💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc4915.gmi captured on 2022-01-08 at 20:30:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: [--------|p], open shortest path first
Network Working Group P. Psenak
Request for Comments: 4915 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track S. Mirtorabi
Force10 Networks
A. Roy
L. Nguyen
P. Pillay-Esnault
Cisco Systems
June 2007
Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This document describes an extension to Open Shortest Path First
(OSPF) in order to define independent IP topologies called Multi-
Topologies (MTs). The Multi-Topologies extension can be used for
computing different paths for unicast traffic, multicast traffic,
different classes of service based on flexible criteria, or an in-
band network management topology.
An optional extension to exclude selected links from the default
topology is also described.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Differences between Multi-Topology and TOS-Based
Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Base MT Functional Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. MT Area Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Adjacency for MTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Sending OSPF Control Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Advertising MT Adjacencies and the Corresponding IP
Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. Inter-Area and External Routing . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Flushing MT Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.6. MT SPF Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. MT-ID Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.8. Forwarding in MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Default Topology Link Exclusion Functional Specifications . . 7
4.1. Exclusion of Links in the Default Topology . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. New Area Data Structure Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Adjacency Formation with Link Exclusion Capability . . . . 8
4.4. OSPF Control Packets Transmission over Excluded Links . . 9
4.5. OSPF LSA Advertisement and SPF Computation for
Excluded Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Interoperability between MT-Capable and Non-MT-Capable
Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Demand Circuit Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . 10
6. Migration from Non-MT-Area to MT-Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. MT Network Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Create Dedicated Management Topology to Include All
the Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Extend the Default Topology to All the Nodes . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. OSPF Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.1. Router-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.2. Network-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B.3. Summary-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B.4. AS-external-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B.5. Type-7 AS-external-LSAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
1. Introduction
OSPF uses a fixed packet format, therefore it is not easy to
introduce any backward-compatible extensions. However, the OSPF
specification [OSPF] introduced Type of Service (TOS) metric in an
earlier specification [TOS-OSPF] in order to announce a different
link cost based on TOS. TOS-based routing as described in [TOS-OSPF]
was never deployed and was subsequently deprecated. [M-ISIS]
describes a similar mechanism for ISIS.
We propose to reuse the TOS-based metric fields. They have been
redefined and are used to advertise different topologies by
advertising separate metrics for each of them.
1.1. Differences between Multi-Topology and TOS-Based Routing
Multi-Topology routing differs from [TOS-OSPF] TOS-based routing in
the following ways:
1. With TOS routing [TOS-OSPF], the TOS or Diffserv Code Point
(DSCP) in the IP header is mapped directly to the corresponding
OSPF SPF calculation and routing table. This limits the number
and definition of the topologies to the 16 TOS values specified
in Section 12.3 of [TOS-OSPF]. With Multi-Topology routing, the
classification of what type of traffic maps to which topology is
not within the scope of this document.
2. With TOS routing [TOS-OSPF], traffic that is unreachable in the
routing table associated with the corresponding TOS will revert
to the TOS 0 routing table. With Multi-Topology routing, this is
optional.
3. With TOS routing [TOS-OSPF], individual links or prefixes could
not be excluded from a topology. If the Link State Advertisement
(LSA) options T-bit was set, all links or prefixes were either
advertised explicitly or defaulted to the TOS 0 metric. With
Multi-Topology routing, links or prefixes that are not advertised
for a specific topology do not exist in that topology.
2. Terminology
2.1. 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 RFC 2119
[RFC-KEYWORDS].
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
2.2. Terms
We use the following terminology in this document:
Non-MT router
Routers that do not have the MT capability.
MT router
Routers that have MT capability as described in this document.
MT-ID
Renamed TOS field in LSAs to represent Multi-Topology ID.
Default topology
Topology that is built using the TOS 0 metric (default metric).
MT topology
Topology that is built using the corresponding MT-ID metric.
MT
Shorthand notation for MT topology.
MT#0 topology
Representation of TOS 0 metric in MT-ID format.
Non-MT-Area
An area that contains only non-MT routers.
MT-Area
An area that contains both non-MT routers and MT routers, or only
MT routers.
3. Base MT Functional Specifications
3.1. MT Area Boundary
Each OSPF interface belongs to a single area, and all MTs sharing
that link need to belong to the same area. Therefore, the area
boundaries for all MTs are the same, but each MT's attachment to the
area is independent.
