



Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          K. Patel
Request for Comments: 8770                                        Arrcus
Updates: 6987                                          P. Pillay-Esnault
Category: Standards Track                                 PPE Consulting
ISSN: 2070-1721                                              M. Bhardwaj
                                                            S. Bayraktar
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              April 2020


                     Host Router Support for OSPFv2

Abstract

   The Open Shortest Path First Version 2 (OSPFv2) protocol does not
   have a mechanism for a node to repel transit traffic if it is on the
   shortest path.  This document defines a bit called the Host-bit
   (H-bit).  This bit enables a router to advertise that it is a non-
   transit router.  This document also describes the changes needed to
   support the H-bit in the domain.  In addition, this document updates
   RFC 6987 to advertise Type 2 External and Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA)
   Link State Advertisements (LSAs) (RFC 3101) with a high cost in order
   to repel traffic effectively.

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/rfc8770.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   2.  Requirements Language
   3.  Host-Bit Support
   4.  SPF Modifications
   5.  Autodiscovery and Backward Compatibility
   6.  OSPF AS-External-LSAs / NSSA-LSAs with Type 2 Metrics
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  References
     9.1.  Normative References
     9.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The OSPFv2 protocol specifies a Shortest Path First (SPF) algorithm
   that identifies transit vertices based on their adjacencies.
   Therefore, OSPFv2 does not have a mechanism to prevent traffic
   transiting a participating node if it is a transit vertex in the only
   existing or shortest path to the destination.  The use of metrics to
   make the node undesirable can help to repel traffic only if an
   alternative better route exists.

   A mechanism to move traffic away from the shortest path is
   particularly useful for a number of use cases:

   1.  Graceful isolation of a router, to avoid blackhole scenarios when
       there is a reload and possible long reconvergence times.

   2.  Closet switches that are not usually used for transit traffic but
       need to participate in the topology.

   3.  Overloaded routers that could use such a capability to
       temporarily repel traffic until they stabilize.

   4.  BGP route reflectors, known as virtual Route Reflectors, that are
       not in the forwarding path but are in central locations such as
       data centers.  Such route reflectors are typically used for route
       distribution and are not capable of forwarding transit traffic.
       However, they need to learn the OSPF topology to perform SPF
       computation for optimal routes and reachability resolution for
       their clients [BGP-ORR].

   This document describes the functionality provided by the Host-bit
   (H-bit); this functionality prevents other OSPFv2 routers from using
   the host router by excluding it in path calculations for transit
   traffic in OSPFv2 routing domains.  If the H-bit is set, then the
   calculation of the shortest-path tree for an area, as described in
   Section 16.1 of [RFC2328], is modified by including a check to verify
   that transit vertices DO NOT have the H-bit set (see Section 4).
   Furthermore, in order to repel traffic effectively, this document
   updates [RFC6987] so that Type 2 External and Not-So-Stubby Area
   (NSSA) Link State Advertisements (LSAs) [RFC3101] are advertised with
   a high cost (see Section 6).  OSPFv3 [RFC5340] defines an option bit,
   known as the R-bit, for router-LSAs; the H-bit supports similar
   functionality.

2.  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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Host-Bit Support

   This document defines a new router-LSA bit, known as the Host-bit or
   the H-bit.  An OSPFv2 router advertising a router-LSA with the H-bit
   set indicates that it MUST NOT be used as a transit router (see
   Section 4) by other OSPFv2 routers in the area that support the H-bit
   functionality.

   If the H-bit is not set, then backward compatibility is achieved, as
   the behavior will be the same as in [RFC2328].

      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            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |H|0|0|N|W|V|E|B|        0      |            # links            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Link ID                              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Link Data                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |     Type      |     # TOS     |            metric             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                              ...                              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |      TOS      |        0      |          TOS metric           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                          Link ID                              |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Link Data                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                              ...                              |

                         Figure 1: OSPF Router-LSA

   Bit H is the high-order bit of the OSPF flags, as shown below.

                               0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                               |H|0|0|N|W|V|E|B|
                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 2: OSPF Router-LSA Option Bits

   When the H-bit is set, the OSPFv2 router is a host (non-transit)
   router and is incapable of forwarding transit traffic.  In this mode,
   the other OSPFv2 routers in the area MUST NOT use the host router for
   transit traffic but may send traffic to its local destinations.

