|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8379
OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown
Last modified on Saturday, May 12th, 2018
 Permanent link to RFC 8379
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8379
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8379
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Hegde
Request for Comments: 8379 Juniper Networks, Inc.
Category: Standards Track P. Sarkar
ISSN: 2070-1721 Arrcus, Inc.
H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
M. Nanduri
ebay Corporation
L. Jalil
Verizon
May 2018
OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown
 Abstract
When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the traffic
needs to be diverted from both ends of the link. Increasing the
metric to the highest value on one side of the link is not sufficient
to divert the traffic flowing in the other direction.
It is useful for the routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to
be able to advertise a link as being in a graceful-shutdown state to
indicate impending maintenance activity on the link. This
information can be used by the network devices to reroute the traffic
effectively.
This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate
graceful-link-shutdown information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8379.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 1 
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Flooding Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. OSPFv2 Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Remote IPv4 Address Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. OSPFv3 Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. BGP-LS Graceful-Link-Shutdown TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6. Distinguishing Parallel Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Point-to-Point Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Broadcast/NBMA Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Point-to-Multipoint Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4. Unnumbered Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Controller-Based Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.3. L3VPN Services and Sham Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4. Hub and Spoke Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
1. Introduction
This document describes a mechanism for gracefully taking a link out
of service while allowing it to be used if no other path is
available. It also provides a mechanism to divert the traffic from
both directions of the link.
Many OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 deployments run on overlay networks provisioned
by means of pseudowires or L2 circuits. Prior to devices in the
underlying network going offline for maintenance, it is useful to
divert the traffic away from the node before maintenance is actually
performed. Since the nodes in the underlying network are not visible
to OSPF, the existing stub-router mechanism described in [RFC 6987]
cannot be used. In a service provider's network, there may be many
CE-to-CE connections that run over a single PE. It is cumbersome to
change the metric on every CE-to-CE connection in both directions.
This document provides a mechanism to change the metric of the link
on the remote side and also use the link as a last-resort link if no
alternate paths are available. An application specific to this use
case is described in detail in Section 7.1.
This document provides mechanisms to advertise graceful-link-shutdown
state in the flexible encodings provided by "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link
Attribute Advertisement" [RFC 7684] and the E-Router-LSA [RFC 8362] for
OSPFv3. Throughout this document, OSPF is used when the text applies
to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is used when the text is
specific to one version of the OSPF protocol.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Motivation
The motivation of this document is to reduce manual intervention
during maintenance activities. The following objectives help to
accomplish this in a range of deployment scenarios.
1. Advertise impending maintenance activity so that traffic from
both directions can be diverted away from the link.
2. Allow the solution to be backward compatible so that nodes that
do not understand the new advertisement do not cause routing
loops.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
3. Advertise the maintenance activity to other nodes in the network
so that Label Switched Path (LSP) ingress routers/controllers can
learn about the impending maintenance activity and apply specific
policies to reroute the LSPs for deployments based on Traffic
Engineering (TE).
4. Allow the link to be used as a last-resort link to prevent
traffic disruption when alternate paths are not available.
3. Flooding Scope
The graceful-link-shutdown information is flooded in an area-scoped
Extended Link Opaque LSA [RFC 7684] for OSPFv2 and in an E-Router-LSA
for OSPFv3 [RFC 8362]. The Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV MAY be
processed by the head-end nodes or the controller as described in the
Section 7. The procedures for processing the Graceful-Link-Shutdown
sub-TLV are described in Section 5.
4. Protocol Extensions
4.1. OSPFv2 Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV
The Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV identifies the link as being
gracefully shutdown. It is advertised in the Extended Link TLV of
the Extended Link Opaque LSA as defined in [RFC 7684].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV for OSPFv2
Type: 7
Length: 0
4.2. Remote IPv4 Address Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV specifies the IPv4 address of the remote endpoint on the
link. It is advertised in the Extended Link TLV as defined in
[RFC 7684]. This sub-TLV is optional and MAY be advertised in an
area-scoped Extended Link Opaque LSA to identify the link when there
are multiple parallel links between two nodes.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Remote IPv4 Address Sub-TLV
Type: 8
Length: 4
Value: Remote IPv4 address. The remote IPv4 address is used to
identify a particular link on the remote side when there are multiple
parallel links between two nodes.
