameter</span>
We define a new parameter in the Area Data Structure:
DefaultExclusionCapability
This configurable parameter ensures that all routers in an area
have this capability enabled before the default topology can be
disabled on a router link in the area without causing backward-
compatibility problems.
When an area data structure is created, the
DefaultExclusionCapability is disabled by default.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
If DefaultExclusionCapability is disabled:
o The MT-bit MUST be cleared in Hello packets and SHOULD be cleared
in Database Description packets.
o If a link participates in a non-default topology, it is
automatically included in the default topology to support backward
compatibility between MT and non-MT routers. This is accomplished
using the TOS 0 metric field as in [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
If DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled:
o The MT-bit MUST be set in Hello packets and SHOULD be set in
Database Description packets.
o The router will only accept a Hello packet if the MT-bit is set
(see <a href="#section-4.3">Section 4.3</a>).
When DefaultExclusionCapability is set to enabled, a router is said
to be operating in DefaultExclusionCapability mode.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.3" href="#section-4.3">4.3</a>. Adjacency Formation with Link Exclusion Capability</span>
In order to have a smooth transition from a non-MT area to an MT-
area, an MT router with DefaultExclusionCapability disabled will form
adjacencies with non-MT routers and will include all links as part of
the default topology.
A link may cease participating in the default topology if
DefaultExclusionCapability is set to enabled. In this state, a
router will only form adjacency with routers that set the MT-bit in
their Hello packets. This will ensure that all routers have
DefaultExclusionCapability enabled before the default topology can be
disabled on a link.
Receiving OSPF Hello packets as defined in Section 10.5 of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>] is
modified as follows:
o If the DefaultExclusionCapability in the Area Data structure is
set to enabled, Hello packets are discarded if the received packet
does not have the MT-bit set in the Header Options.
Receiving OSPF Database Description packets as defined in <a href="#section-10.6">Section</a>
<a href="#section-10.6">10.6</a> of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>] is unchanged. While packet options are validated in
Hello packets, the only option checking performed for Database
Description packets is ensuring that the options do not change during
the database exchange process.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.4" href="#section-4.4">4.4</a>. OSPF Control Packets Transmission over Excluded Links</span>
If DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled, the default topology can be
disabled on an interface. Disabling the default topology on an
interface does not impact the installation of connected routes for
the interface in the default topology. It only affects what a router
advertises in its Router-LSA.
This allows OSPF control packets to be sent and received over an
interface even if the default topology is disabled on the interface.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.5" href="#section-4.5">4.5</a>. OSPF LSA Advertisement and SPF Computation for Excluded Links</span>
When DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled and the link does not
participate in the default topology, the MT-ID#0 metric is not
advertised. The link's TOS 0 metric is ignored during the default
topology SPF computation.
When DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled and a link participates in
the default topology, MT-ID#0 metric is used to advertise the metric
associated with the default topology. The link's TOS 0 metric is
ignored during the default topology SPF computation.
Independent of the DefaultExclusionCapability, the TOS 0 metric is
used for Summary-LSAs and Type-5 and Type-7 AS-external-LSAs.
o If the prefix or router does not exist in the default topology,
the TOS 0 metric is set to infinity (0xFFFFFF).
o If the prefix or router exists in the default topology, the TOS 0
metric is used to advertise the metric in the default topology.
During the summary and external prefix calculation for the default
topology, the TOS 0 metric is used for Summary-LSAs and Type-5 and
Type-7 AS-external-LSAs.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Interoperability between MT-Capable and Non-MT-Capable Routers</span>
The default metric field is mandatory in all LSAs (even when the
metric value is 0). Even when a link or prefix does not exist in the
default topology, a non-MT router will consider the zero value in the
metric field as a valid metric and consider the link or prefix as
part of the default topology.
In order to prevent the above problem, an MT-capable router will
include all links as part of the default topology. If links need to
be removed from the default topology, an MT-capable router must be
configured in DefaultExclusionCapability mode. In this mode, routers
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
will ensure that all other routers in the area are in the
DefaultExclusionCapability mode before considering the MT-ID#0 metric
in the SPF calculation. Only then can the TOS 0 metric field in
Router-LSAs be safely ignored during the default topology SPF
computation.
Note that for any prefix or router to become reachable in a certain
topology, a contiguous path inside that topology must exist between
the calculating router and the destination prefix or router.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Demand Circuit Compatibility Considerations</span>
A change to an area's DefaultExclusionCapability requires additional
processing for area neighbors that are suppressing Hello packets as
specified in "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits" [<a href="#ref-DEMAND" title=""Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits"">DEMAND</a>].
