One document matched: draft-zheng-ccamp-rsvp-te-dynamic-hostname-00.txt
Network Working Group Z. Zheng
Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track February 19, 2011
Expires: August 23, 2011
RSVP-TE extensions for dynamic hostname traversing OSPF routing areas
draft-zheng-ccamp-rsvp-te-dynamic-hostname-00
Abstract
RFC 5642 defines an OSPF Router Information TLV that allows OSPF
Routers to flood their hostname-to-Router-ID mapping information.
Sometimes, when the operators create an inter-area MPLS LSP tunnel
with Resource ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE),
they need the hostname display on the CLI at the ingress node for
management and operational reasons. This document describes
extensions to RSVP-TE to support hostname-to-Router-ID mapping
information traversing areas in an inter-area MPLS LSP tunnel
situation.
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 August 23, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Zheng Expires August 23, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE dynamic hostname February 2011
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Subobject 1: IPv4 address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Subobject 2: IPv6 address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Zheng Expires August 23, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE dynamic hostname February 2011
1. Introduction
RFC 5642 defines an OSPF Router Information TLV that allows OSPF
Routers to flood their hostname-to-Router-ID mapping information.
The flooding scope of the Dynamic Hostname TLV is controlled by the
Opaque LSA type. Because of the constraint of the OSPF LSA flooding
scope, routers in an area cannot get the hostname-to-Router-ID
mapping information of the routers other than ASBRs in another area.
Sometimes, when the operators create an inter-area MPLS LSP tunnel
with RSVP-TE, they need the hostname display on the CLI at the
ingress node for management and operational reasons. However, as
mentioned above, the ingress node may not have the hostname-to-
Router-ID mapping information of the other nodes in the MPLS LSP
tunnel.
This document describes extensions to RSVP-TE to support hostname-to-
Router-ID mapping information traversing OSPF areas in an inter-area
MPLS LSP tunnel situation.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
2. Implementation
These extensions make use of the Notify message described in
[RFC3473], by defining a new Dynamic Hostname Object. These
extensions are OPTIONAL. In this implementation, Record Route Object
MUST be contained in both Path and Resv message.
Dynamic Hostname Object is defined for the Notify message described
in [RFC3473], to carry the hostname-to-Router-ID mapping information.
The Class-Num needs to be assigned by the IANA. The suggested C-type
is 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// (Subobjects) //
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Zheng Expires August 23, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE dynamic hostname February 2011
Figure 1: Subobjects
- Subobjects: The contents of a Dynamic Hostname object are a series
of variable-length data items called subobjects. The subobjects
are defined below.
The Dynamic Hostname Object SHOULD be presented in Notify messages.
2.1. Subobjects
2.1.1. Subobject 1: IPv4 address
The suggested Type is 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hostname ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IPv4 address
- Type: 0x01 IPv4 address
- Length: The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
- IPv4 address: Router ID
- Hostname: See [RFC5642] section 3.1
2.1.2. Subobject 2: IPv6 address
The suggested Type is 1.
Zheng Expires August 23, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE dynamic hostname February 2011
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| IPv6 Address (16 bytes) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Hostname ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: IPv6 address
- Type: 0x02 IPv6 address
- Length: The Length contains the total length of the subobject in
bytes, including the Type and Length fields.
- IPv6 address: Router ID
- Hostname: See [RFC5642] section 3.1
2.2. Procedures
The node as Area Border Routers in OSPF routing area, can gain the
hostname-to-Router-ID mapping information of the nodes in their
attached areas, as described in [RFC 5642]. Thus, ABR can be used to
generate Notify messages with Dynamic Hostname Object containing the
hostname-to-Router-ID mapping information of the nodes in any area it
attaches. The nodes other than ABR in the LSP tunnel, would never
generate Notify messages with Dynamic Hostname Object.
An ABR in the LSP tunnel receives a Resv message from downstream, and
could know from the Record Route Object which nodes of the LSP tunnel
are in the same area that the interface of the ABR received Resv
message belongs to. Then the ABR generates the Notify messages to
ingress node carrying the Dynamic Hostname Object with the hostname-
to-Router-ID mapping information of those nodes, which can be
obtained from its local mapping table.
The ingress node will have the hostname-to-Router-ID mapping
information of all nodes in the LSP tunnel, as it has obtained the
mapping information of the nodes in other areas from the Notify
messages sending by the ABRs.
Zheng Expires August 23, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RSVP-TE dynamic hostname February 2011
If the mapping information of a node in another area changed, the
ingress node MUST be notified immediately by the corresponding ABR
using Notify message only containing the changed mapping information.
3. Security Considerations
TBD
4. IANA Considerations
TBD
5. Normative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC5642] Venkata, S., Harwani, S., Pignataro, C., and D. McPherson,
"Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for OSPF", RFC 5642,
August 2009.
Author's Address
Zhi Zheng
ZTE Corporation
No.68 ZiJingHua Road,Yuhuatai District
Nanjing 210012
P.R.China
Email: zheng.zhi@zte.com.cn
Zheng Expires August 23, 2011 [Page 6]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 15:44:44 |