4.3. Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV specifies Local and Remote Interface IDs. It is
advertised in the Extended Link TLV as defined in [RFC 7684]. This
sub-TLV is optional and MAY be advertised in an area-scoped Extended
Link Opaque LSA to identify the link when there are multiple parallel
unnumbered links between two nodes. The Local Interface ID is
generally readily available. One of the mechanisms to obtain the
Remote Interface ID is described in [RFC 4203].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote Interface ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLV
Type: 9
Length: 8
Value: 4 octets of the Local Interface ID followed by 4 octets of the
Remote Interface ID.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
4.4. OSPFv3 Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV
The Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV is carried in the Router-Link TLV
as defined in [RFC 8362] for OSPFv3. The Router-Link TLV contains the
Neighbor Interface ID and can uniquely identify the link on the
remote node.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV for OSPFv3
Type: 8
Length: 0
4.5. BGP-LS Graceful-Link-Shutdown TLV
BGP-LS as defined in [RFC 7752] is a mechanism that distributes
network information to the external entities using the BGP routing
protocol. Graceful link shutdown is important link information that
the external entities can use for various use cases as defined in
Section 7. BGP Link Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) is
used to carry the link information. A new TLV called "Graceful-Link-
Shutdown" is defined to describe the link attribute corresponding to
graceful-link-shutdown state. The TLV format is as described in
Section 3.1 of [RFC 7752]. There is no Value field, and the Length
field is set to zero for this TLV.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Graceful-Link-Shutdown TLV for BGP-LS
Type: 1121
Length: 0
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
4.6. Distinguishing Parallel Links
++++++++++I.w I.y+++++++++++
|Router A|------------------|Router B |
| |------------------| |
++++++++++I.x I.z+++++++++++
Figure 6: Parallel Links
Consider two routers, A and B, connected with two parallel
point-to-point interfaces. I.w and I.x represent the interface
address on Router A's side, and I.y and I.z represent interface
addresses on Router B's side. The Extended Link Opaque LSA as
defined in [RFC 7684] describes links using Link Type, Link ID, and
Link Data. For example, a link with the address I.w is described as
below on Router A.
Link Type = Point-to-point
Link ID = Router ID of B
Link Data = I.w
A third node (controller or head-end) in the network cannot
distinguish the interface on Router B, which is connected to this
particular Interface on Router A based on the link information
described above. The interface with address I.y or I.z could be
chosen due to this ambiguity. In such cases, a Remote IPv4 Address
sub-TLV should be originated and added to the Extended Link TLV. The
use cases as described in Section 7 require controller or head-end
nodes to interpret the graceful-link-shutdown information and hence
the need for the Remote IPv4 Address sub-TLV. I.y is carried in the
Extended Link TLV, which unambiguously identifies the interface on
the remote side. The OSPFv3 Router-Link TLV as described in
[RFC 8362] contains an Interface ID and a neighbor's Interface ID,
which can uniquely identify connecting the interface on the remote
side; hence, OSPFv3 does not require a separate remote IPv6 address
to be advertised along with the OSPFv3 Graceful-Link-Shutdown
sub-TLV.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
5. Elements of Procedure
As defined in [RFC 7684], every link on the node will have a separate
Extended Link Opaque LSA. The node that has the link to be taken out
of service MUST advertise the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV in the
Extended Link TLV of the Extended Link Opaque LSA for OSPFv2, as
defined in [RFC 7684], and in the Router-Link TLV of E-Router-LSA for
OSPFv3. The Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV indicates that the link
identified by the sub-TLV is subjected to maintenance.
For the purposes of changing the metric OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 Router-LSAs
need to be reoriginated. To change the Traffic Engineering metric,
TE Opaque LSAs in OSPFv2 [RFC 3630] and Intra-area-TE-LSAs in OSPFv3
[RFC 5329] need to be reoriginated.
The graceful-link-shutdown information is advertised as a property of
the link and is flooded through the area. This information can be
used by ingress routers or controllers to take special actions. An
application specific to this use case is described in Section 7.2.
When a link is ready to carry traffic, the Graceful-Link-Shutdown
sub-TLV MUST be removed from the Extended Link TLV/Router-Link TLV,
and the corresponding LSAs MUST be readvertised. Similarly, the
metric MUST be set to original values, and the corresponding LSAs
MUST be readvertised.
