💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc5250.txt captured on 2022-04-28 at 21:26:59.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group L. Berger
Request for Comments: 5250 LabN
Obsoletes: 2370 I. Bryskin
Category: Standards Track Adva
A. Zinin
Alcatel-Lucent
R. Coltun
Acoustra Productions
July 2008
The OSPF Opaque LSA Option
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.
Abstract
This document defines enhancements to the OSPF protocol to support a
new class of link state advertisements (LSAs) called Opaque LSAs.
Opaque LSAs provide a generalized mechanism to allow for the future
extensibility of OSPF. Opaque LSAs consist of a standard LSA header
followed by application-specific information. The information field
may be used directly by OSPF or by other applications. Standard OSPF
link-state database flooding mechanisms are used to distribute Opaque
LSAs to all or some limited portion of the OSPF topology.
This document replaces RFC 2370 and adds to it a mechanism to enable
an OSPF router to validate Autonomous System (AS)-scope Opaque LSAs
originated outside of the router's OSPF area.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Organization of This Document ..............................3
1.2. Acknowledgments ............................................3
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................4
3. The Opaque LSA ..................................................4
3.1. Flooding Opaque LSAs .......................................5
3.2. Modifications to the Neighbor State Machine ................6
4. Protocol Data Structures ........................................7
4.1. Additions to the OSPF Neighbor Structure ...................8
5. Inter-Area Considerations .......................................8
6. Management Considerations .......................................9
7. Backward Compatibility ..........................................9
8. Security Considerations .........................................9
9. IANA Considerations ............................................11
10. References ....................................................12
10.1. Normative References .....................................12
10.2. Informative References ...................................12
Appendix A. OSPF Data formats .....................................13
A.1. The Options Field .........................................13
A.2. The Opaque LSA ............................................14
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
1. Introduction
Over the last several years, the OSPF routing protocol [OSPF] has
been widely deployed throughout the Internet. As a result of this
deployment and the evolution of networking technology, OSPF has been
extended to support many options; this evolution will obviously
continue.
This document defines enhancements to the OSPF protocol to support a
new class of link state advertisements (LSAs) called Opaque LSAs.
Opaque LSAs provide a generalized mechanism to allow for the future
extensibility of OSPF. The information contained in Opaque LSAs may
be used directly by OSPF or indirectly by some application wishing to
distribute information throughout the OSPF domain. The exact use of
Opaque LSAs is beyond the scope of this document.
Opaque LSAs consist of a standard LSA header followed by a 32-bit
aligned application-specific information field. Like any other LSA,
the Opaque LSA uses the link-state database distribution mechanism
for flooding this information throughout the topology. The link-
state type field of the Opaque LSA identifies the LSA's range of
topological distribution. This range is referred to as the flooding
scope.
It is envisioned that an implementation of the Opaque option provides
an application interface for 1) encapsulating application-specific
information in a specific Opaque type, 2) sending and receiving
application-specific information, and 3) if required, informing the
application of the change in validity of previously received
information when topological changes are detected.
1.1. Organization of This Document
This document first defines the three types of Opaque LSAs followed
by a description of OSPF packet processing. The packet processing
sections include modifications to the flooding procedure and to the
neighbor state machine. Appendix A then gives the packet formats.
1.2. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Acee Lindem for his detailed review and useful
feedback. The handling of AS-scope Opaque LSAs described in this
document is taken from "Validation of OSPF AS-scope opaque LSAs"
(April 2006).
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
3. The Opaque LSA
Opaque LSAs are types 9, 10, and 11 link state advertisements.
Opaque LSAs consist of a standard LSA header followed by a 32-bit
aligned application-specific information field. Standard link-state
database flooding mechanisms are used for distribution of Opaque
LSAs. The range of topological distribution (i.e., the flooding
scope) of an Opaque LSA is identified by its link-state type. This
section documents the flooding of Opaque LSAs.
