One document matched: draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-00.txt
Network Working Group S. Bryant
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track A. Atlas
Expires: April 15, 2017 C. Bowers
Juniper Networks
October 12, 2016
Synchronisation of Network Parameters
draft-bryant-rtgwg-param-sync-00
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for a link state routing protocol
to coordinate the value of a network-wide parameter. The document
also defines the solution to one specific case: the agreement of a
common convergence timer value for use in network convergence.
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 http://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 April 15, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Protocol Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Convergence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Required Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Definition of the Convergence Timer . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. Network Wide Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
There exist use cases where it desirable for a network to use a
common value for a parameter across all nodes. In the past, these
use cases have been addressed by setting the parameter to a constant
value in the protocol definition itself, or by requiring that the
same value of the parameter be configured at every node.
Setting the parameter to a constant value in the protocol definition
makes it very difficult to change the parameter, since a change would
require formal modification to the protocol. In practice, such a
change is impractical, so the constant value needs to be chosen
conservatively. This may impose a fundamental restriction on the
eventual use of the protocol.
Manual or "static" configuration of the parameter is fraught for two
reasons. First, it is always difficult to ensure that the correct
value is installed in all of the routers. Second, if any change is
introduced into the network that results in a need to change the
value (for example due to a change in hardware or software version)
then all of the routers need to be reconfigured to use the new
parameter value.
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
This document describes a protocol extension that propagates a
parameter throughout the flooding domain. The method of choosing
between one or more different advertised values, the flooding scope,
and the action to be taken when the parameter changes MUST be
provided in the definition of the parameter type.
This document also creates one parameter type: Convergence Timer
intended for use in IP Fast-reroute applications [RFC5714] [RFC5715].
2. Requirements Language
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 RFC2119 [RFC2119].
3. Mechanism
The following mechanism is specified.
A new information element is introduced into the routing protocol
that specifies the parameter. Each router is expected to advertise a
specific value of the parameter, which that router determines based
mainly on considerations local to that router. In general, different
routers in the flooding domain will advertise different values of the
parameter.
A router receiving the parameter values advertised by all routers in
the flooding domain will use a well-defined method to select the
operational value of the parameter that it uses in the running of the
protocol. All routers MUST use the same method applied to the same
set of advertised parameter values. All routers SHALL therefore
choose the same operational value for the parameter.
Note the operational value for the parameter selected SHOULD NOT
directly affect the value for the parameter advertised a router.
The method of selecting from a range of advertised parameter values
MUST be provided in the parameter definition.
The definition of the parameter MUST specify the action to be taken
when a new parameter value is advertised that would cause a change in
the selected value.
The definition of the parameter MUST specify the action to be taken
in the legacy/migration case, where not all routers advertise the
parameter.
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
4. Protocol Details
This section describes the protocol extensions needed to implement
this functionality.
4.1. ISIS
A new Network Wide Parameter (NWP) sub-TLV is introduced into the IS-
IS Router CAPABILITY TLV (TLV #242 defined in [RFC4971]). The
setting of the S-bit in TLV #242 (indicating whether the parameter
should be leaked between levels) MUST be included in the specific NWP
definition.
Network Wide Parameter Sub-TLV
TYPE: <TBD>
Length: As defined by parameter definition.
Sub-sub-TLV
NWP Type: (16 bits) as defined in NWP Registry
NWP Value: As defined by parameter definition
4.2. OSPF
THIS NEEDS CHECKING OVER BY AN OSPF EXPERT
A new OSPF Router Information LSA TLV is defined. This may be
carried in a type 10 or type 11 OSPF Opaque LSA depending on the
required flooding scope.
Network Wide Parameter TLV
TYPE: <TBD>
Length: As defined by parameter definition.
Sub-TLV
NWP Type: (16 bits) as defined in NWP Registry
NWP Value: As defined by parameter definition
5. Convergence Time
Routers running a fast-reroute mechanism such as Maximally Redundant
Tree (MRT) [RFC7812] fast re-route require a network wide convergence
time value so that know how long they need continue using the repair
path before it is safe to use the base path. This time is set to be
the worst case time that any router will take to calculate the new
topology, and to make the necessary changes to the FIB.
The time taken by a router to complete each phase of the transition
will be dependent on the size of the network and the design and
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
implementation of the router. It can therefore be expected that the
optimum delay will need to be tuned from time to time as the network
evolves.