The procedures described in this document may be used to divert the
traffic away from the link in scenarios other than link-shutdown or
link-replacement activity.
The precise action taken by the remote node at the other end of the
link identified for graceful-shutdown depends on the link type.
5.1. Point-to-Point Links
The node that has the link to be taken out of service MUST set the
metric of the link to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff) and reoriginate its
Router-LSA. The Traffic Engineering metric of the link SHOULD be set
to (0xffffffff), and the node SHOULD reoriginate the corresponding TE
Link Opaque LSAs. When a Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV is received
for a point-to-point link, the remote node MUST identify the local
link that corresponds to the graceful-shutdown link and set its
metric to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff), and the remote node MUST
reoriginate its Router-LSA with the changed metric. When TE is
enabled, the Traffic Engineering metric of the link SHOULD be set to
(0xffffffff) and follow the procedures in [RFC 5817]. Similarly, the
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
remote node SHOULD set the Traffic Engineering metric of the link to
0xffffffff and SHOULD reoriginate the TE Link Opaque LSA for the link
with the new value.
The Extended Link Opaque LSAs and the Extended Link TLV are not
scoped for multi-topology [RFC 4915]. In multi-topology deployments
[RFC 4915], the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV advertised in an
Extended Link Opaque LSA corresponds to all the topologies that
include the link. The receiver node SHOULD change the metric in the
reverse direction for all the topologies that include the remote link
and reoriginate the Router-LSA as defined in [RFC 4915].
When the originator of the Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV purges the
Extended Link Opaque LSA or reoriginates it without the
Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV, the remote node must reoriginate the
appropriate LSAs with the metric and TE metric values set to their
original values.
5.2. Broadcast/NBMA Links
Broadcast or Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) networks in OSPF are
represented by a star topology where the Designated Router (DR) is
the central point to which all other routers on the broadcast or NBMA
network logically connect. As a result, routers on the broadcast or
NBMA network advertise only their adjacency to the DR. Routers that
do not act as DRs do not form or advertise adjacencies with each
other. For the broadcast links, the MaxLinkMetric on the remote link
cannot be changed since all the neighbors are on same link. Setting
the link cost to MaxLinkMetric would impact all paths that traverse
any of the neighbors connected on that broadcast link.
The node that has the link to be taken out of service MUST set the
metric of the link to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff) and reoriginate the
Router-LSA. The Traffic Engineering metric of the link SHOULD be set
to (0xffffffff), and the node SHOULD reoriginate the corresponding TE
Link Opaque LSAs. For a broadcast link, the two-part metric as
described in [RFC 8042] is used. The node originating the
Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV MUST set the metric in the
Network-to-Router Metric sub-TLV to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff) for OSPFv2
and OSPFv3 and reoriginate the corresponding LSAs. The nodes that
receive the two-part metric should follow the procedures described in
[RFC 8042]. The backward-compatibility procedures described in
[RFC 8042] should be followed to ensure loop-free routing.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
5.3. Point-to-Multipoint Links
Operation for the point-to-multipoint (P2MP) links is similar to the
point-to-point links. When a Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV is
received for a point-to-multipoint link, the remote node MUST
identify the neighbor that corresponds to the graceful-shutdown link
and set its metric to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff). The remote node MUST
reoriginate the Router-LSA with the changed metric for the
corresponding neighbor.
5.4. Unnumbered Interfaces
Unnumbered interfaces do not have a unique IP address and borrow
their address from other interfaces. [RFC 2328] describes procedures
to handle unnumbered interfaces in the context of the Router-LSA. We
apply a similar procedure to the Extended Link TLV advertising the
Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV in order to handle unnumbered
interfaces. The Link-Data field in the Extended Link TLV includes
the Local Interface ID instead of the IP address. The Local/Remote
Interface ID sub-TLV MUST be advertised when there are multiple
parallel unnumbered interfaces between two nodes. One of the
mechanisms to obtain the Interface ID of the remote side is defined
in [RFC 4203].