   An OSPFv2 router originating a router-LSA with the H-bit set MUST
   advertise all its non-stub links with a link cost of MaxLinkMetric
   [RFC6987].

   When the H-bit is set, an Area Border Router (ABR) MUST advertise the
   same H-bit setting in its self-originated router-LSAs for all
   attached areas.  The consistency of the setting will prevent
   inter-area traffic transiting through the router by suppressing
   advertisements of prefixes from other routers in the area in its
   summary-LSAs.  Only IPv4 prefixes associated with its local
   interfaces MUST be advertised in summary-LSAs to provide reachability
   to end hosts attached to a router with the H-bit set.

   When the H-bit is set, the host router cannot act as an Autonomous
   System Border Router (ASBR).  Indeed, ASBRs are transit routers to
   prefixes that are typically imported through redistribution of
   prefixes from other routing protocols.  Therefore, non-local IPv4
   prefixes, e.g., those imported from other routing protocols, SHOULD
   NOT be advertised in AS-external-LSAs if the H-bit is set.  Some use
   cases, such as an overloaded router or a router being gracefully
   isolated, may benefit from continued advertisements of non-local
   prefixes.  In these cases, the Type 2 metric in AS-external-LSAs MUST
   be set to LSInfinity [RFC2328] to repel traffic (see Section 6 of
   this document).

4.  SPF Modifications

   The SPF calculation described in Section 16.1 of [RFC2328] is
   modified to ensure that the routers originating router-LSAs with the
   H-bit set will not be used for transit traffic.  Step (2) is modified
   to include a check on the H-bit, as shown below.  (Please note that
   all of the sub-procedures of Step (2) remain unchanged and are not
   included in the excerpt below.)

      (2)  Call the vertex just added to the tree "vertex V".  Examine
           the LSA associated with vertex V.  This is a lookup in
           Area A's link state database based on the Vertex ID.  If this
           is a router-LSA, and the H-bit of the router-LSA is set, and
           vertex V is not the root, then the router should not be used
           for transit and Step (3) should be executed immediately.  If
           this is a router-LSA and bit V of the router-LSA (see
           Appendix A.4.2) is set, set Area A's TransitCapability to
           TRUE.  In any case, each link described by the LSA gives the
           cost to an adjacent vertex.  For each described link (say it
           joins vertex V to vertex W):

5.  Autodiscovery and Backward Compatibility

   To reduce the possibility of any routing loops due to partial
   deployment, this document defines an OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA
   capability bit [RFC7770].  See Section 7 (Table 2).

   The RI LSA MUST be area-scoped.

   Autodiscovery via announcement of the OSPF Host Router capability
   (Section 7) ensures that the H-bit functionality and its associated
   SPF changes MUST only take effect if all the routers in a given OSPF
   area support this functionality.

   In normal operation, it is possible that the RI LSA will fail to
   reach all routers in an area in a timely manner.  For example, if a
   new router without H-bit support joins an area that previously had
   only H-bit-capable routers with the H-bit set, then it may take some
   time for the RI LSA to propagate to all routers.  While it is
   propagating, the routers in the area will gradually detect the
   presence of a router that does not support the capability and will
   revert back to the normal SPF calculation.  During the propagation
   time, the area as a whole is unsure of the status of the new router;
   this type of situation can cause temporary transient loops.

   The following recommendations will mitigate transient routing loops:

   *  Implementations are RECOMMENDED to provide a configuration
      parameter to manually override enforcement of the H-bit
      functionality in partial deployments where the topology guarantees
      that OSPFv2 routers not supporting the H-bit do not compute routes
      resulting in routing loops.

   *  All routers with the H-bit set MUST advertise all of the router's
      non-stub links with a metric equal to MaxLinkMetric [RFC6987] in
      its LSAs in order to prevent OSPFv2 routers (unless a last-resort
      path) that do not support the H-bit from attempting to use the
      non-stub links for transit traffic.

   *  All routers supporting the H-bit MUST check the RI LSAs of all
      nodes in the area to verify that all nodes support the H-bit
      before actively using the H-bit feature.  If any router does not
      advertise the OSPF Host Router capability (Section 7), then the
      SPF modifications described in Section 4 MUST NOT be used in the
      area.