5.1. Required Properties
The Convergence Time mechanism MUST have the following properties:
o The operational convergence delay time MUST be consistent among
all routers that are converging on the new topology.
o The operational convergence delay time MUST be the highest delay
time advertised by any router in the new topology.
o The mechanism MUST increase the delay when a new router in
introduced to the network that requires a higher delay than
is currently in use.
o When the router that had the longest delay requirements is
removed from the topology, the convergence delay timer
value MUST, within some reasonable time, be reduced to
the longest delay required by the remaining routers.
o It MUST be possible for a router to change the
convergence delay timer value that it requires.
o A router which is in multiple routing areas, or is running
multiple routing protocols MAY signal a different loop-free
convergence delay for each area.
How a router determines the time that it needs to execute each
convergence phase is an implementation issue, and outside the scope
of this specification. However a router that dynamically determines
its proposed delay value must do so in such a way that it does not
cause the synchronized value to continually fluctuate.
5.2. Definition of the Convergence Timer
The NWP value is 16 bits and is specified in milliseconds; this gives
a maximum value of about 65s.
The NWP value selected is the largest value advertised.
If a routing protocol message is issued that changes the Convergence
Timer value, but does not change the topology, the new timer value
MUST be taken into consideration during the next network transition,
but MUST NOT instigate a new transition.
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
If a routing protocol message is issued that changes both the
Convergence Timer value and the topology, a transition is instigated
and the new timer value MUST be taken into consideration.
The convergence mechanism MUST specify the action to be taken if a
timer change (only) message and a topology change message are
independently generated during the hold-off time.
All routers that support controlled convergence MUST advertise an NWP
specifying their required Convergence Time.
If the parameter is carried in ISIS the S-bit is set to zero
indicating that the Convergence Timer NWP MUST NOT be leaked between
levels.
If the parameter is carried in OSPF it is only carried in a type 10
Opaque LSA which prevents propagation outside the OSPF area.
6. IANA considerations
6.1. ISIS
IANA is requested to allocate a new Sub-TLVs for TLV 242 from the IS-
IS TLV Codepoints name space.
Value Description Reference
----------------------------------------------
TBD Network Wide Parameter This Document
6.2. OSPF
IANA is requested to allocate a new OSPF Router Information (RI) TLV
from the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Parameters name space
Value TLV Name Reference
--------------------------------------------------
TBD Network Wide Parameter This document
A value in the range 12 to 32767 is requested.
6.3. Network Wide Parameter
IANA is requested to create a new Network Wide Parameter Registry
within its own name space, and to allocate one value from it.
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
Value Name Reference
------------------------------------------------
0 Reserved This document
1 Convergence Timer This document
2..65535 Reserved This document
Allocations within this registry require documentation of the use of
the allocated value and approval by the Designated Expert assigned by
the IESG.
7. Security Considerations
The introduction of this parameter advertizing mechanism does not
introduce a significant vulnerability into the base routing protocol
and is secured in exactly the same way as the other TLVs that are
carried.
A rouge router deliberately introducing an anomalous parameter value
is just as capable of introducing many other anomalies into the
routing domain.
As far as possible, care should be taken to validate that the
parameter is reasonable.
In the specific case of the Convergence Time NWP, the following
considerations apply.
If an abnormally large timer value is proposed by a router, the there
is a danger that the convergence process will take an excessive time.
If during that time the routing protocol signals the need for another
transition, the transition will be abandoned and the default best
case (traditional) convergence mechanism used.
The maximum value that can be specified in the LSP/LSA is limited
through the use of a 16 bit field to about 65 seconds.
8. Contributing Authors
Mike Shand
Independent
mike@mshand.org.uk
9. References
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Parameter Sync October 2016
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4971, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4971>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
RFC 5714, DOI 10.17487/RFC5714, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
[RFC5715] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
Convergence", RFC 5715, DOI 10.17487/RFC5715, January
2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5715>.
[RFC7812] Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and G. Enyedi, "An Architecture for
IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-
FRR)", RFC 7812, DOI 10.17487/RFC7812, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7812>.
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Alia Atlas
Juniper Networks
Email: akatlas@gmail.com
Chris Bowers
Juniper Networks
Email: cbowers@juniper.net
Bryant, et al. Expires April 15, 2017 [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 01:09:53 |