5.5. Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP Interfaces
Hybrid Broadcast and P2MP interfaces represent a broadcast network
modeled as P2MP interfaces. [RFC 6845] describes procedures to handle
these interfaces. Operation for the Hybrid interfaces is similar to
operation for the P2MP interfaces. When a Graceful-Link-Shutdown
sub-TLV is received for a hybrid link, the remote node MUST identify
the neighbor that corresponds to the graceful-shutdown link and set
its metric to MaxLinkMetric (0xffff). All the remote nodes connected
to the originator MUST reoriginate the Router-LSA with the changed
metric for the neighbor.
6. Backward Compatibility
The mechanisms described in the document are fully backward
compatible. It is required that the node adverting the
Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV as well as the node at the remote end
of the graceful-shutdown link support the extensions described herein
for the traffic to be diverted from the graceful-shutdown link. If
the remote node doesn't support the capability, it will still use the
graceful-shutdown link, but there are no other adverse effects. In
the case of broadcast links using two-part metrics, the backward-
compatibility procedures as described in [RFC 8042] are applicable.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 10
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
7. Applications
7.1. Overlay Network
Many service providers offer L2 services to a customer connecting
different locations. The customer's IGP protocol creates a seamless
private network (overlay network) across the locations for the
customer. Service providers want to offer graceful-shutdown
functionality when the PE device is taken out for maintenance. There
can be large number of customers attached to a PE node, and the
remote endpoints for these L2 attachment circuits are spread across
the service provider's network. Changing the metric for all
corresponding L2 circuits in both directions is a tedious and error-
prone process. The graceful-link-shutdown feature simplifies the
process by increasing the metric on the CE-CE overlay link so that
traffic in both directions is diverted away from the PE undergoing
maintenance. The graceful-link-shutdown feature allows the link to
be used as a last-resort link so that traffic is not disrupted when
alternate paths are not available.
------PE3---------------PE4------CE3
/ \
/ \
CE1---------PE1----------PE2---------CE2
\
\
------CE4
CE: Customer Edge
PE: Provider Edge
Figure 7: Overlay Network
In the example shown in Figure 7, when the PE1 node is going out of
service for maintenance, a service provider sets the PE1 to stub-
router state and communicates the pending maintenance action to the
overlay customer networks. The mechanisms used to communicate
between PE1 and CE1 is outside the scope of this document. CE1 sets
the graceful-link-shutdown state on its links connecting CE3, CE2,
and CE4, changes the metric to MaxLinkMetric, and reoriginates the
corresponding LSA. The remote end of the link at CE3, CE2, and CE4
also set the metric on the link to MaxLinkMetric, and the traffic
from both directions gets diverted away from PE1.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 11
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
7.2. Controller-Based Deployments
In controller-based deployments where the controller participates in
the IGP protocol, the controller can also receive the
graceful-link-shutdown information as a warning that link maintenance
is imminent. Using this information, the controller can find
alternate paths for traffic that uses the affected link. The
controller can apply various policies and reroute the LSPs away from
the link undergoing maintenance. If there are no alternate paths
satisfying the constraints, the controller might temporarily relax
those constraints and put the service on a different path.
Increasing the link metric alone does not specify the maintenance
activity as the metric could increase in events such as LDP-IGP
synchronization. An explicit indication from the router using the
Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV is needed to inform the controller or
head-end routers.
_____________
| |
--------------| Controller |--------------
| |____________ | |
| |
|--------- Primary Path ------------------|
PE1---------P1----------------P2---------PE2
| |
| |
|________P3________|
Alternate Path
Figure 8: Controller-Based Traffic Engineering
In the above example, the PE1->PE2 LSP is set up to satisfy a
constraint of 10 Gbps bandwidth on each link. The links P1->P3 and
P3->P2 have only 1 Gbps capacity, and there is no alternate path
satisfying the bandwidth constraint of 10 Gbps. When the P1->P2 link
is being prepared for maintenance, the controller receives the
graceful-link-shutdown information, as there is no alternate path
available that satisfies the constraints, and the controller chooses
a path that is less optimal and temporarily sets up an alternate path
via P1->P3->P2. Once the traffic is diverted, the P1->P2 link can be
taken out of service for maintenance/upgrade.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 12
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
7.3. L3VPN Services and Sham Links
Many service providers offer Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN)
services to customers, and CE-PE links run OSPF [RFC 4577]. When the
PE is taken out of service for maintenance, all the links on the PE
can be set to graceful-link-shutdown state, which will guarantee that
the traffic to/from dual-homed CEs gets diverted. The interaction
between OSPF and BGP is outside the scope of this document. A
mechanism based on [RFC 6987] with summaries and externals that are
advertised with high metrics could also be used to achieve the same
functionality when implementations support high metrics advertisement
for summaries and externals.