The flooding scope associated with each Opaque link-state type is
defined as follows.
o Link-state type-9 denotes a link-local scope. Type-9 Opaque LSAs
are not flooded beyond the local (sub)network.
o Link-state type-10 denotes an area-local scope. Type-10 Opaque
LSAs are not flooded beyond the borders of their associated area.
o Link-state type-11 denotes that the LSA is flooded throughout the
Autonomous System (AS). The flooding scope of type-11 LSAs are
equivalent to the flooding scope of AS-External (type-5) LSAs.
Specifically, type-11 Opaque LSAs are 1) flooded throughout all
transit areas, 2) not flooded into stub areas or Not-So-Stubby
Areas (NSSAs), see [NSSA], from the backbone, and 3) not
originated by routers into their connected stub areas or NSSAs.
As with type-5 LSAs, if a type-11 Opaque LSA is received in a stub
area or NSSA from a neighboring router within the stub area or
NSSA, the LSA is rejected.
The link-state ID of the Opaque LSA is divided into an Opaque type
field (the first 8 bits) and a type-specific ID (the remaining 24
bits). The packet format of the Opaque LSA is given in Appendix A.
Section 7 describes Opaque type allocation and assignment.
The responsibility for proper handling of the Opaque LSA's flooding
scope is placed on both the sender and receiver of the LSA. The
receiver must always store a valid received Opaque LSA in its link-
state database. The receiver must not accept Opaque LSAs that
violate the flooding scope (e.g., a type-11 (domain-wide) Opaque LSA
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
is not accepted in a stub area or NSSA). The flooding scope affects
both the synchronization of the link-state database and the flooding
procedure.
The following describes the modifications to these procedures that
are necessary to insure conformance to the Opaque LSA's Scoping
Rules.
3.1. Flooding Opaque LSAs
The flooding of Opaque LSAs MUST follow the rules of flooding scope
as specified in this section. Section 13 of [OSPF] describes the
OSPF flooding procedure. Those procedures MUST be followed as
defined except where modified in this section. The following
describes the Opaque LSA's type-specific flooding restrictions.
o If the Opaque LSA is type-9 (the flooding scope is link-local) and
the interface that the LSA was received on is not the same as the
target interface (e.g., the interface associated with a particular
target neighbor), the Opaque LSA MUST be discarded and not
acknowledged. An implementation SHOULD keep track of the IP
interface associated with each Opaque LSA having a link-local
flooding scope.
o If the Opaque LSA is type-10 (the flooding scope is area-local)
and the area associated with the Opaque LSA (as identified during
origination or from a received LSA's associated OSPF packet
header) is not the same as the area associated with the target
interface, the Opaque LSA MUST be discarded and not acknowledged.
An implementation SHOULD keep track of the OSPF area associated
with each Opaque LSA having an area-local flooding scope.
o If the Opaque LSA is type-11 (the LSA is flooded throughout the
AS) and the target interface is associated with a stub area or
NSSA, the Opaque LSA MUST NOT be flooded out the interface. A
type-11 Opaque LSA that is received on an interface associated
with a stub area or NSSA MUST be discarded and not acknowledged
(the neighboring router has flooded the LSA in error).
When opaque-capable routers and non-opaque-capable OSPF routers are
mixed together in a routing domain, the Opaque LSAs are typically not
flooded to the non-opaque-capable routers. As a general design
principle, optional OSPF advertisements are only flooded to those
routers that understand them.
An opaque-capable router learns of its neighbor's opaque capability
at the beginning of the "Database Exchange Process" (see Section 10.6
of [OSPF] regarding receiving Database Description packets from a
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
neighbor in state ExStart). A neighbor is opaque-capable if and only
if it sets the O-bit in the Options field of its Database Description
packets; the O-bit SHOULD NOT be set and MUST be ignored when
received in packets other than Database Description packets. Using
the O-bit in OSPF packets other than Database Description packets
will result in interoperability issues. The setting of the O-bit is
a "SHOULD NOT" rather than a "MUST NOT" to remain compatible with
earlier specifications.
In the next step of the Database Exchange process, Opaque LSAs are
included in the Database summary list that is sent to the neighbor
(see Sections 3.2 below and 10.3 of [OSPF]) when the neighbor is
opaque capable.