6.  OSPF AS-External-LSAs / NSSA-LSAs with Type 2 Metrics

   When calculating the path to a prefix in an OSPF AS-external-LSA or
   NSSA-LSA [RFC3101] with a Type 2 metric, the advertised Type 2 metric
   is taken as more significant than the OSPF intra-area or inter-area
   path.  Hence, advertising the links with MaxLinkMetric as specified
   in [RFC6987] does not discourage transit traffic when calculating AS-
   external or NSSA routes with Type 2 metrics.

   Consequently, this document updates [RFC6987] so that the Type 2
   metric in any self-originated AS-external-LSAs or NSSA-LSAs is
   advertised as LSInfinity-1 [RFC2328].  If the H-bit is set, then the
   Type 2 metric MUST be set to LSInfinity.

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has registered the following value in the "OSPFv2 Router
   Properties Registry".

                   +-------+--------------+-----------+
                   | Value | Description  | Reference |
                   +=======+==============+===========+
                   | 0x80  | Host (H-bit) | RFC 8770  |
                   +-------+--------------+-----------+

                              Table 1: H-Bit

   IANA has registered the following in the "OSPF Router Informational
   Capability Bits" registry.

               +------------+------------------+-----------+
               | Bit Number | Capability Name  | Reference |
               +============+==================+===========+
               |     7      | OSPF Host Router | RFC 8770  |
               +------------+------------------+-----------+

                  Table 2: OSPF Host Router Capability Bit

8.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces the H-bit, which is a capability feature
   that restricts the use of a router for transit, while only its local
   destinations are reachable.  This is a subset of the operations of a
   normal router and therefore should not introduce new security
   considerations beyond those already known in OSPFv2 [RFC2328].  The
   feature introduces the advertisement of host router capability
   information to all OSPFv2 routers in an area.  This information can
   be leveraged for discovery and verification that all routers in the
   area support the capability before the feature is turned on.  In the
   event that a rogue or buggy router incorrectly advertises its
   capability, possible scenarios are as follows:

   *  The router does not have the capability but sends the H-bit set in
      its LSAs.  In this case, a routing loop is possible.  However,
      this is mitigated by the fact that this router should be avoided
      anyway.  Moreover, the link metrics cost (MaxLinkMetric) of this
      router will mitigate this situation.  In any case, a router
      advertising the H-bit capability without its link metrics cost
      equal to MaxLinkMetric could be a rogue router and should be
      avoided.

   *  The router has the capability but sends the H-bit clear in its
      LSAs.  In this case, the router merely prevents the support of
      other H-bit routers in the area and prevents all the routers from
      running the modified SPF.  Any impacts are also mitigated in this
      scenario, as other H-bit routers in the area also advertise the
      MaxLinkMetric cost, so they will still be avoided unless they are
      the last-resort path.

   *  The rogue router is on the only transit path for some destinations
      and sends the H-bit set (for no good/valid reason) in its LSAs,
      and effectively partitions the network.  This case is
      indistinguishable from the normal case where an operator may
      consciously decide to set the H-bit to perform maintenance on a
      router that is on the only transit path.  The OSPF protocol will
      continue to function within the partitioned domains.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.

   [RFC6987]  Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
              McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6987, September 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.

   [RFC7770]  Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
              S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
              Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
              February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [BGP-ORR]  Raszuk, R., Ed., Cassar, C., Aman, E., Decraene, B., and
              K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP-ORR)", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-
              route-reflection-20, 8 January 2020,
              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-
              route-reflection-20>.

   [RFC3101]  Murphy, P., "The OSPF Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) Option",
              RFC 3101, DOI 10.17487/RFC3101, January 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3101>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Hasmit Grover for discovering
   the limitation in [RFC6987], and Acee Lindem, Abhay Roy, David Ward,
   Burjiz Pithawala, and Michael Barnes for their comments.

Authors' Addresses

   Keyur Patel
   Arrcus

   Email: keyur@arrcus.com


   Padma Pillay-Esnault
   PPE Consulting

   Email: padma.ietf@gmail.com


   Manish Bhardwaj
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America

   Email: manbhard@cisco.com


   Serpil Bayraktar
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States of America

   Email: serpil@cisco.com