When the DefaultExclusionCapability for an area is changed, Hello
suppression must be disabled for these neighbors for a period of
RouterDeadInterval seconds. This implies that Hello packets are sent
with the DC-bit clear as specified in Section 3.2.1 of [<a href="#ref-DEMAND" title=""Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits"">DEMAND</a>]
during this period. After RouterDeadInterval seconds, either the
adjacency will be taken down due to rejection of Hello packets with a
conflicting MT-bit or Hello suppression will be renegotiated.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Migration from Non-MT-Area to MT-Area</span>
Introducing MT-OSPF into a network can be done gradually to allow MT
routers and non-MT routers to participate in the default topology
while MT routers participate in other topologies.
If there is a requirement to exclude some links from the default
topology in an area, all routers in the area MUST be in
DefaultExclusionCapability mode. In this section, we describe the
migration steps to consider while transitioning from a non-MT network
to an MT network.
Consider a network with a backbone area and a set of non-backbone
areas functioning in standard OSPF mode. We would like to migrate to
an MT network either partially or completely.
1. As required, part of an area is upgraded to be MT capable. The
MT routers will interact with non-MT routers in the default
topology and participate in other topologies as required.
2. If a new non-backbone area is created for MT routers, it may be
configured in DefaultExclusionCapability mode since there is no
interaction required with non-MT routers. In this mode, the
default topology can be excluded on links as required.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
3. If there are several non-backbone areas where MT is being used,
it is desirable that the backbone area first be upgraded to be MT
capable so that inter-area routing is ensured for MT destinations
in different areas.
4. Gradually, the whole network can be made MT capable.
Note that inter-area routing for the MT-area still depends on the
backbone area. Therefore, if different areas configured for a given
topology need to communicate, the backbone area also needs to be
configured for this topology.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. MT Network Management Considerations</span>
When multiple OSPF topologies exist within a domain, some of the
routers can be configured to participate in a subset of the MTs in
the network. This section discusses some of the options we have to
enable operations or the network management stations to access those
routers.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>. Create Dedicated Management Topology to Include All the Nodes</span>
This approach is to set up a dedicated management topology or 'in-
band' management topology. This 'mgmt' topology will include all the
routers need to be managed. The computed routes in the topology will
be installed into the 'mgmt' Routing Information Base (RIB). In the
condition of the 'mgmt' topology uses a set of non-overlapping
address space with the default topology, those 'mgmt' routes can also
be optionally installed into the default RIB. The advantages of
duplicate 'mgmt' routes in both RIBs include: the network management
utilities on the system do not have to be modified to use specific
RIB other than the default RIB; the 'mgmt' topology can share the
same link with the default topology if so designed.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>. Extend the Default Topology to All the Nodes</span>
Even in the case in which default topology is not used on some of the
nodes in the IP forwarding, we may want to extend the default
topology to those nodes for the purpose of network management.
Operators SHOULD set a high cost on the links that belong to the
extended portion of the default topology. This way, the IP data
traffic will not be forwarded through those nodes during network
topology changes.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document does not raise any security issues that are not already
covered in [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
The T-bit as defined in [<a href="#ref-TOS-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">TOS-OSPF</a>] for a router's TOS capability is
redefined as the MT-bit in this document. IANA has assigned the MT-
bit as defined in <a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>.
Similarly, the TOS field for Router-LSAs, Summary-LSAs, and Type-5
and Type-7 AS-external-LSAs, as defined in [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>], is redefined as
MT-ID in <a href="#section-3.7">Section 3.7</a>.
IANA created a new registry, "OSPF Multi-Topology ID Values", with
the assignments and registration policies listed in <a href="#section-3.7">Section 3.7</a> of
this document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-10" href="#section-10">10</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.1" href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-DEMAND">DEMAND</a>] Moy, J., "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits",
<a href="./rfc1793">RFC 1793</a>, April 1995.
[<a id="ref-NSSA">NSSA</a>] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
Option", <a href="./rfc3101">RFC 3101</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-OSPF">OSPF</a>] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", <a href="./rfc2328">RFC 2328</a>, April 1998.
[<a id="ref-RFC-KEYWORDS">RFC-KEYWORDS</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3692">RFC3692</a>] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing
Numbers Considered Useful", <a href="./rfc3692">RFC 3692</a>, January 2004.
[<a id="ref-TOS-OSPF">TOS-OSPF</a>] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", <a href="./rfc1583">RFC 1583</a>, March 1994.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-M-ISIS">M-ISIS</a>] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS:
Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS", Work
in Progress, October 2005.