When flooding Opaque LSAs to adjacent neighbors, an opaque-capable
router looks at the neighbor's opaque capability. Opaque LSAs are
only flooded to opaque-capable neighbors. To be more precise, in
Section 13.3 of [OSPF], Opaque LSAs MUST be placed on the link-state
retransmission lists of opaque-capable neighbors and MUST NOT be
placed on the link-state retransmission lists of non-opaque-capable
neighbors. However, when sending Link State Update packets as
multicasts, a non-opaque-capable neighbor may (inadvertently) receive
Opaque LSAs. The non-opaque-capable router will then simply discard
the LSA (see Section 13 of [OSPF] regarding receiving LSAs having
unknown LS types).
Information contained in received Opaque LSAs SHOULD only be used
when the router originating the LSA is reachable. As mentioned in
[OSPFv3], reachability validation MAY be done less frequently than
every SPF calculation. Additionally, routers processing received
Opaque LSAs MAY choose to give priority to processing base OSPF LSA
types over Opaque LSA types.
3.2. Modifications to the Neighbor State Machine
The state machine as it exists in Section 10.3 of [OSPF] remains
unchanged except for the action associated with State: ExStart,
Event: NegotiationDone, which is where the Database summary list is
built. To incorporate the Opaque LSA in OSPF, this action is changed
to the following.
State(s): ExStart
Event: NegotiationDone
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
New state: Exchange
Action: The router MUST list the contents of its entire area
link-state database in the neighbor Database summary
list. The area link-state database consists of the
Router LSAs, Network LSAs, Summary LSAs, type-9 Opaque
LSAs, and type-10 Opaque LSAs contained in the area
structure, along with AS External and type-11 Opaque LSAs
contained in the global structure. AS External and
type-11 Opaque LSAs MUST be omitted from a virtual
neighbor's Database summary list. AS External LSAs and
type-11 Opaque LSAs MUST be omitted from the Database
summary list if the area has been configured as a stub
area or NSSA (see Section 3.6 of [OSPF]).
Type-9 Opaque LSAs MUST be omitted from the Database
summary list if the interface associated with the
neighbor is not the interface associated with the Opaque
LSA (as noted upon reception).
Any advertisement whose age is equal to MaxAge MUST be
omitted from the Database summary list. It MUST instead
be added to the neighbor's link-state retransmission
list. A summary of the Database summary list will be
sent to the neighbor in Database Description packets.
Only one Database Description Packet is allowed to be
outstanding at any one time. For more detail on the
sending and receiving of Database Description packets,
see Sections 10.6 and 10.8 of [OSPF].
4. Protocol Data Structures
The Opaque option is described herein in terms of its operation on
various protocol data structures. These data structures are included
for explanatory uses only. They are not intended to constrain an
implementation. In addition to the data structures listed below,
this specification references the various data structures (e.g., OSPF
neighbors) defined in [OSPF].
In an OSPF router, the following item is added to the list of global
OSPF data structures described in Section 5 of [OSPF]:
o Opaque capability. Indicates whether the router is running the
Opaque option (i.e., capable of storing Opaque LSAs). Such a
router will continue to interoperate with non-opaque-capable OSPF
routers.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
4.1. Additions to the OSPF Neighbor Structure
The OSPF neighbor structure is defined in Section 10 of [OSPF]. In
an opaque-capable router, the following items are added to the OSPF
neighbor structure:
o Neighbor Options. This field was already defined in the OSPF
specification. However, in opaque-capable routers, there is a new
option that indicates the neighbor's Opaque capability. This new
option is learned in the Database Exchange process through
reception of the neighbor's Database Description packets and
determines whether Opaque LSAs are flooded to the neighbor. For a
more detailed explanation of the flooding of the Opaque LSA, see
Section 3 of this document.
5. Inter-Area Considerations
As defined above, link-state type-11 Opaque LSAs are flooded
throughout the Autonomous System (AS). One issue related to such
AS-scoped Opaque LSAs is that there must be a way for OSPF routers in
remote areas to check availability of the LSA originator.
