60 likes | 81 Views
OSPFv3 LSA Extension aims to improve routing efficiency by introducing source address-based and flow label-based routing, segment routing, multi-address family support, and more. This extension enhances OSPFv3's capability to advertise correlated information with base topology or prefixes. Changes since Berlin include enhancements in backward compatibility, separate handling of tags and forwarding address, and updated security considerations. The next steps for this draft involve review, discussion, achieving consensus on backward compatibility, and potential implementation.
E N D
OSPFv3 LSA ExtendabilityIETF 88, Vancouver Acee Lindem, Ericsson Sina Mirtorabi, Cisco Abhay Roy, Cisco Fred Baker, Cisco
OSPFv3 LSA Extension History • LSA Extension proposed in “Multi-topology Routing for OSPFv3” years ago. • Base RFC 5340 LSAs are fixed format. This poses the following problems: • Information associated with the OSPFv3 topology and prefixes must be advertised in a separate LSAs. • Introduces complications in terms of advertisement and additional lookups. • ISIS LSPs are extendable.
OSPFv3 LSA Requirements • Source address based routing – Fred Baker Draft • Flow label based routing – Fred Baker Draft • Tags on Intra/Inter prefixes • Segment Routing (SR) • Multi-Address Family in single instance • Multi-Topology in single instance • Useful for any information to be advertised that MUST be correlated with base topology or prefixes
OSPFv3 LSA Extension – Changes Since Berlin • OSPF WG Document • Segment Routing and Source Routing drafts have a prerequisite • Specification of U-Bit set in LSA ID. LSA will be flooded even if not understood. • Addition of MixedModeDegraded backward compatibility mode where non-extended LSAs are used for SPF computation.
OSPFv3 LSA Extension – Changes Since Berlin • Separation of Tag and Forwarding Address into sub-TLVs for E-AS-External-LSA and E-NSSA-LSA. • Editorial Comments • Update of Security Considerations to include potential for LSA signing.
Next Steps for Draft • Review and discussion • Consensus on backward compatibility • Implementation(s)?