3.2. Adjacency for MTs
Each interface can be configured to belong to a set of topologies. A
single adjacency is formed with neighbors on the interface even if
the interface is configured to participate in multiple topologies.
Furthermore, adjacency formation is independent of the topologies
configured on the local interface and the neighboring router.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
3.3. Sending OSPF Control Packets
Sending OSPF control packets is unchanged from [OSPF]. For OSPF
control packets sent to the remote end of a virtual link, the transit
area path MUST be composed of links participating in the default
topology and the OSPF control packets MUST be forwarded using the
default topology.
3.4. Advertising MT Adjacencies and the Corresponding IP Prefixes
The TOS metric field is reused to advertise topology specific metric
for links and prefixes belonging to that topology. The TOS field is
redefined as MT-ID in the payload of Router, Summary, and Type-5 and
Type-7 AS-external-LSAs (see Appendix B).
MT-ID metrics in LSAs SHOULD be in ascending order of MT-ID. If an
MT-ID exists in an LSA or router link multiple times, the metric in
the first MT-ID instance MUST be used.
When a router establishes a FULL adjacency over a link that belongs
to a set of MTs, it advertises the corresponding cost for each MT-ID.
By default, all links are included in the default topology and all
advertised prefixes belonging to the default topology will use the
TOS 0 metric as in [OSPF].
Each MT has its own MT-ID metric field. When a link is not part of a
given MT, the corresponding MT-ID metric is excluded from the LSA.
The Network-LSA does not contain any MT information since the
Designated Router (DR) is shared by all MTs. Hence, there is no
change to the Network-LSA.
3.4.1. Inter-Area and External Routing
In Summary-LSAs and Type-5 and Type-7 AS-external-LSAs, the TOS
metric fields are redefined as MT-ID metric fields and are used to
advertise prefix and router reachability in the corresponding
topology.
When a router originates a Summary-LSA, or Type-5 or Type-7 AS-
external-LSA that belongs to a set of MTs, it includes the
corresponding cost for each MT-ID. By default, the prefix
participates in the default topology and uses the TOS 0 metric for
the default topology, similar to standard OSPF [OSPF].
Setting the P-bit in Type-7 AS-external-LSA is topology independent
and pertains to all MT-ID advertised in the body of the LSA.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
3.5. Flushing MT Information
When a certain link or prefix that existed or was reachable in a
certain topology is no longer part of that topology or is unreachable
in that topology, a new version of the LSA MUST be originated
excluding metric information representing the link or prefix in that
topology.
The MT metric in the Router-LSA can also be set to the maximum
possible metric to enable the router to become a stub in a certain
topology [STUB].
3.6. MT SPF Computation
By considering MT-ID metrics in the LSAs, OSPF computes multiple
topologies and finds paths to IP prefixes for each MT independently.
A separate SPF will be computed for each MT-ID to find independent
paths to IP prefixes.
Network-LSAs are used by all topologies during the SPF computation.
During the SPF for a given MT-ID, only the links and metrics for that
MT-ID are considered. Entries in the Router Routing table are also
MT-ID specific.
3.7. MT-ID Values
Since AS-External-LSAs use the high-order bit in the MT-ID field
(E-bit) for the external metric-type, only MT-IDs in the 0 to 127
range are valid. The following MT-ID values are reserved:
0 - Reserved for advertising the metric associated
with the default topology (see Section 4.2)
1 - Reserved for advertising the metric associated
with the default multicast topology
2 - Reserved for IPv4 in-band management purposes
3-31 - Reserved for assignments by IANA
32-127 - Reserved for development, experimental and
proprietary features [RFC3692]
128-255 - Invalid and SHOULD be ignored
3.8. Forwarding in MT
It is outside of the scope of this document to specify how the
information in various topology specific forwarding structures are
used during packet forwarding or how incoming packets are associated
with the corresponding topology. For correct operation, both
forwarding behavior and methods of associating incoming packets to a
corresponding topology must be consistently applied in the network.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
4. Default Topology Link Exclusion Functional Specifications
The Multi-Topologies imply that all the routers participate in the
default topology. However, it can be useful to exclude some links
from the default topology and reserve them for some specific classes
of traffic.
The Multi-Topologies extension for the default topology link or
prefix exclusion is described in the following subsections.
4.1. Exclusion of Links in the Default Topology
OSPF does not have the notion of an unreachable link. All links can
have a maximum metric of 0xFFFF advertised in the Router-LSA. The
link exclusion capability requires routers to ignore TOS 0 metrics in
Router-LSAs in the default topology and to alternately use the MT-
ID#0 metric to advertise the metric associated with the default
topology. Hence, all routers within an area MUST agree on how the
metric for the default topology will be advertised.