[<a id="ref-STUB">STUB</a>] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement",
<a href="./rfc3137">RFC 3137</a>, June 2001.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
The authors would like to thank Scott Sturgess, Alvaro Retana, David
Kushi, Yakov Rekhter, Tony Przygienda, and Naiming Shen for their
comments on the document. Special thanks to Acee Lindem for editing
and to Tom Henderson for an extensive review during the OSPF Working
Group last call.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B" href="#appendix-B">Appendix B</a>. OSPF Data Formats</span>
LSA content defined in [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>] is modified to introduce the MT-ID.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.1" href="#appendix-B.1">B.1</a>. Router-LSAs</span>
Router-LSAs are the Type 1 LSAs. Each router in an area originates a
router-LSA. The LSA describes the state and cost of the router's
links (i.e., interfaces) to the area. All of the router's links to
the area must be described in a single router-LSA. For details
concerning the construction of router-LSAs, see Section 12.4.1 of
[<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|*|*|*|N|W|V|E|B| 0 | # links |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | # MT-ID | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | 0 | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | 0 | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
Figure 2: Router-LSA Format
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.2" href="#appendix-B.2">B.2</a>. Network-LSAs</span>
Network-LSAs are the Type 2 LSAs. A network-LSA is originated for
each broadcast and Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) network in the
area that supports two or more routers. The network-LSA is
originated by the network's Designated Router. The LSA describes all
routers attached to the network, including the Designated Router
itself. The LSA's Link State ID field lists the IP interface address
of the Designated Router.
The distance from the network to all attached routers is zero. This
is why metric fields need not be specified in the network-LSA. For
details concerning the construction of network-LSAs, see <a href="#section-12.4.2">Section</a>
<a href="#section-12.4.2">12.4.2</a> of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attached Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
Figure 3: Network-LSA Format
Note that network-LSA does not contain any MT-ID fields as the cost
of the network to the attached routers is 0 and DR is shared by all
topologies.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.3" href="#appendix-B.3">B.3</a>. Summary-LSAs</span>
Summary-LSAs are the Type 3 and 4 LSAs. These LSAs are originated by
area border routers. Summary-LSAs describe inter-area destinations.
For details concerning the construction of summary-LSAs, see <a href="#section-12.4.3">Section</a>
<a href="#section-12.4.3">12.4.3</a> of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
Type 3 summary-LSAs are used when the destination is an IP network.
In this case the LSA's Link State ID field is an IP network number
(if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one or more of the
network's "host" bits set; see <a href="#appendix-E">Appendix E</a> of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>] for details).
When the destination is an AS boundary router, a Type 4 summary-LSA
is used, and the Link State ID field is the AS boundary router's OSPF
Router ID. (To see why it is necessary to advertise the location of
each ASBR, consult Section 16.4 of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].) Other than the
difference in the Link State ID field, the format of Type 3 and 4
summary-LSAs is identical.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 3 or 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Summary-LSA Format
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.4" href="#appendix-B.4">B.4</a>. AS-external-LSAs</span>
AS-external-LSAs are the Type 5 LSAs. These LSAs are originated by
AS boundary routers, and describe destinations external to the AS.
For details concerning the construction of AS-external-LSAs, see
Section 12.4.3 of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>].
AS-external-LSAs usually describe a particular external destination.
For these LSAs, the Link State ID field specifies an IP network
number (if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one or more of
the network's "host" bits set; see <a href="#appendix-E">Appendix E</a> of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>] for details).
AS-external-LSAs are also used to describe a default route. Default
routes are used when no specific route exists to the destination.
When describing a default route, the Link State ID is always set to
DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0) and the Network Mask is set to 0.0.0.0.
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| 0 | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: AS-External-LSA Format
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-B.5" href="#appendix-B.5">B.5</a>. Type-7 AS-external-LSAs</span>
Type-7 AS-external-LSAs are originated by AS boundary routers local
to an NSSA (Not-So-Stubby Area), and describe destinations external
to the AS. The changes to Type-7 AS-external-LSAs are identical to
those for AS-external-LSAs (Appendix A.4.5 of [<a href="#ref-OSPF" title=""OSPF Version 2"">OSPF</a>]). For details
concerning the construction of Type-7 AS-external-LSAs, see <a href="#section-2.4">Section</a>
<a href="#section-2.4">2.4</a> of [<a href="#ref-NSSA" title=""The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option"">NSSA</a>].
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Mlynske Nivy 43
821 09
Bratislava
Slovakia
EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
Sina Mirtorabi
Force10 Networks
1440 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
EMail: sina@force10networks.com
Abhay Roy
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: akr@cisco.com
Liem Nguyen
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: lhnguyen@cisco.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: ppe@cisco.com
<span class="grey">Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc4915">RFC 4915</a> Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007</span>
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a>, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp79">BCP 79</a>.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
<a href="http://www.ietf.org/ipr">http://www.ietf.org/ipr</a>.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
</pre>
|
