Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9792.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ran Chen , Detao Zhao , Peter Psenak , Ketan Talaulikar , Liyan Gong | ||
| Last updated | 2025-06-12 (Latest revision 2025-04-08) | ||
| Replaces | draft-chen-lsr-prefix-extended-flags | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Acee Lindem | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2025-01-12 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9792 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Gunter Van de Velde | ||
| Send notices to | acee.ietf@gmail.com | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07
LSR R. Chen
Internet-Draft D. Zhao
Intended status: Standards Track ZTE Corporation
Expires: 10 October 2025 P. Psenak
K. Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
L. Gong
China mobile
8 April 2025
Prefix Flag Extension for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-prefix-extended-flags-07
Abstract
Each OSPF prefix can be advertised with an 8-bit field to indicate
specific properties of that prefix. However, all the OSPFv3 Prefix
Options bits have already been assigned and only a few bits remain
unassigned in the flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV.
This document solves this problem by defining variable-length Prefix
Attribute Flags sub-TLV for OSPF. This sub-TLV is applicable to
OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 October 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Variable-Length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV . . . . . . . 3
3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry . . . 5
5.1.2. OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry . . . . . 5
5.2. OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry . . . 6
5.2.2. OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Each OSPF prefix can be advertised with an 8-bit field to indicate
specific properties of that prefix. This is done using the OSPFv3
Prefix Options (Appendix A.4.1.1 of [RFC5340]) and the flags field in
the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV (Section 2.1 of [RFC7684]). The rest
of this document refers to these 8-bit fields in both OSPFv2 and
OSPFv3 as the "existing fixed-size prefix attribute flags".
However, all the OSPFv3 Prefix Options bits have already been
assigned (see "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" IANA registry
[IANA-OSPFv3-PO]). Also, only 5 bits remain unassigned (at the time
of publication of this document) in the Flags field of the OSPFv2
Extended Prefix TLV (see "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags" IANA
registry [IANA-OSPFv2-EPF]).
This document solves the problem of insufficient flag bits for the
signaling of prefix properties in OSPF by defining variable-length
Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLVs for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Variable-Length Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
This document defines variable-Length Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV
for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Such sub-TLV specifies the variable-flag
fields to advertise additional attributes associated with OSPF
prefixes. The advertisement and processing of the existing fixed-
size prefix attribute flags remain unchanged.
The format of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLVs is shown
in Figure 1.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Prefix Attribute Flags (Variable) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Format of OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV
where:
Type (2 octets): 11 for OSPFv2 and 37 for OSPFv3.
Length (2 octets): Variable, dependent on the included Prefix
Attribute Flags. This indicates the length of the prefix attributes
flags in octets. The length MUST be a multiple of 4 octets. If the
length is not a multiple of 4 octets, the Link State Advertisement
(LSA) is malformed and MUST be ignored.
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
Prefix Attribute Flags (Variable): The extended flag field. This
field contains a variable number of flags, grouped in 4-octet blocks.
The bits are numbered starting from bit 0 as the most significant bit
of the first 32-bit block. If a Prefix Attribute Flags field's
length exceeds 4 octets, numbering for the additional bits picks up
where the previous 4-octet block left off. For example, the most
significant bit in the fifth octet of an 8-octet Prefix Attribute
Flags is referred to as bit 32. Currently, no bits are defined in
this document.
Unassigned bits MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.
An implementation MUST limit the length of the sub-TLV so as to
signal the bits that are set to 1. Defined prefix flags that are not
transmitted due to being beyond the transmitted length MUST be
treated as being set to 0.
OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is advertised as a sub-TLV of
the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV defined in [RFC7684]. Additional
OSPFv2 prefix flags SHOULD be allocated from the unused bits in the
Flags field of the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV prior to allocating
flags in the OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV.
OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is advertised as a sub-TLV of
the following OSPFv3 TLVs:
* Inter-Area-Prefix TLV (Section 3.4 of [RFC8362]).
* External-Prefix TLV (Section 3.6 of [RFC8362]).
* Intra-Area-Prefix TLV (Section 3.7 of [RFC8362]).
* SRv6 Locator TLV [RFC9513].