The unused T-bit is defined as the MT-bit in the option field in
order to ensure that a Multi-Topology link-excluding capable router
will only form an adjacency with another similarly configured router.
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|DN |O |DC |EA |NP |MC |E |MT |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Figure 1: OSPF Option Bits
MT-bit: If DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled, the bit MUST
be set in Hello packets and SHOULD be set in Database
Description packet (see Section 4.2).
4.2. New Area Data Structure Parameter
We define a new parameter in the Area Data Structure:
DefaultExclusionCapability
This configurable parameter ensures that all routers in an area
have this capability enabled before the default topology can be
disabled on a router link in the area without causing backward-
compatibility problems.
When an area data structure is created, the
DefaultExclusionCapability is disabled by default.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
If DefaultExclusionCapability is disabled:
o The MT-bit MUST be cleared in Hello packets and SHOULD be cleared
in Database Description packets.
o If a link participates in a non-default topology, it is
automatically included in the default topology to support backward
compatibility between MT and non-MT routers. This is accomplished
using the TOS 0 metric field as in [OSPF].
If DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled:
o The MT-bit MUST be set in Hello packets and SHOULD be set in
Database Description packets.
o The router will only accept a Hello packet if the MT-bit is set
(see Section 4.3).
When DefaultExclusionCapability is set to enabled, a router is said
to be operating in DefaultExclusionCapability mode.
4.3. Adjacency Formation with Link Exclusion Capability
In order to have a smooth transition from a non-MT area to an MT-
area, an MT router with DefaultExclusionCapability disabled will form
adjacencies with non-MT routers and will include all links as part of
the default topology.
A link may cease participating in the default topology if
DefaultExclusionCapability is set to enabled. In this state, a
router will only form adjacency with routers that set the MT-bit in
their Hello packets. This will ensure that all routers have
DefaultExclusionCapability enabled before the default topology can be
disabled on a link.
Receiving OSPF Hello packets as defined in Section 10.5 of [OSPF] is
modified as follows:
o If the DefaultExclusionCapability in the Area Data structure is
set to enabled, Hello packets are discarded if the received packet
does not have the MT-bit set in the Header Options.
Receiving OSPF Database Description packets as defined in Section
10.6 of [OSPF] is unchanged. While packet options are validated in
Hello packets, the only option checking performed for Database
Description packets is ensuring that the options do not change during
the database exchange process.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
4.4. OSPF Control Packets Transmission over Excluded Links
If DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled, the default topology can be
disabled on an interface. Disabling the default topology on an
interface does not impact the installation of connected routes for
the interface in the default topology. It only affects what a router
advertises in its Router-LSA.
This allows OSPF control packets to be sent and received over an
interface even if the default topology is disabled on the interface.
4.5. OSPF LSA Advertisement and SPF Computation for Excluded Links
When DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled and the link does not
participate in the default topology, the MT-ID#0 metric is not
advertised. The link's TOS 0 metric is ignored during the default
topology SPF computation.
When DefaultExclusionCapability is enabled and a link participates in
the default topology, MT-ID#0 metric is used to advertise the metric
associated with the default topology. The link's TOS 0 metric is
ignored during the default topology SPF computation.
Independent of the DefaultExclusionCapability, the TOS 0 metric is
used for Summary-LSAs and Type-5 and Type-7 AS-external-LSAs.
o If the prefix or router does not exist in the default topology,
the TOS 0 metric is set to infinity (0xFFFFFF).
o If the prefix or router exists in the default topology, the TOS 0
metric is used to advertise the metric in the default topology.
During the summary and external prefix calculation for the default
topology, the TOS 0 metric is used for Summary-LSAs and Type-5 and
Type-7 AS-external-LSAs.
5. Interoperability between MT-Capable and Non-MT-Capable Routers
The default metric field is mandatory in all LSAs (even when the
metric value is 0). Even when a link or prefix does not exist in the
default topology, a non-MT router will consider the zero value in the
metric field as a valid metric and consider the link or prefix as
part of the default topology.
In order to prevent the above problem, an MT-capable router will
include all links as part of the default topology. If links need to
be removed from the default topology, an MT-capable router must be
configured in DefaultExclusionCapability mode. In this mode, routers
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
will ensure that all other routers in the area are in the
DefaultExclusionCapability mode before considering the MT-ID#0 metric
in the SPF calculation. Only then can the TOS 0 metric field in
Router-LSAs be safely ignored during the default topology SPF
computation.