Specifically, if an OSPF router originates a type-11 LSA and, after
that, goes out of service, OSPF routers located outside of the
originator's OSPF area have no way of detecting this fact and may use
the stale information for a considerable period of time (up to 60
minutes). This could prove to be suboptimal for some applications
and may result in others not functioning.
Type-9 Opaque LSAs and type-10 Opaque LSAs do not have this problem
as a receiving router can detect if the advertising router is
reachable within the LSA's respective flooding scope. In the case of
type-9 LSAs, the originating router must be an OSPF neighbor in
Exchange state or greater. In the case of type-10 Opaque LSAs, the
intra-area SPF calculation will determine the advertising router's
reachability.
There is a parallel issue in OSPF for the AS-scoped AS External LSAs
(type-5 LSAs). OSPF addresses this by using AS border information
advertised in AS boundary router (ASBR) Summary LSAs (type-4 LSAs);
see Section 16.4 of [OSPF]. This same mechanism is reused by this
document for type-11 Opaque LSAs.
To enable OSPF routers in remote areas to check availability of the
originator of link-state type-11 Opaque LSAs, the originators
advertise themselves as ASBRs. This will enable routers to track the
reachability of the LSA originator either directly via the SPF
calculation (for routers in the same area) or indirectly via type-4
LSAs originated by ABRs (for routers in other areas). It is
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
important to note that per [OSPF], this solution does not apply to
OSPF stub areas or NSSAs as AS-scoped Opaque LSAs are not flooded
into these area types.
The procedures related to inter-area Opaque LSAs are as follows:
(1) An OSPF router that is configured to originate AS-scope opaque
LSAs will advertise itself as an ASBR and MUST follow the
requirements related to setting of the Options field E-bit in
OSPF LSA headers as specified in [OSPF].
(2) When processing a received type-11 Opaque LSA, the router MUST
look up the routing table entries (potentially one per attached
area) for the ASBR that originated the LSA. If no entries exist
for the ASBR (i.e., the ASBR is unreachable), the router MUST do
nothing with this LSA. It also MUST discontinue using all Opaque
LSAs injected into the network by the same originator whenever it
is detected that the originator is unreachable.
6. Management Considerations
The updated OSPF MIB, [RFC4750], provides explicit support for Opaque
LSAs and SHOULD be used to support implementations of this document.
See Section 12.3 of [RFC4750] for details. In addition to that
section, implementations supporting [RFC4750] will also include
Opaque LSAs in all appropriate generic LSA objects, e.g.,
ospfOriginateNewLsas and ospfLsdbTable.
7. Backward Compatibility
The solution proposed in this document introduces no interoperability
issues. In the case that a non-opaque-capable neighbor receives
Opaque LSAs, per [OSPF], the non-opaque-capable router will simply
discard the LSA.
Note that OSPF routers that implement [RFC2370] will continue using
stale type-11 LSAs even when the LSA originator implements the
inter-area procedures described in Section 6 of this document.
8. Security Considerations
There are two types of issues that need be addressed when looking at
protecting routing protocols from misconfigurations and malicious
attacks. The first is authentication and certification of routing
protocol information. The second is denial-of-service attacks
resulting from repetitive origination of the same router
advertisement or origination of a large number of distinct
advertisements resulting in database overflow. Note that both of
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
these concerns exist independently of a router's support for the
Opaque option.
To address the authentication concerns, OSPF protocol exchanges are
authenticated. OSPF supports multiple types of authentication; the
type of authentication in use can be configured on a per-network-
segment basis. One of OSPF's authentication types, namely the
Cryptographic authentication option, is believed to be secure against
passive attacks and provide significant protection against active
attacks. When using the Cryptographic authentication option, each
router appends a "message digest" to its transmitted OSPF packets.
Receivers then use the shared secret key and received digest to
verify that each received OSPF packet is authentic.
The quality of the security provided by the Cryptographic
authentication option depends completely on the strength of the
message digest algorithm (MD5 is currently the only message digest
algorithm specified), the strength of the key being used, and the
correct implementation of the security mechanism in all communicating
OSPF implementations. It also requires that all parties maintain the
secrecy of the shared secret key. None of the standard OSPF
authentication types provide confidentiality. Nor do they protect
against traffic analysis. For more information on the standard OSPF
security mechanisms, see Sections 8.1, 8.2, and Appendix D of [OSPF].
