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]