OSPFv3 as a PE-CE Routing Protocol
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-l3vpn-ospfv3-pece-05.txt
22 March 2010
P. Pillay-Esnault, ppe@cisco.com
P. Moyer, pmoyer@juniper.net
J. Doyle, jdoyle@doyleassociates.net
E. Ertekin, ertekin_emre@bah.com
M. Lundberg, lundberg_michael@bah.com
1
Why are we back?
 Timeline / history of our draft (March 09 – December 09)



L3VPN WGLC for draft-ospfv3-l3vpn-pece-04 issued on 31 Mar 09; WGLC ended on 14 April 09
IETF LC issued on 09 Oct 09; IETF LC ended on 23 Oct 09
Draft approved by the IESG on 21 Dec 09; however…
 After IESG approval, AD solicited an additional last call from the OSPF WG

Comments received from members of the OSPF WG (Thanks!)
 Based on these comments, OSPFv3 PE/CE co-authors determined that the document
could be clearer/simplified
 Specification was returned to the L3VPN WG for these revisions
 The following slides summarize the revisions between -04 and -05 of our draft
2
Differences between -04 and -05
 Addressed all minor comments received from the OSPF WG; these changes are
summarized in the backup slide
 The primary change between -04 and -05 is the procedure for determining whether an
incoming VPNv6 route belongs to the same domain as the receiving OSPFv3 instance



Previous version: Specified the ability to determine the domain a route belongs to based on either the
(Domain ID, Instance ID) tuple, OR the (Domain ID)
Current version: Specifies the ability to determine the domain a route belongs to based on the Domain ID only
Fix: Removed all references to the Instance ID in the draft (i.e., Sections 3.1, 4.1, 4.1.2, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2.1,
4.3.2.3, 4.4)
 Change simplifies the specification; aligns more closely with OSPFv2 PE-CE (RFC 4577)
3
Next Steps
 Plan to outbrief these updates at the OSPF WG this week (Friday)
 Comments suggestions on revised draft (-05) are welcome
 Request WGLC on our document from the L3VPN WG and the OSPF WG within the next
few weeks
 Provides OSPF and L3VPN WG members time to comment on the new draft
 Questions? Thank you!
4
Backup
5
Differences between -04 and -05

In addition to removal of the Instance ID, the following changes were made to address OSPF WG LC
comments

Added clarifying text regarding the Options field in the OSPFv3 Route Attributes Extended Community
 New diagram which illustrates the field and its current contents (LSB = External Metric Type)
 Defined a new registry for this field, entitled “OSPFv3 Route Attribute Options”; the policy for assigning the
remaining bits in this registry is “Standards Action”

Deleted text which stated that “prefixes associated with OSPFv3 sham-links are advertised as Type
0x2009 LSAs” LSAs

Other minor typographical changes
 [Section 3.1] Clarified that redistribution of BGP routes into OSPF result in inter-area-prefix LSAs (not AS-internal)
 [Section 4.3.2.2] Indicated that routes may be advertised as “external/NSSA” routes (not just external)
 [Section 4.4] When referencing AS-external LSAs, we previously indicated Type 0x2005 … rather than 0x4005
 [11.1, Normative References] Updated reference to newly-published RFC for IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended
Community Attributes [RFC 5701], and made it a normative reference

[11.2, Informative References] Updated reference to OSPFv3 AF I-D [draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-10]
6