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
|
<pre>Network Working Group J.P. Vasseur, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5073 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track J.L. Le Roux, Ed.
France Telecom
December 2007
<span class="h1">IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for</span>
<span class="h1">Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities</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.
Abstract
It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic
Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered
Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the
capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a
Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these
capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that
purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and
Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering
extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane
traffic engineering node capabilities.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction.....................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology......................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. TE Node Capability Descriptor ...................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Description ................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Required Information .......................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats .......................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format ..............<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format .........<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Elements of Procedure ...........................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. OSPF .......................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. IS-IS ......................................................<a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Backward Compatibility ..........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. OSPF TLV ...................................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. ISIS sub-TLV ...............................................<a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-8.3">8.3</a>. Capability Registry ........................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-9">9</a>. Acknowledgments .................................................<a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-10">10</a>. References ....................................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-10.1">10.1</a>. Normative References .....................................<a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References ...................................<a href="#page-11">11</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Multi Protocol Label Switching-Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) routing
([<a href="./rfc3784" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)"">RFC3784</a>], [<a href="./rfc3630" title=""Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"">RFC3630</a>], [<a href="#ref-OSPFv3-TE" title=""Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3"">OSPFv3-TE</a>]) relies on extensions to link
state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) ([<a href="#ref-IS-IS" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)"">IS-IS</a>], [<a href="./rfc1195" title=""Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments"">RFC1195</a>],
[<a href="./rfc2328" title=""OSPF Version 2"">RFC2328</a>], [<a href="./rfc2740" title=""OSPF for IPv6"">RFC2740</a>]) in order to advertise Traffic Engineering (TE)
link information used for constraint-based routing. Further
Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) related routing extensions are defined in
[<a href="./rfc4205" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"">RFC4205</a>] and [<a href="./rfc4203" title=""OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)"">RFC4203</a>].
It is desired to complement these routing extensions in order to
advertise TE node capabilities, in addition to TE link information.
These TE node capabilities will be taken into account as constraints
during path selection.
Indeed, it is useful to advertise data plane TE node capabilities,
such as the capability for a Label Switching Router (LSR) to be a
branch LSR or a bud-LSR of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Label
Switched Path (LSP). These capabilities can then be taken into
account as constraints when computing the route of TE LSPs.
It is also useful to advertise control plane TE node capabilities
such as the capability to support GMPLS signaling for a packet LSR,
or the capability to support P2MP (Point to Multipoint) TE LSP
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
signaling. This allows selecting a path that avoids nodes that do
not support a given control plane feature, or triggering a mechanism
to support such nodes on a path. Hence, this facilitates backward
compatibility.
For that purpose, this document specifies IGP (OSPF and IS-IS)
extensions in order to advertise data plane and control plane
capabilities of a node.
A new TLV is defined for OSPF, the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV,
to be carried within the Router Information LSA ([<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>]). A new
sub-TLV is defined for IS-IS, the TE Node Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, to be carried within the IS-IS Capability TLV ([<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]).
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
This document uses terminologies defined in [<a href="./rfc3031" title=""Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture"">RFC3031</a>], [<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>], and
[<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>].
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="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. TE Node Capability Descriptor</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Description</span>
LSRs in a network may have distinct control plane and data plane
Traffic Engineering capabilities. The TE Node Capability Descriptor
information defined in this document describes data and control plane
capabilities of an LSR. Such information can be used during path
computation so as to avoid nodes that do not support a given TE
feature either in the control or data plane, or to trigger procedures
to handle these nodes along the path (e.g., trigger LSP hierarchy to
support a legacy transit LSR on a P2MP LSP (see [<a href="./rfc4875" title=""Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4875</a>])).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Required Information</span>
The TE Node Capability Descriptor contains a variable-length set of
bit flags, where each bit corresponds to a given TE node capability.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
Five TE Node Capabilities are defined in this document:
- B bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a branch node on a P2MP LSP (see [<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>]);
- E bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR can act
as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an LSR that is both
transit and egress (see [<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>]);
- M bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
MPLS-TE signaling ([<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>]);
- G bit: when set this flag indicates that the LSR supports
GMPLS signaling ([<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]);
- P bit: when set, this flag indicates that the LSR supports
P2MP MPLS-TE signaling ([<a href="./rfc4875" title=""Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4875</a>]).