Repetitive origination of advertisements is addressed by OSPF by
mandating a limit on the frequency that new instances of any
particular LSA can be originated and accepted during the flooding
procedure. The frequency at which new LSA instances may be
originated is set equal to once every MinLSInterval seconds, whose
value is 5 seconds (see Section 12.4 of [OSPF]). The frequency at
which new LSA instances are accepted during flooding is once every
MinLSArrival seconds, whose value is set to 1 (see Section 13,
Appendix B, and G.5 of [OSPF]).
Proper operation of the OSPF protocol requires that all OSPF routers
maintain an identical copy of the OSPF link-state database. However,
when the size of the link-state database becomes very large, some
routers may be unable to keep the entire database due to resource
shortages; we term this "database overflow". When database overflow
is anticipated, the routers with limited resources can be
accommodated by configuring OSPF stub areas and NSSAs. [OVERFLOW]
details a way of gracefully handling unanticipated database
overflows.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
In the case of type-11 Opaque LSAs, this document reuses an ASBR
tracking mechanism that is already employed in basic OSPF for type-5
LSAs. Therefore, applying it to type-11 Opaque LSAs does not create
any threats that are not already known for type-5 LSAs.
9. IANA Considerations
This document updates the requirements for the OSPF Opaque LSA type
registry. Three following changes have been made:
1. References to [RFC2370] have been replaced with references to this
document.
2. The Opaque type values in the range of 128-255 have been reserved
for "Private Use" as defined in [RFC5226].
3. The reference for Opaque type registry value 1, Traffic
Engineering LSA, has been updated to [RFC3630].
The registry now reads:
Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Opaque Link-State
Advertisements (LSA) Option Types
Registries included below:
- Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types
Registry Name: Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types
Reference: [RFC5250]
Range Registration Procedures Notes
-------- ------------------------------------------ --------
0-127 IETF Consensus
128-255 Private Use
Registry:
Value Opaque Type Reference
------- ------------------------------------------ ---------
1 Traffic Engineering LSA [RFC3630]
2 Sycamore Optical Topology Descriptions [Moy]
3 grace-LSA [RFC3623]
4 Router Information (RI) [RFC4970]
5-127 Unassigned
128-255 Private Use
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[DEMD] Moy, J., "Extending OSPF to Support Demand Circuits", RFC
1793, April 1995.
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
requirements levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4750] Joyal, D., Ed., Galecki, P., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ed.,
Coltun, R., and F. Baker, "OSPF Version 2 Management
Information Base", RFC 4750, December 2006.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
10.2. Informative References
[MOSPF] Moy, J., "Multicast Extensions to OSPF", RFC 1584, March
1994.
[NSSA] Murphy P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
RFC 3101, January 2003.
[OSPF-MT] Psenak, P., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., and P.
Pillay-Esnault, "Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in OSPF", RFC
4915, June 2007.
[OSPFv3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
"OSPF for IPv6", Work in Progress, May 2008.
[OVERFLOW] Moy, J., "OSPF Database Overflow", RFC 1765, March 1995.
[RFC2370] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July
1998.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeund, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC4576] Rosen, E., Psenak, P., and P. Pillay-Esnault, "Using a
Link State Advertisement (LSA) Options Bit to Prevent
Looping in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)",
RFC 4576, June 2006.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
Appendix A. OSPF Data Formats
This appendix describes the format of the Options Field followed by
the packet format of the Opaque LSA.
A.1. The Options Field
The OSPF Options field is present in OSPF Hello packets, Database
Description packets, and all link state advertisements. The Options
field enables OSPF routers to support (or not support) optional
capabilities, and to communicate their capability level to other OSPF
routers. Through this mechanism, routers of differing capabilities
can be mixed within an OSPF routing domain.