Another useful use case is when ISPs provide sham-link services to
customers [RFC 4577]. When the PE goes out of service for
maintenance, all sham links on the PE can be set to graceful-link-
shutdown state, and traffic can be diverted from both ends without
having to touch the configurations on the remote end of the sham
links.
7.4. Hub and Spoke Deployment
OSPF is largely deployed in Hub and Spoke deployments with a large
number of Spokes connecting to the Hub. It is a general practice to
deploy multiple Hubs with all Spokes connecting to these Hubs to
achieve redundancy. The mechanism defined in [RFC 6987] can be used
to divert the Spoke-to-Spoke traffic from the overloaded Hub router.
The traffic that flows from Spokes via the Hub into an external
network may not be diverted in certain scenarios. When a Hub node
goes down for maintenance, all links on the Hub can be set to
graceful-link-shutdown state, and traffic gets diverted from the
Spoke sites as well without having to make configuration changes on
the Spokes.
8. Security Considerations
This document utilizes the OSPF packets and LSAs described in
[RFC 2328] , [RFC 3630], [RFC 5329], and [RFC 5340]. The authentication
procedures described in [RFC 2328] for OSPFv2 and [RFC 4552] for OSPFv3
are applicable to this document as well. This document does not
introduce any further security issues other than those discussed in
[RFC 2328] and [RFC 5340].
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 13
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
9. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following in the "OSPFv2 Extended Link TLV
Sub-TLVs" registry:
7 - Graceful-Link-Shutdown Sub-TLV
8 - Remote IPv4 Address Sub-TLV
9 - Local/Remote Interface ID Sub-TLV
IANA has registered the following value in the "OSPFv3 Extended-LSA
Sub-TLVs" registry:
8 - Graceful-Link-Shutdown sub-TLV
IANA has registered the following value in the "BGP-LS Node
Descriptor, Link Descriptor, Prefix Descriptor, and Attribute TLVs"
registry [RFC 7752]":
1121 - Graceful-Link-Shutdown TLV
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2328>.
[RFC 3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3630, September 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3630>.
[RFC 5329] Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5329, September 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5329>.
[RFC 5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5340>.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 14
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
[RFC 5817] Ali, Z., Vasseur, JP., Zamfir, A., and J. Newton,
"Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic
Engineering Networks", RFC 5817, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5817,
April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5817>.
[RFC 6845] Sheth, N., Wang, L., and J. Zhang, "OSPF Hybrid Broadcast
and Point-to-Multipoint Interface Type", RFC 6845,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6845, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6845>.
[RFC 6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6987, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6987>.
[RFC 7684] Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7684, November
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7684>.
[RFC 7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7752, March 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7752>.
[RFC 8042] Zhang, Z., Wang, L., and A. Lindem, "OSPF Two-Part
Metric", RFC 8042, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8042, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8042>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8362, April
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8362>.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 15
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
10.2. Informative References
[RFC 4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4203, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4203>.
[RFC 4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4552, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4552>.
[RFC 4577] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF as the
Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual
Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4577, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4577,
June 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4577>.
[RFC 4915] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF",
RFC 4915, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4915, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4915>.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Chris Bowers for valuable input and edits to the document.
Thanks to Jeffrey Zhang, Acee Lindem, and Ketan Talaulikar for their
input. Thanks to Karsten Thomann for careful review and input on the
applications where graceful link shutdown is useful.
Thanks to Alia Atlas, Deborah Brungard, Alvaro Retana, Andrew G.
Malis, and Tim Chown for their valuable input.
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 16
RFC 8379 OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown May 2018
Authors' Addresses
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Embassy Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560093
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Pushpasis Sarkar
Arrcus, Inc.
Email: pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Mohan Nanduri
ebay Corporation
2025 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 98052
United States of America
Email: mnanduri@ebay.com
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Hegde, et al. Standards Track PAGE 17
OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 37671 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Saturday, May 12th, 2018
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
