CCAMP Internet Draft Jean-Philippe Vasseur Peter Psenak Cisco Systems Seisho Yasukawa NTT Document: draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te- caps-00.txt Expires: August 2004 February 2004 OSPF MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [i]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract This document proposes OSPF traffic engineering capability TLVs and is composed of several sub-TLVs related to various MPLS Traffic Engineering capabilities. These OSPF TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF router information LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0). Conventions used in this document Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 1] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 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 RFC-2119 [ii]. Table of Contents 0. Background.....................................................2 1. Where does this draft fit in the picture of the CCAMP and OSPF WG? ..................................................................2 2. Terminology....................................................3 3. Introduction...................................................3 4. PCED TE TLV....................................................4 4.1 Description................................................4 4.2 PCED TLV format............................................5 4.2.2 PCE-ADDRESS TLV.............................................5 4.2.3 PCE-CAPABILITY TLV..........................................6 4.2.4 AS-DOMAIN TLV...............................................7 5. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV..............................................8 5.1 Introduction...............................................8 5.2 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format...................................8 6. TE-NODE-CAP TLV................................................9 6.1 Introduction...............................................9 6.2 TE-NODE-CAP TLV format.....................................9 7. Element of procedure..........................................10 7.1 PCED TLV..................................................10 7.2 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV.........................................12 7.3 TE-NODE-CAP TLV...........................................13 8. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability..13 9. Security considerations.......................................13 10. Intellectual Property Considerations.........................13 11. Acknowledgments..............................................14 12. References...................................................14 Normative references.............................................14 Informative references...........................................14 13. Author's Addresses...........................................15 0. Background This draft is the next revision of the former draft draft-vasseur- mpls-ospf-te-cap-00.txt. 1. Where does this draft fit in the picture of the CCAMP and OSPF WG? This document specifies OSPF extensions in support of MPLS Traffic Engineering. It will be discussed in the CCAMP Working Group with a review in the OSPF Working Group. Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 2] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 2. Terminology Terminology used in this document LSR: Label Switch Router. PCE: Path Computation Element whose function is to compute the path of a TE LSP it is not the head-end for. The PCE may be an LSR (e.g ABR or ASBR) in the context of some distributed PCE-based path computation scenario as defined in [INTER-AREA-AS] or a centralized Path Computation Element not forwarding packet. PCC: Path Computation Client (any head-end LSR) requesting a TE LSP path computation to the Path Computation Element. TE LSP: Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path. Head-end TE LSP: head/source of the TE LSP. Tail-end TE LSP: tail/destination of the TE LSP. Intra-area TE LSP: TE LSP whose head-end and tail-end reside in the same area. Inter-area MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP where the head-end LSR and tail-end LSR do not reside in the same area or both the head-end and tail end LSR reside in the same area but the TE LSP transits one or more different areas along the path. Inter-AS MPLS TE LSP: A TE LSP whose head-end LSR and tail-end LSR do not reside within the same Autonomous System (AS), or whose head-end LSR and tail-end LSR are both in the same AS but the TE LSPÆs path may be across different ASes. Note that this definition also applies to TE LSP whose Head-end and Tail-end LSRs reside in different sub- ASes (BGP confederations). 3. Introduction This document describes the usage of three OSPF TE capabilities TLVs: the PCED (PCE Discovery) TLV, the TE-MESH-GROUP and the TE-NODE-CAP TLVs. These OSPF TE capability TLVs are carried within the OSPF router information LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) specified in [OSPF-CAP]. Each TE TLV defined in this document and carried in an OSFP router information LSA as defined in [OSPF-CAP] has the following format: 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 Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 3] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // Value // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Where Type: identifies the TLV type Length: length of the value field in octets The format of the TLV is the same as the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [OSPF-TE]. The TLV is padded to four-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field (so a three octet value would have a length of three, but the total size of the TLV would be eight octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. Unrecognized types are ignored. All types between 32768 and 65535 are reserved for vendor-specific extensions. All other undefined type codes are reserved for future assignment by IANA. Note that a sub-TLV is similar to a TLV: TLV are carried within an LSA as sub-TLVs are carried within TLVs. Each sub-TLV describes a particular MPLS Traffic Engineering capability. In the rest of this document both terms will be used interchangeably. The PCED TLV type is 1. The PCED TLV is made of a set of non-ordered TLVs each having the format as described above. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV type is 2. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV does not have any sub-TLV currently defined. The TE-NODE-CAP TLV type is 3. The TE-NODE-CAP TLV does not have any sub-TLV currently defined. 4. PCED TE TLV 4.1 Description The PCED TLV allows for the auto-discovery of one or more Path Computation Element(s). In various situations (GMPLS, inter-area TE, inter-AS TE, etc), an LSR maybe required to send a request to a Path Computation Element (PCE) to compute one or more TE LSP paths obeying a set of specified constraints ([INTER-AREA-AS]). An example of such a signaling protocol used between a PCC to send a request to a PCE and conversely a PCE to return a reply to a PCC is defined in [PATH- COMP]. Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 4] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 The scope of this document is to define a new OSPF TE capability TLV carried within an OSPF router information LSA such that a PCE may announce its capability to be a Path Computation Element within an OSPF area or an Autonomous System. This allows every LSR in the network to automatically discover the Path Computation Element(s) and recognize its capability(ies), which substantially simplifies head- end LSRs configuration. Moreover, this allows detecting dynamically any new PCE(s), performs some load sharing among a set of potential PCE candidates or that a PCE is no longer active. 4.2 PCED TLV format This section specifies the sub-TLVs carried within the PCED TLV payload which define the PCE capabilities. The PCED TLV is made of various non ordered sub-TLVs defined bellow: TLV type Length Name 1 variable PCE-ADDRESS TLV 2 8 PCE-CAPABILITY TLV 3 8 AS-DOMAIN TLV Any non recognized TLV MUST be silently ignored. 4.2.2 PCE-ADDRESS TLV The PCE-ADDRESS TLV specifies the IP address to be used to reach the PCE described by this PCED TLV. This address will typically be a loop-back address that is always reachable, provided the router is not isolated. The PCE-ADDRESS TLV is mandatory. The PCE address TLV type is 1, length is 8 octets for an IPv4 address and 20 octets for an IPv6 address, and the value is the PCE IPv4 or IPv6 address. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | variable (8 or 20) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | address-type | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | // PCE IP address // | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PCE-ADDRESS TLV format Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 5] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 Address-type: 1 IPv4 2 IPv6 The PCE-ADDRESS TLV MUST appear exactly once in the PCED TLV originated by a router. The only exception is when the PCE has both an IPv4 and IPv6 address; in this case, two PCE-ADDRESS TLVs might be inserted: one for the IPv4 address, one for the IPv6 address, in this order. 4.2.3 PCE-CAPABILITY TLV The PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is used by the PCE to signal its Path Computation Element capabilities. This could be used by an LSR to select the appropriate PCE among a list of PCE candidates. This TLV is optional. The PCE-CAPABILITY TLV type is 3 and the length is 8 octets. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | 8 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |L|I|A|P|M|D| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PCE-CAPABILITY TLV format The first 3 bits L, I and A defines the PCEÆs scope for which the Path Computation Element is capable of performing the TE LSP path computation. L bit Local scope. When set, this flag indicates that the PCE can compute paths for the area the LSA is flooded into (the PCE can compute TE LSP path for intra-area TE LSPs). I bit Inter-area scope. When set, the PCE can perform TE LSP path computation for inter-area TE LSPs but within the same AS. A bit Multi-domain scope. When set, the PCE can perform path computation for inter-AS TE LSPs. In this case, the PCED TLV MUST contain one or more AS-DOMAIN TLV(s), each describing the domain for which the PCE Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 6] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 can compute TE LSPs paths having their destination address in the respective AS. Note that those flags are not exclusive (a PCE may set one or more flags). P bit The notion of request priority allows a PCC to specify how urgent the request is, by setting a flag in the REQUEST_ID object of the Path computation request message. See [PATH-COMP] for more details. P=1: the PCE takes into account the ôrequest priorityö in its scheduling of the various requests. P=0: the PCE does not take the request priority into account. M bit M=1: the PCE is capable of computing more than one path obeying a set of specified constraints (in a single pass), provided that they exist. M=0: the PCE cannot compute more than one path in a single pass obeying a set of specified constraints. D bit The PCC may request the PCE to compute N diversely routed paths obeying a set of specified constraints. Such N paths may not exist of course depending on the current state of the network. See [PATH-COMP] for more details. D=1: the PCE is capable of computing diversely (link, node, SRLG) routed paths. D=0: the PCE is not capable of computing diversely routed paths. The D bit is relevant if and only if the M bit has been set to 1. It MUST be set to 0 if the M bit is set to 0. Note that for future capabilities, it may be desirable to introduce new flags or may be new TLV to be carried in the PCED capability TLV if the capability needs more than just a single flag to be described. 