draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-00.txt   draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-01.txt 
Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed. Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
Internet-Draft P. Psenak Internet-Draft P. Psenak
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: July 24, 2021 January 20, 2021 Expires: September 22, 2021 March 21, 2021
Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Prefix Administrative Tags
draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-00 draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-admin-tags-01
Abstract Abstract
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be
able to associate tags with prefixes. Previously, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 able to associate tags with prefixes. Previously, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-Stubby-Area were relegated to a single tag for AS External and Not-So-Stubby-Area
(NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by OSPFv2 (NSSA) prefixes. With the flexible encodings provided by OSPFv2
Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs, Prefix/Link Attribute Advertisement and OSPFv3 Extended LSAs,
multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of multiple administrative tags may advertised for all types of
prefixes. These administrative tags can be used for many prefixes. These administrative tags can be used for many
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 6, line 5 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
path and, if the implementation supports multiple tags, MAY associate path and, if the implementation supports multiple tags, MAY associate
tags for multiple contributing LSAs up to the maximum number of tags tags for multiple contributing LSAs up to the maximum number of tags
supported. supported.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document describes a generic mechanism for advertising This document describes a generic mechanism for advertising
administrative tags for OSPF prefixes. The administrative tags are administrative tags for OSPF prefixes. The administrative tags are
generally less critical than the topology information currently generally less critical than the topology information currently
advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security considerations advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security considerations
for the generic mechanism are dependent on the future application for the generic mechanism are dependent on their application. One
and, as such, should be described as additional capabilities are such application is to control leaking of OSPF routes to other
proposed for advertisement. Security considerations for the base protocols (e.g., BGP [RFC4271]). If an attacker were able to modify
OSPF protocol are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. the admin tags associated with OSPF routes and they were be used for
this application, such routes could be prevented from being
advertised in routing domains where they are required (subtle denial
or service) or they could be advertised into routing domains where
they shouldn't be advertised (routing vulnerability). Security
considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [RFC2328]
and [RFC5340].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended The following values should be allocated from the OSPF Extended
Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry [RFC7684]: Prefix TLV Sub-TLV Registry [RFC7684]:
o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV o TBD - 32-bit Administrative Tag TLV
The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA The following values should be allocated from the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362]: Sub-TLV Registry [RFC8362]:
skipping to change at page 7, line 25 skipping to change at page 7, line 34
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA) F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>. 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option", [RFC3101] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003, RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy [RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags", Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008, RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
[RFC8920] Psenak, P., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, [RFC8920] Psenak, P., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Henderickx, W., Tantsura,
J., and J. Drake, "OSPF Application-Specific Link J., and J. Drake, "OSPF Application-Specific Link
Attributes", RFC 8920, DOI 10.17487/RFC8920, October 2020, Attributes", RFC 8920, DOI 10.17487/RFC8920, October 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8920>.
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
7 lines changed or deleted 18 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/