wdiff rfc4811.original rfc4811.txt

Network Working Group L. Nguyen
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 4811 A. Roy
Intended status:
Category: Informational Cisco Systems
Expires: April 29, 2007
A. Zinin
Alcatel
October 26, 2006
February 2007

OSPF Out-of-band LSDB resynchronization
draft-nguyen-ospf-oob-resync-06.txt Out-of-Band Link State Database (LSDB) Resynchronization

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of

This memo provides information for 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. community. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list does
not specify an Internet standard of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list any kind. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2007. this
memo is unlimited.

Abstract

OSPF is a link-state intra-domain routing protocol used in IP
networks. LSDB Link State Database (LSDB) synchronization in OSPF is
achieved via two methods-- methods -- initial LSDB synchronization when an OSPF
router has just been connected to the network and asynchronous
flooding that ensures continuous LSDB synchronization in the presence
of topology changes after the initial procedure was completed. It
may sometime be necessary for OSPF routers to resynchronize their
LSDBs. The OSPF standard, however, does not allow routers to do so
without actually changing the topology view of the network.

This memo describes a vendor specific vendor-specific mechanism to perform such a
form of out-of-band LSDB synchronization. The mechanism described in
this document was proposed before Graceful OSPF Restart [RFC3623] Restart, as described
in RFC 3623, came into existence. It is implemented/supported by at
least one major vendor and is currently deployed in the field. The
purpose of this document is to capture the details of this mechanism
for public use. This mechanism is not an IETF standard.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ....................................................2
2. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ...............................................2
2.1. The LR bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 LR-Bit .................................................3
2.2. OSPF Neighbor Data Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ...............................3
2.3. Hello Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ..............................................4
2.4. DBD Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ................................................4
2.5. Neighbor State Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ...................................7
2.6. Initiating OOB LSDB Resynchronization . . . . . . . . . . 9 ......................7
3. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ..........................................7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .........................................7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .............................................7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ......................................................8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .......................................8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .....................................8
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16 Acknowledgements ......................................9

1. Introduction

According to the OSPF standard [RFC2328], after two OSPF routers have
established an adjacency (the neighbor FSMs Finite State Machines (FSMs)
have reached Full state), routers announce the adjacency states in
their router-LSAs. router-Link State Advertisements (LSAs). Asynchronous flooding
algorithm ensures that routers' LSDBs stay in sync in the presence of
topology changes. However, if routers need (for some reason) to
resynchronize their LSDBs, they cannot do that without actually
putting the neighbor FSMs into the ExStart state. This effectively
causes the adjacencies to be removed from the router-LSAs, which may
not be acceptable if the desire is to prevent routing table flaps
during database resynchronization. In this document, we provide the
means for so-called out-of-band (OOB) LSDB resynchronization.

The described mechanism can be used in a number of situations
including those where the routers are picking up the adjacencies up
after a reload. The process of adjacency preemption is outside the
scope of this document. Only the details related to LSDB
resynchronization are mentioned herein.

1.1. Requirements notation

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].

2. Proposed Solution

With this Out-Of-Band Out-of-Band Resynchronization Solution, the format of the
OSPF Database Description (DBD) packet is changed to include a new
R-bit indicating OOB LSDB resynchronization. All DBD packets sent
during the OOB resynchronization procedure are sent with the R-bit
set.

Also, two new fields are added to the neighbor data structure. The
first field indicates a neighbor's OOB resynchronization capability.
The second indicates that OOB LSDB resynchronization is in process.
The latter field allows OSPF implementations to utilize the existing
neighbor FSM code.

A bit is occupied in the Extended Options (EO) TLV (see [LLS]). [RFC4813]).
Routers set this bit to indicate their capability to support the
described technique.

2.1. The LR bit LR-Bit

A new bit, called LR (LR stands for LSDB Resynchronization) Resynchronization), is
introduced to the LLS Extended Options TLV (see [LLS]). [RFC4813]). The
value of the bit is 0x00000001; see Figure 1. See the "IANA
Considerations" section of [LLS] [RFC4813] for more information on the
Extended Options bit definitions. Routers set LR bit the LR-bit to announce
OOB LSDB resynchronization capability.

+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+- -+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| * | * | * | * | * | * | * |...| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | LR|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+- -+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

Figure 1. The Options field Field

Routers supporting the OOB LSDB resynchronization technique set the
LR bit
LR-bit in the EO-TLV in the LLS block attached to both Hello and DBD
packets. Note that no bit is set in the standard OSPF Options field,
neither in OSPF packets, packets nor in LSAs.

2.2. OSPF Neighbor Data Structure

A field is introduced into OSPF neighbor data structure, as described
below. The name of the field is OOBResync OOBResync, and it is a flag
indicating that the router is currently performing OOB LSDB
resynchronization with the neighbor.

The OOBResync flag is set when the router is initiating the OOB LSDB
resynchronization (see Section 2.6 for more details).

Routers clear the OOBResync flag on the following conditions:

o The neighbor data structure is first created created.

o The neighbor FSM transitions to any state lower than ExStart ExStart.

o The neighbor FSM transitions to the ExStart state because a DBD
packet with the R-bit clear has been received received.

o The neighbor FSM reaches the state Full.

Note that the OOBResync flag may have a TRUE value only if the
neighbor FSM is in states ExStart, Exchange, or Loading. As
indicated above, if the FSM transitions to any other state, the
OOBResync flag should be cleared.

It is important to mention that operation of the OSPF neighbor FSM is
not changed by this document. However, depending on the state of the
OOBResync flag, the router sends either normal DBD packets or DBD
packets with the R-bit set.