4.2.4 AS-DOMAIN TLV When the PCE can perform path computation for an inter-AS TE LSP, the A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. Moreover, one or more TLVs MUST be included within the PCED TLV, each TLV identifying an AS number. Each AS-DOMAIN TLV has the following form: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 3 | 4 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 7] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 | AS Number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AS-DOMAIN TLV format The AS-DOMAIN TLV type is 3, length is 4 octets, and the value is the AS number identifying the AS for which the PCE can compute inter-AS TE LSP paths (TE LSP having their destination address in this AS). When coded on two bytes (which is the current defined format as the time of writing), the AS Number field MUST have its left two bytes set to 0. The set of AS-DOMAIN TLVs specifies a list of ASes (AS1, à , ASn). This means that the PCE can compute TE LSP path such that the destination address of the TE LSP belongs to this set of ASes. 5. TE-MESH-GROUP TLV 5.1 Introduction As of today, there are different approaches in deploying MPLS Traffic Engineering: (1) The ôsystematic approach consisting of setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between a set of LSRs, (2) The "by exception" approach where a set of TE LSPs are set up on hot spots to alleviate a congestion resulting for instance in an unexpected traffic growth in some part of the network. Setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs between a set of LSRs requires the configuration of a large number of TE LSPs on every head-end LSR. A full TE mesh of n LSRs requires to set up O(n^2) TE LSPs. Furthermore, the addition of any new LSR in the mesh implies to configure n TE LSPs on the new LSR and to add a new TE LSP on every LSR ending to this new LSR, which gives a total of 2*n TE LSPs. This is not only time consuming but also not a low risk operation for Service Providers. Hence, a more automatic way of setting up a full mesh of TE LSPs is desirable. This requires defining a new TE capability TLV (called the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV) such that an LSR can announce its desire to join a particular TE LSP mesh, identified by a mesh-group number. 5.2 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 |Length: Variable (N*8 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 8] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 | mesh-group-number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tail-end address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format N is the number of mesh-groups. For each Mesh-group announced by the LSR, the TLV contains: - A mesh-group-number: identifies the mesh-group number, - A Tail-end address: user configurable IP address to be used as a tail-end address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-group. 6. TE-NODE-CAP TLV 6.1 Introduction The aim of the TE-NODE-CAP TLV is to flood some MPLS TE related capabilities that could either be relevant to a single area and in this case it will be carried within a type 10 router information LSA or the entire routing domain and will be carried within type 11 router information LSA. 6.2 TE-NODE-CAP TLV format The TE-NODE-CAP is a series of bit flags and has a variable length. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 3 |Length: Variable (N*8 octets) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |B| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ TE-NODE-CAP TLV format One bit is currently defined: 0x01: ôBö bit. When set, this indicates that the LSR has the capability to act as a branch node for an MPLS Point to Multipoint TE LSP (see [P2MP-reqs] and [P2MP]). Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 9] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 Note that some TE capabilities defined in the future may require inserting a sub-object in the TE-NODE-CAP TLV. 7. Element of procedure The TLVs defined in this document are carried within an OSPF router information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) as defined in [OSPF-CAP]. A router MUST originate a new OSPF router information LSA whenever the content of the any of the carried TLV changes or whenever required by the regular OSPF procedure (LSA refresh (every LSRefreshTime, à)). As defined in RFC2370, an opaque LSA has a flooding scope determined by its LSA type: - link-local (type 9), - area-local (type 10) - entire OSPF routing domain (type 11). In this case, the flooding scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope. A router may generate multiple OSPF router information LSAs with different flooding scopes. 7.1 PCED TLV The PCED TLV may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information LSA depending on the Path Computation Element scope. - If the PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP, the L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED TLV MUST be generated within a Type 10 router information LSA, - If the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP, the I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set. The PCED TLV MUST be generated: - within a Type 10 router information LSA if the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the LSRs in the area it is attached to (for instance the PCE is an ABR computing an inter-area TE LSP path for its attached areas) - within a Type 11 router information LSA if the PCE can compute an inter-area TE LSP path for the whole domain. - If the PCE can compute an inter-AS TE LSP path, the A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV of the PCED TLV MUST be set and the PCED TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA, Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 10] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 Note: if the PCE can compute both intra and inter-area TE LSP paths, both the L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV MUST be set. The flags are not exclusive. This only applies to the PCED TLV carried within the type 10 router information LSA. If a PCE can compute an intra-area TE LSP and an inter-area or inter- AS TE LSP path, it MUST originate: - a type 10 OSPF router information LSA with a PCED TLV having L=1 and the I and A flags of its PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set as described above, - a type 11 OSPF router information LSA with a PCED TLV having L=0 and the I and A flags of its PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set as described above, Example <-----------------AS1-----------------> <---area 1--><----area 0-----><-area 2-> R1---------ABR1*------------ABR3*-----| ------------ | | | | | | | S1 | S2 | ASBR1*--eBGP--ASBR2-| AS2 | | | | | | | R2---------ABR2*------------ABR4------| ------------ The areas contents are not detailed. Assumptions: - area 1 and area 2 are regular areas - the * indicates a Path Computation Element capability - ABR1 is a PCE for area 1 only - ABR2 is a PCE for intra and inter-area TE LSP path computation in area 0 and 1 - ABR3 is a PCE for only inter-area TE LSP path computation for the whole domain, - S1 is a PCE for area 1 only - S2 is a PCE for the whole domain, - ASBR1 is a PCE for inter-AS TE LSPs whose destination resides in AS2 (not for intra or inter-area area TE LSPs). In the example above: - S1 originates a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are cleared. Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 11] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 - ABR1 originates in area 1 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The I and A bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are cleared, - ABR2 originates in both area 0 and 1 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared - ABR3 originates a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, o The I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, - S2 originates: - in area 0 a type 10 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L and I bits of the PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV are set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, - a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, o The I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is set, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is cleared, - ASBR1 originates a type 11 router information LSA with a PCED TLV such that: o The L bit and the I bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV are cleared, o The A bit of the PCE-CAPABILITY TLV set, o One AS-DOMAIN TLV within the PCED TLV with AS number = AS2 The receipt of a new router information LSA carrying a PCED TLV never triggers an SPF calculation. When an LSR or a Path Computation Element is newly configured as a PCE, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded. When a PCE capability changes, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded. When a PCE looses its Path Computation Element capability, the corresponding router information LSA MUST be immediately flooded with LS age = MaxAge. 7.2 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 12] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information LSA depending on the MPLS TE mesh-group profile: - If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all the LSRs have their head-end and tail-end LSR within the same OSPF area), the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 10 router information LSA, - If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE- MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within a Type 11 router information LSA, 7.3 TE-NODE-CAP TLV The TE-NODE-CAP may be carried within a type 10 or 11 router information LSA depending on the MPLS Traffic Engineering capability. The flooding scope is defined on a per capability basis. Capabilities with a identical flooding scope MUST be flooded within the same TE-NODE-CAP TLV carried within a router information LSA. 8. Interoperability with routers non supporting this capability There is no interoperability issue as a router not supporting the PCED, TE-MESH-GROUP or TE-NODE-CAP TLVs SHOULD just silently discard those TLVs as specified in RFC2370. 9. Security considerations No new security issues are raised in this document. 10. Intellectual Property Considerations The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 13] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained in this document. For more information consult the online list of claimed rights. 11. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Abhay Roy, Dan Tappan, Robert Raszuk and Vishwas Manral for their comments. 12. References Normative references [RFC] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," RFC 2119. [OSPF-v2] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998. [OSPF-OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option," RFC 2370, July 1998. [OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., Kompella, K., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630. [ISIS-TE] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt (work in progress) Informative references [OSPF-CAP] Lindem, A., Shen, N., Aggarwal, R., Shaffer, S., Vasseur, JP., "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities", , Internet Draft, work in progress. [INTER-AREA-AS] Vasseur and Ayyangar, ôInter-area and Inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineeringö, draft-vasseur-ayyangar-inter-area-AS-TE-00.txt, work in progress. [PATH-COMP] Vasseur et al, ½RSVP Path computation request and reply messages ©, draft-vasseur-mpls-computation-rsvp-te-03.txt, work in progress. [P2MP] S. Yasukawa et al. ½ Extended RSVP TE for point-to-multipoint LSP tunnelsö, draft-yasukawa-mpls-rsvp-p2mp-03.txt, work in progress. Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 14] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 [P2MP-reqs] S. Yasukawa et al. ½ Requirements for point to multipoint extension to RSVP ©, draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement-01.txt, work in progress. 13. Author's Addresses Jean-Philippe Vasseur CISCO Systems, Inc. 300 Beaver Brook Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Email: jpv@cisco.com Peter Psenak CISCO Systems, Inc. Pegasus Parc De Kleetlaan 6A 1831, Diegem BELGIUM Email: ppsenak@cisco.com Seisho Yasukawa NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories, NTT Corporation 9-11, Midori-Cho 3-Chome Musashino-Shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Phone: + 81 422 59 4769 Email: yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 15] draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt February 2004 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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. Vasseur et al. Expires û August 2004 [Page 16]