Note that new capability bits may be added in the future if required.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Formats</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV Format</span>
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is a variable length TLV
that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit correspond to a
TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended with additional
32-bit words if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any unknown bit
flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is carried within an OSPF
Router Information LSA, which is defined in [<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>].
The format of the OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is the same
as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF
[<a href="./rfc3630" title=""Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"">RFC3630</a>]. That is, the TLV is composed of 2 octets for the type, 2
octets specifying the length of the value field, and a value field.
The OSPF TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 5 (see <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>)
LENGTH: Variable (multiple of 4).
VALUE: Array of units of 32 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress [<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>].
2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>]).
3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling ([<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]).
4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling ([<a href="./rfc4875" title=""Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4875</a>]).
5-31 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception. If the length field is greater than 4,
implying that there are more than 32 bits in the value field, then
any additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV format</span>
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is a variable length
sub-TLV that contains a series of bit flags, where each bit
corresponds to a TE node capability. The bit-field MAY be extended
with additional bytes if more bit flags need to be assigned. Any
unknown bit flags SHALL be treated as Reserved bits.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is carried within an
IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV, which is defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
The format of the IS-IS TE Node Capability sub-TLV is the same as the
sub-TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
[<a href="./rfc3784" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)"">RFC3784</a>]. That is, the sub-TLV is composed of 1 octet for the type,
1 octet specifying the length of the value field.
The IS-IS TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV has the following
format:
TYPE: 1 (see <a href="#section-8.2">Section 8.2</a>)
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Array of units of 8 flags numbered from the most
significant bit as bit zero, where each bit represents
a TE node capability.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
The following bits are defined:
Bit Capabilities
0 B bit: P2MP Branch Node capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a branch node on a P2MP LSP
[<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>].
1 E bit: P2MP Bud-LSR capability: When set, this indicates
that the LSR can act as a bud LSR on a P2MP LSP, i.e., an
LSR that is both transit and egress [<a href="./rfc4461" title=""Signaling Requirements for Point- to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4461</a>].
2 M bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports MPLS-TE
signaling ([<a href="./rfc3209" title=""RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"">RFC3209</a>]).
3 G bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports GMPLS
signaling ([<a href="./rfc3473" title=""Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions"">RFC3473</a>]).
4 P bit: If set, this indicates that the LSR supports P2MP
MPLS-TE signaling ([<a href="./rfc4875" title=""Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to- Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"">RFC4875</a>]).
5-7 Reserved for future assignments by IANA.
Reserved bits MUST be set to zero on transmission, and MUST be
ignored on reception. If the length field is great than 1, implying
that there are more than 8 bits in the value field, then any
additional bits (i.e., not yet assigned) are reserved.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Elements of Procedure</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. OSPF</span>
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is advertised, within an OSPFv2
Router Information LSA (Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0) or an
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA (function code of 12), which are
defined in [<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>]. As such, elements of procedure are inherited
from those defined in [<a href="./rfc2328" title=""OSPF Version 2"">RFC2328</a>], [<a href="./rfc2740" title=""OSPF for IPv6"">RFC2740</a>], and [<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV advertises capabilities that
may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
Hence, its flooding scope is area-local, and it MUST be carried
within an OSPFv2 type 10 Router Information LSA (as defined in
[<a href="./rfc2370" title=""The OSPF Opaque LSA Option"">RFC2370</a>]) or an OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit set
and the S2 bit cleared (as defined in [<a href="./rfc2740" title=""OSPF for IPv6"">RFC2740</a>]).
A router MUST originate a new OSPF Router Information LSA whenever
the content of the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV changes or
whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every
LSRefreshTime)).
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear
more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA. If a TE Node
Capability Descriptor TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router
Information LSA, only the first occurrence MUST be processed and
others MUST be ignored.