2.3. Hello Packets

Routers capable of performing OOB LSDB resynchronization should
always set the LR bit LR-bit in their Hello packets.

2.4. DBD Packets

Routers supporting the described technique should always set the LR LR-
bit in the DBD packets. Since the Options field of the initial DBD
packet is stored in corresponding neighbor data structure, the LR bit LR-bit
may be used later to check if a neighbor is capable of performing OOB
LSDB resynchronization.

The format of type-2 type 2 (DBD) OSPF packets is changed to include a flag
indicating the OOB LSDB resynchronization procedure. Figure 2
illustrates the new packet 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version # | 2 | Packet length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Area ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum | AuType |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Authentication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Authentication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface MTU | Options |0|0|0|0|R|I|M|MS
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| DD sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- An LSA Header -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+- -+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |

Figure 2. Modified DBD packet Packet

The R-bit in OSPF type-2 type 2 packets is set when the OOBResync flag for
the specific neighbor is set to TRUE. If a DBD packets with R-bit the R-
bit clear is received for a neighbor with active OOBResync flag, the
OOB LSDB resynchronization process is cancelled canceled and normal LSDB
synchronization procedure is initiated.

When a DBD packet is received with the R-bit set and the sender is
known to be OOB-incapable, the packet should be dropped and a SeqNumber-
Mismatch
SeqNumber-Mismatch event should be generated for the neighbor.

Processing of DBD packets is modified as follows. follows:

1. If the OOBResync flag for the neighbor is set (the LSDB
resynchronization process has been started) and the received DBD
packet does not have the R bit R-bit set, ignore the packet and gen-
erate
generate a SeqNumberMismatch event for the neighbor FSM.

2. Otherwise, if the OOBResync flag for the neighbor is clear and
the received DBD packet has the R bit R-bit set, perform the following
steps:

* If the neighbor FSM is in state Full and bits I, M, and MS
are set in the DBD packet, set the OOBResync flag for the
neighbor, put the FSM in ExStart state state, and continue process-
ing
processing the DBD packet as described in [RFC2328].

* Otherwise, ignore received DBD packet (no OOB DBD packets are
allowed with OOBResync flag clear and FSM in state other than
Full.)
Full). Also, if the state of the FSM is Exchange or higher,
generate a SeqNumberMismatch event for the neighbor FSM.

3. Otherwise, process the DBD packet as described in [RFC2328].

During normal processing of the initial OOB DBD packet (with bits R,
I, M, and MS set), if the receiving router is selected to be the Mas-
ter,
Master, it may speed up the resynchronization process by immediately
replying to the received packet.

It is also necessary to limit the time an adjacency can spend in
ExStart, Exchange, and Loading states with OOBResync flag set to a
finite period of time (e.g., by limiting the number of times DBD and
link state request packets can be retransmitted). If the adjacency
does not proceed to Full state before the timeout, it is indicative
that the neighboring router cannot resynchronize its LSDB with the
local router. The requesting router may decide to stop trying to
resynchronize the LSDB over this adjacency (if, for example, it can
be resynchronized via another neighbor on the same segment) or to
resynchronize using the legacy method by clearing the OOBResync flag
and leaving the FSM in ExStart state. The neighboring router may
decide to cancel the OOB procedure for the neighbor.

2.5. Neighbor State Treatment

An OSPF implementation supporting the described technique should
modify the logic consulting the state of a neighbor FSM as described
below.

o FSM state transitioning from and to the Full state with the
OOBResync flag set should not cause origination of a new version
of router-
LSA router-LSA or network-LSA.

o Any explicit checks for the Full state of a neighbor FSM for the
purposes other than LSDB synchronization and flooding should
treat states ExStart, Exchange, and Loading as state Full, pro- vided
provided that OOBResync flag is set for the neighbor. (Flooding
and MaxAge-LSA-specific procedures should not check the state of
the OOBResync flag, but should continue consulting only the FSM
state.)

2.6. Initiating OOB LSDB Resynchronization

To initiate out-of-band LSDB resynchronization, the router must first
make sure that the corresponding neighbor supports this technology
(by checking the LR bit LR-bit in the Options field of the neighbor data struc-
ture).
structure). If the neighboring router is capable, the OOBResync flag
for the neighbor should be set to TRUE and the FSM state should be
forced to ExStart.

3. Backward Compatibility

Because OOB-capable routers explicitly indicate their capability by
setting the corresponding bit in the Options field, no DBD packets
with the R-bit set are sent to OOB-incapable routers.

The LR bit LR-bit itself is transparent for OSPF implementations and does
not affect communication between routers.

4. Security Considerations

The described technique does not introduce any new security issues
into the OSPF protocol.

5. IANA Considerations

Please refer to the "IANA Considerations" section of [LLS] [RFC4813] for
more information on the Extended Options bit definitions.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

[RFC3623] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF
Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.

6.2. Informative References

[LLS]

[RFC4813] Friedman, B., Nguyen, L., Roy, A., Yeung, D., and A.
Zinin, "OSPF Link-local Link-Local Signaling", Work in progress , October 2006. RFC 4813, February
2007.

Appendix A. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Acee Lindem, Russ White, Don Slice,
and Alvaro Retana for their valuable comments.

Authors' Addresses

Liem Nguyen
Cisco Systems
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA

Email:
EMail: lhnguyen@cisco.com

Abhay Roy
Cisco Systems
225 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA

Email:
EMail: akr@cisco.com

Alex Zinin
Alcatel
Sunnyvale, CA
USA

Email:
EMail: zinin@psg.com

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgment

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Internet Society.