Note that for any prefix or router to become reachable in a certain
topology, a contiguous path inside that topology must exist between
the calculating router and the destination prefix or router.
5.1. Demand Circuit Compatibility Considerations
A change to an area's DefaultExclusionCapability requires additional
processing for area neighbors that are suppressing Hello packets as
specified in "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits" [DEMAND].
When the DefaultExclusionCapability for an area is changed, Hello
suppression must be disabled for these neighbors for a period of
RouterDeadInterval seconds. This implies that Hello packets are sent
with the DC-bit clear as specified in Section 3.2.1 of [DEMAND]
during this period. After RouterDeadInterval seconds, either the
adjacency will be taken down due to rejection of Hello packets with a
conflicting MT-bit or Hello suppression will be renegotiated.
6. Migration from Non-MT-Area to MT-Area
Introducing MT-OSPF into a network can be done gradually to allow MT
routers and non-MT routers to participate in the default topology
while MT routers participate in other topologies.
If there is a requirement to exclude some links from the default
topology in an area, all routers in the area MUST be in
DefaultExclusionCapability mode. In this section, we describe the
migration steps to consider while transitioning from a non-MT network
to an MT network.
Consider a network with a backbone area and a set of non-backbone
areas functioning in standard OSPF mode. We would like to migrate to
an MT network either partially or completely.
1. As required, part of an area is upgraded to be MT capable. The
MT routers will interact with non-MT routers in the default
topology and participate in other topologies as required.
2. If a new non-backbone area is created for MT routers, it may be
configured in DefaultExclusionCapability mode since there is no
interaction required with non-MT routers. In this mode, the
default topology can be excluded on links as required.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
3. If there are several non-backbone areas where MT is being used,
it is desirable that the backbone area first be upgraded to be MT
capable so that inter-area routing is ensured for MT destinations
in different areas.
4. Gradually, the whole network can be made MT capable.
Note that inter-area routing for the MT-area still depends on the
backbone area. Therefore, if different areas configured for a given
topology need to communicate, the backbone area also needs to be
configured for this topology.
7. MT Network Management Considerations
When multiple OSPF topologies exist within a domain, some of the
routers can be configured to participate in a subset of the MTs in
the network. This section discusses some of the options we have to
enable operations or the network management stations to access those
routers.
7.1. Create Dedicated Management Topology to Include All the Nodes
This approach is to set up a dedicated management topology or 'in-
band' management topology. This 'mgmt' topology will include all the
routers need to be managed. The computed routes in the topology will
be installed into the 'mgmt' Routing Information Base (RIB). In the
condition of the 'mgmt' topology uses a set of non-overlapping
address space with the default topology, those 'mgmt' routes can also
be optionally installed into the default RIB. The advantages of
duplicate 'mgmt' routes in both RIBs include: the network management
utilities on the system do not have to be modified to use specific
RIB other than the default RIB; the 'mgmt' topology can share the
same link with the default topology if so designed.
7.2. Extend the Default Topology to All the Nodes
Even in the case in which default topology is not used on some of the
nodes in the IP forwarding, we may want to extend the default
topology to those nodes for the purpose of network management.
Operators SHOULD set a high cost on the links that belong to the
extended portion of the default topology. This way, the IP data
traffic will not be forwarded through those nodes during network
topology changes.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not raise any security issues that are not already
covered in [OSPF].
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
9. IANA Considerations
The T-bit as defined in [TOS-OSPF] for a router's TOS capability is
redefined as the MT-bit in this document. IANA has assigned the MT-
bit as defined in Section 4.1.
Similarly, the TOS field for Router-LSAs, Summary-LSAs, and Type-5
and Type-7 AS-external-LSAs, as defined in [OSPF], is redefined as
MT-ID in Section 3.7.
IANA created a new registry, "OSPF Multi-Topology ID Values", with
the assignments and registration policies listed in Section 3.7 of
this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[DEMAND] Moy, J., "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits",
RFC 1793, April 1995.
[NSSA] Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
Option", RFC 3101, January 2003.
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC-KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing
Numbers Considered Useful", RFC 3692, January 2004.
[TOS-OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1583, March 1994.
10.2. Informative References
[M-ISIS] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS:
Multi Topology (MT) Routing in IS-IS", Work
in Progress, October 2005.