When multiple instances of the OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags
sub-TLVs are received within the same TLV, an implementation MUST use
only the first occurrence of the sub-TLV and MUST ignore all
subsequent instances of the sub-TLV. Errors SHOULD be logged subject
to rate limiting.
3. Backward Compatibility
The Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV does not introduce any backward
compatibility issues. An implementation that does not recognize the
OSPFv2/OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV would ignore the sub-TLV
as per normal TLV processing operations (refer Section 6.3 of
[RFC3630] and Section 2.3.2 of [RFC8362]).
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
4. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Shraddha Hegde, Changwang Lin, Tom Petch and many
others for their suggestions and comments.
The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem for aligning the
terminology with existing OSPF documents and for editorial
improvements.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests allocation for the following registries.
5.1. OSPFv2
5.1.1. OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry
This document requests IANA to make permanent the early allocation of
the following codepoint for the "OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags" in
the "OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Sub-TLVs" registry to be made
permanent:
Value Description Reference
--------- ----------------------------------- ---------------
11 OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags RFC to be
5.1.2. OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry
This document requests the creation of "OSPFv2 Prefix Extended Flag
Field" Registry under "Open Shortest Path First v2 (OSPFv2)
Parameters" registry group. The registry defines the bits in the
Prefix Attribute Flags field in the OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags
sub-TLV as specified in Section 2. The bits are to be allocated via
IETF Review [RFC8126]. Each bit definition will include:
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant
bit of the first block)
* Description
* Reference
No bits are currently defined. Bits 0-31 are to be initially marked
as "Unassigned". The flags defined in this document may use either a
single bit or multiple bits to represent a state, as determined by
the specific requirements of the document defining them. IANA is
requested to add subsequent blocks of 32 bits upon exhaustion of the
preceding 32-bit block.
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
5.2. OSPFv3
5.2.1. OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV Registry
This document requests IANA to make permanent the early allocation of
the following codepoint for the "OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags" in
the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA sub-TLVs" registry:
Value Description Reference
-------- ---------------------------------- --------------
37 OSPFv3 Prefix Attribute Flags RFC to be
5.2.2. OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flags Field Registry
This document requests the creation of "OSPFv3 Prefix Extended Flag
Field" registry under "Open Shortest Path First v3 (OSPFv3)" registry
group. The registry defines the bits in the Prefix Attribute Flags
field in the OSPFv2 Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV as specified in
Section 2. The bits are to be allocated via IETF Review [RFC8126].
Each bit definition will include:
* Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant
bit of the first block )
* Description
* Reference
No bits are currently defined. Bits 0-31 are to be initially marked
as "Unassigned". The flags defined in this document may use either a
single bit or multiple bits to represent a state, as determined by
the specific requirements of the document defining them. IANA is
requested to add subsequent blocks of 32 bits upon exhaustion of the
preceding 32-bit block.
6. Security Considerations
Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not
affect the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 security models. See the "Security
Considerations" Section of [RFC7684] for a discussion of OSPFv2 TLV-
encoding considerations, and the "Security Considerations" Section of
[RFC8362] for a discussion of OSPFv3 security.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
[RFC9513] Li, Z., Hu, Z., Talaulikar, K., Ed., and P. Psenak,
"OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6)",
RFC 9513, DOI 10.17487/RFC9513, December 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9513>.
7.2. Informative References
[IANA-OSPFv2-EPF]
"OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/
ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#extended-prefix-tlv-flags>.
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Prefix Flag Extension for OSPF April 2025
[IANA-OSPFv3-PO]
"OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv3-parameters/
ospfv3-parameters.xhtml#ospfv3-parameters-4>.
Authors' Addresses
Ran Chen
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
Detao Zhao
ZTE Corporation
Nanjing
China
Email: zhao.detao@zte.com.cn
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Apollo Business Center
Mlynske nivy 43
Bratislava 821 09
Slovakia
Email: ppsenak@cisco.com
Ketan Talaulikar
Cisco Systems
India
Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
Liyan Gong
China mobile
China
Email: gongliyan@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Expires 10 October 2025 [Page 8]