When an OSPF Router Information LSA does not contain any TE Node
Capability Descriptor TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities
of that LSR are unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger
Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computation, but MUST NOT
trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. IS-IS</span>
The TE Node Capability sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY
TLV defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>]. As such, elements of procedure are
inherited from those defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV advertises capabilities
that may be taken into account as constraints during path selection.
Hence, its flooding is area-local, and it MUST be carried within an
IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV having the S flag cleared.
An IS-IS router MUST originate a new IS-IS LSP whenever the content
of any of the TE Node Capability sub-TLV changes or whenever required
by the regular IS-IS procedure (LSP refresh).
The TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV is OPTIONAL and MUST NOT
appear more than once in an ISIS Router Capability TLV.
When an IS-IS LSP does not contain any TE Node Capability Descriptor
sub-TLV, this means that the TE node capabilities of that LSR are
unknown.
Note that a change in any of these capabilities MAY trigger CSPF
computation, but MUST NOT trigger normal SPF computation.
Note also that TE node capabilities are expected to be fairly static.
They may change as the result of configuration change, or software
upgrade. This is expected not to appear more than once a day.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Backward Compatibility</span>
The TE Node Capability Descriptor TLVs defined in this document do
not introduce any interoperability issues. For OSPF, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV will just silently
ignore the TLV, as specified in [<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>]. For IS-IS, a router not
supporting the TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV will just
silently ignore the sub-TLV, as specified in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
When the TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV is absent, this means that
the TE Capabilities of that LSR are unknown.
The absence of a word of capability flags in OSPF or an octet of
capability flags in IS-IS means that these capabilities are unknown.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document specifies the content of the TE Node Capability
Descriptor TLV in IS-IS and OSPF to be used for (G)MPLS-TE path
computation. As this TLV is not used for SPF computation or normal
routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP
routing. Tampering with this TLV may have an effect on Traffic
Engineering computation. Mechanisms defined to secure IS-IS Link
State PDUs [<a href="./rfc3567" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC3567</a>], OSPF LSAs [<a href="./rfc2154" title=""OSPF with Digital Signatures"">RFC2154</a>], and their TLVs can be used
to secure this TLV as well.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. OSPF TLV</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4970">RFC4970</a>] defines a new codepoint registry for TLVs carried in the
Router Information LSA defined in [<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>].
IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the
TE Node Capability Descriptor TLV defined in this document and
carried within the Router Information LSA. The value is 5. See
<a href="#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a> of this document.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. ISIS sub-TLV</span>
IANA has defined a registry for sub-TLVs of the IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV
defined in [<a href="./rfc4971" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information"">RFC4971</a>].
IANA has made a new codepoint assignment from that registry for the
TE Node Capability Descriptor sub-TLV defined in this document, and
carried within the ISIS CAPABILITY TLV. The value is 1. See <a href="#section-4.2">Section</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a> of this document.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.3" href="#section-8.3">8.3</a>. Capability Registry</span>
IANA has created a new registry to manage the space of capability bit
flags carried within the OSPF and ISIS TE Node Capability Descriptor.
A single registry must be defined for both protocols. A new base
registry has been created to cover IGP-TE registries that apply to
both OSPF and IS-IS, and the new registry requested by this document
is a sub-registry of this new base registry.
Bits in the new registry should be numbered in the usual IETF
notation, starting with the most significant bit as bit zero.
New bit numbers may be allocated only by an IETF Consensus action.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
- Bit number
- Defining RFC
- Name of bit
IANA has made assignments for the five TE node capabilities defined
in this document (see Sections <a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a> and <a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>) using the following
values:
Bit No. Name Reference
--------+---------------------------------------+---------------
0 B bit: P2MP Branch LSR capability [<a href="./rfc5073">RFC5073</a>]
1 E bit: P2MP Bud LSR capability [<a href="./rfc5073">RFC5073</a>]
2 M bit: MPLS-TE support [<a href="./rfc5073">RFC5073</a>]
3 G bit: GMPLS support [<a href="./rfc5073">RFC5073</a>]
4 P bit: P2MP RSVP-TE support [<a href="./rfc5073">RFC5073</a>]
5-7 Unassigned [<a href="./rfc5073">RFC5073</a>]
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
We would like to thank Benoit Fondeviole, Adrian Farrel, Dimitri
Papadimitriou, Acee Lindem, and David Ward for their useful comments
and suggestions.