[STUB] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement",
RFC 3137, June 2001.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Scott Sturgess, Alvaro Retana, David
Kushi, Yakov Rekhter, Tony Przygienda, and Naiming Shen for their
comments on the document. Special thanks to Acee Lindem for editing
and to Tom Henderson for an extensive review during the OSPF Working
Group last call.
Appendix B. OSPF Data Formats
LSA content defined in [OSPF] is modified to introduce the MT-ID.
B.1. Router-LSAs
Router-LSAs are the Type 1 LSAs. Each router in an area originates a
router-LSA. The LSA describes the state and cost of the router's
links (i.e., interfaces) to the area. All of the router's links to
the area must be described in a single router-LSA. For details
concerning the construction of router-LSAs, see Section 12.4.1 of
[OSPF].
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|*|*|*|N|W|V|E|B| 0 | # links |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | # MT-ID | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | 0 | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | 0 | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
Figure 2: Router-LSA Format
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
B.2. Network-LSAs
Network-LSAs are the Type 2 LSAs. A network-LSA is originated for
each broadcast and Non-Broadcast Multi-Access (NBMA) network in the
area that supports two or more routers. The network-LSA is
originated by the network's Designated Router. The LSA describes all
routers attached to the network, including the Designated Router
itself. The LSA's Link State ID field lists the IP interface address
of the Designated Router.
The distance from the network to all attached routers is zero. This
is why metric fields need not be specified in the network-LSA. For
details concerning the construction of network-LSAs, see Section
12.4.2 of [OSPF].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attached Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
Figure 3: Network-LSA Format
Note that network-LSA does not contain any MT-ID fields as the cost
of the network to the attached routers is 0 and DR is shared by all
topologies.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
B.3. Summary-LSAs
Summary-LSAs are the Type 3 and 4 LSAs. These LSAs are originated by
area border routers. Summary-LSAs describe inter-area destinations.
For details concerning the construction of summary-LSAs, see Section
12.4.3 of [OSPF].
Type 3 summary-LSAs are used when the destination is an IP network.
In this case the LSA's Link State ID field is an IP network number
(if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one or more of the
network's "host" bits set; see Appendix E of [OSPF] for details).
When the destination is an AS boundary router, a Type 4 summary-LSA
is used, and the Link State ID field is the AS boundary router's OSPF
Router ID. (To see why it is necessary to advertise the location of
each ASBR, consult Section 16.4 of [OSPF].) Other than the
difference in the Link State ID field, the format of Type 3 and 4
summary-LSAs is identical.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 3 or 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Summary-LSA Format
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
B.4. AS-external-LSAs
AS-external-LSAs are the Type 5 LSAs. These LSAs are originated by
AS boundary routers, and describe destinations external to the AS.
For details concerning the construction of AS-external-LSAs, see
Section 12.4.3 of [OSPF].
AS-external-LSAs usually describe a particular external destination.
For these LSAs, the Link State ID field specifies an IP network
number (if necessary, the Link State ID can also have one or more of
the network's "host" bits set; see Appendix E of [OSPF] for details).
AS-external-LSAs are also used to describe a default route. Default
routes are used when no specific route exists to the destination.
When describing a default route, the Link State ID is always set to
DefaultDestination (0.0.0.0) and the Network Mask is set to 0.0.0.0.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS age | Options | 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link State ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Network Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| 0 | metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|E| MT-ID | MT-ID metric |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Forwarding address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| External Route Tag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: AS-External-LSA Format
B.5. Type-7 AS-external-LSAs
Type-7 AS-external-LSAs are originated by AS boundary routers local
to an NSSA (Not-So-Stubby Area), and describe destinations external
to the AS. The changes to Type-7 AS-external-LSAs are identical to
those for AS-external-LSAs (Appendix A.4.5 of [OSPF]). For details
concerning the construction of Type-7 AS-external-LSAs, see Section
2.4 of [NSSA].
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
Authors' Addresses
Peter Psenak
Cisco Systems
Mlynske Nivy 43
821 09
Bratislava
Slovakia
EMail: ppsenak@cisco.com
Sina Mirtorabi
Force10 Networks
1440 McCarthy Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
EMail: sina@force10networks.com
Abhay Roy
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: akr@cisco.com
Liem Nguyen
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: lhnguyen@cisco.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault
Cisco Systems
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
EMail: ppe@cisco.com
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 4915 Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF June 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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, 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Psenak, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]