When used in Hello packets, the Options field allows a router to
reject a neighbor because of a capability mismatch. Alternatively,
when capabilities are exchanged in Database Description packets a
router can choose not to flood certain link state advertisements to a
neighbor because of its reduced functionality. Lastly, listing
capabilities in link state advertisements allows routers to forward
traffic around reduced functionality routers by excluding them from
parts of the routing table calculation.
All 8 bits of the OSPF Options field have been assigned, although
only the O-bit is described completely by this document. Each bit is
described briefly below. Routers SHOULD reset (i.e., clear)
unrecognized bits in the Options field when sending Hello packets or
Database Description packets and when originating link state
advertisements. Conversely, routers encountering unrecognized Option
bits in received Hello Packets, Database Description packets, or link
state advertisements SHOULD ignore the capability and process the
packet/advertisement normally.
+--------------------------------------+
| DN | O | DC | EA | N/P | MC | E | MT |
+--------------------------------------+
The Options Field
MT-bit
This bit describes the router's multi-topology link-excluding
capability, as described in [OSPF-MT].
E-bit
This bit describes the way AS-External LSAs are flooded, as
described in Sections 3.6, 9.5, 10.8, and 12.1.2 of [OSPF].
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
MC-bit
This bit describes whether IP multicast datagrams are forwarded
according to the specifications in [MOSPF].
N/P-bit
This bit describes the handling of Type-7 LSAs, as specified in
[NSSA].
DC-bit
This bit describes the router's handling of demand circuits, as
specified in [DEMD].
EA-bit
This bit describes the router's willingness to receive and
forward External-Attributes-LSAs. While defined, the documents
specifying this bit have all expired. The use of this bit may
be deprecated in the future.
O-bit
This bit describes the router's willingness to receive and
forward Opaque LSAs as specified in this document.
DN-bit
This bit is used to prevent looping in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, as
specified in [RFC4576].
A.2. The Opaque LSA
Opaque LSAs are Type 9, 10, and 11 link state advertisements. These
advertisements MAY be used directly by OSPF or indirectly by some
application wishing to distribute information throughout the OSPF
domain. The function of the Opaque LSA option is to provide for
future OSPF extensibility.
Opaque LSAs contain some number of octets (of application-specific
data) padded to 32-bit alignment. Like any other LSA, the Opaque LSA
uses the link-state database distribution mechanism for flooding this
information throughout the topology. However, the Opaque LSA has a
flooding scope associated with it so that the scope of flooding may
be link-local (type-9), area-local (type-10), or the entire OSPF
routing domain (type-11). Section 3 of this document describes the
flooding procedures for the Opaque LSA.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
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 | 9, 10, or 11 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opaque Type | Opaque ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS Sequence Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| Opaque Information |
+ +
| ... |
Link-State Type
The link-state type of the Opaque LSA identifies the LSA's range
of topological distribution. This range is referred to as the
flooding scope. The following explains the flooding scope of each
of the link-state types.
o A value of 9 denotes a link-local scope. Opaque LSAs with a
link-local scope MUST NOT be flooded beyond the local
(sub)network.
o A value of 10 denotes an area-local scope. Opaque LSAs with an
area-local scope MUST NOT be flooded beyond their area of
origin.
o A value of 11 denotes that the LSA is flooded throughout the
Autonomous System (e.g., has the same scope as type-5 LSAs).
Opaque LSAs with AS-wide scope MUST NOT be flooded into stub
areas or NSSAs.
Syntax of the Opaque LSA's Link-State ID
The link-state ID of the Opaque LSA is divided into an Opaque Type
field (the first 8 bits) and an Opaque ID (the remaining 24 bits).
See section 7 of this document for a description of Opaque type
allocation and assignment.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
Authors' Addresses
Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
EMail: lberger@labn.net
Igor Bryskin
ADVA Optical Networking Inc
7926 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 615
McLean, VA 22102
EMail: ibryskin@advaoptical.com
Alex Zinin
Alcatel-Lucent
750D Chai Chee Rd #06-06
Technopark@ChaiChee
Singapore, 469004
EMail: alex.zinin@alcatel-lucent.com
Rob Coltun
Acoustra Productions
3204 Brooklawn Terrace
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
USA
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5250 OSPF Opaque LSA Option July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Berger, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]