We would also like to thank authors of [<a href="./rfc4420" title=""Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol- Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"">RFC4420</a>] and [<a href="./rfc4970" title=""Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities"">RFC4970</a>] by
which some text of this document has been inspired.
Adrian Farrel prepared the final version of this document for
submission to the IESG.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
<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-RFC1195">RFC1195</a>] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", <a href="./rfc1195">RFC 1195</a>, December 1990.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</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-RFC2328">RFC2328</a>] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, <a href="./rfc2328">RFC 2328</a>, April 1998.
[<a id="ref-RFC2370">RFC2370</a>] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", <a href="./rfc2370">RFC 2370</a>, July
1998.
[<a id="ref-RFC2740">RFC2740</a>] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6",
<a href="./rfc2740">RFC 2740</a>, December 1999.
[<a id="ref-RFC3031">RFC3031</a>] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", <a href="./rfc3031">RFC 3031</a>,
January 2001.
[<a id="ref-RFC3209">RFC3209</a>] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan,
V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", <a href="./rfc3209">RFC 3209</a>, December 2001.
[<a id="ref-RFC3473">RFC3473</a>] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", <a href="./rfc3473">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3473">3473</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3630">RFC3630</a>] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic
Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", <a href="./rfc3630">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3630">3630</a>, September 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3784">RFC3784</a>] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
<a href="./rfc3784">RFC 3784</a>, June 2004.
[<a id="ref-IS-IS">IS-IS</a>] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode
Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO 10589.
[<a id="ref-RFC4971">RFC4971</a>] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Advertising Router Information", <a href="./rfc4971">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc4971">4971</a>, July 2007.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC4970">RFC4970</a>] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R.,
and S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising
Optional Router Capabilities", <a href="./rfc4970">RFC 4970</a>, July 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC4875">RFC4875</a>] Aggarwal, R., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Ed., and S.
Yasukawa, Ed., "Extensions to Resource Reservation
Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-
Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", <a href="./rfc4875">RFC 4875</a>,
May 2007.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-10.2" href="#section-10.2">10.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2154">RFC2154</a>] Murphy, S., Badger, M., and B. Wellington, "OSPF with
Digital Signatures", <a href="./rfc2154">RFC 2154</a>, June 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3567">RFC3567</a>] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
Authentication", <a href="./rfc3567">RFC 3567</a>, July 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC4203">RFC4203</a>] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", <a href="./rfc4203">RFC 4203</a>, October 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4205">RFC4205</a>] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", <a href="./rfc4205">RFC 4205</a>, October 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4420">RFC4420</a>] Farrel, A., Ed., Papadimitriou, D., Vasseur, J.-P., and
A. Ayyangar, "Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)", <a href="./rfc4420">RFC 4420</a>, February 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4461">RFC4461</a>] Yasukawa, S., Ed., "Signaling Requirements for Point-
to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched
Paths (LSPs)", <a href="./rfc4461">RFC 4461</a>, April 2006.
[<a id="ref-OSPFv3-TE">OSPFv3-TE</a>] Ishiguro K., Manral V., Davey A., and Lindem A.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF version 3", Work
in Progress.
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 2007</span>
Contributors' Addresses
Seisho Yasukawa
NTT
3-9-11 Midori-cho,
Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
EMail: s.yasukawa@hco.ntt.co.jp
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems, Inc
Via Del Serafico 200
Roma, 00142
Italy
EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems, Inc
Pegasus Park DE Kleetlaan 6A
Diegmen, 1831
BELGIUM
EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
Paul Mabbey
Comcast
USA
Editors' Addresses
Jean-Philippe Vasseur
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA, 01719
USA
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Jean-Louis Le Roux
France Telecom
2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
22307 Lannion Cedex
FRANCE
EMail: jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com
<span class="grey">Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5073">RFC 5073</a> IGP Ext for Discovery of TE Node Cap December 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.
Vasseur & Le Roux Standards Track [Page 13]
</pre>
|
