Network Working Group A. Retana
Request for Comments: 3137 L. Nguyen
Category: Informational R. White
Cisco Systems
A. Zinin
Nexsi Systems
D. McPherson
Amber Networks
June 2001
OSPF Stub Router Advertisement
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo describes a backward-compatible technique that may be used
by OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) implementations to advertise
unavailability to forward transit traffic or to lower the preference
level for the paths through such a router. In some cases, it is
desirable not to route transit traffic via a specific OSPF router.
However, OSPF does not specify a standard way to accomplish this.
1. Motivation
In some situations, it may be advantageous to inform routers in a
network not to use a specific router as a transit point, but still
route to it. Possible situations include the following.
o The router is in a critical condition (for example, has very
high CPU load or does not have enough memory to store all LSAs
or build the routing table).
o Graceful introduction and removal of the router to/from the
network.
o Other (administrative or traffic engineering) reasons.
Retana, et al. Informational [Page 1]RFC 3137 OSPF Stub Router Advertisement June 2001
Note that the proposed solution does not remove the router from the
topology view of the network (as could be done by just flushing that
router's router-LSA), but prevents other routers from using it for
transit routing, while still routing packets to router's own IP
addresses, i.e., the router is announced as stub.
It must be emphasized that the proposed solution provides real
benefits in networks designed with at least some level of redundancy
so that traffic can be routed around the stub router. Otherwise,
traffic destined for the networks reachable through such a stub
router will be still routed through it.
2. Proposed Solution
The solution described in this document solves two challenges
associated with the outlined problem. In the description below,
router X is the router announcing itself as a stub.
1) Making other routers prefer routes around router X while
performing the Dijkstra calculation.
2) Allowing other routers to reach IP prefixes directly connected
to router X.
Note that it would be easy to address issue 1) alone by just flushing
router X's router-LSA from the domain. However, it does not solve
problem 2), since other routers will not be able to use links to
router X in Dijkstra (no back link), and because router X will not
have links to its neighbors.
To address both problems, router X announces its router-LSA to the
neighbors as follows.
o costs of all non-stub links (links of the types other than 3)
are set to LSInfinity (16-bit value 0xFFFF, rather than 24-bit
value 0xFFFFFF used in summary and AS-external LSAs).
o costs of stub links (type 3) are set to the interface output
cost.
This addresses issues 1) and 2).
Retana, et al. Informational [Page 2]RFC 3137 OSPF Stub Router Advertisement June 2001
3. Compatibility issues
Some inconsistency may be seen when the network is constructed of the
routers that perform intra-area Dijkstra calculation as specified in
[RFC1247] (discarding link records in router-LSAs that have
LSInfinity cost value) and routers that perform it as specified in
[RFC1583] and higher (do not treat links with LSInfinity cost as
unreachable). Note that this inconsistency will not lead to routing
loops, because if there are some alternate paths in the network, both
types of routers will agree on using them rather than the path
through the stub router. If the path through the stub router is the
only one, the routers of the first type will not use the stub router
for transit (which is the desired behavior), while the routers of the
second type will still use this path.
4. Acknowledgements
The authors of this document do not make any claims on the
originality of the ideas described. Among other people, we would
like to acknowledge Henk Smit for being part of one of the initial
discussions around this topic.
5. Security Considerations
The technique described in this document does not introduce any new
security issues into OSPF protocol.
6. References
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC1247] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1247, July 1991.
[RFC1583] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1583, March 1994.
Retana, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3137 OSPF Stub Router Advertisement June 2001
7. Authors' Addresses
Alvaro Retana
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
EMail: aretana@cisco.com
Liem Nguyen
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA
EMail: lhnguyen@cisco.com
Russ White
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EMail: riw@cisco.com
Alex Zinin
Nexsi Systems
1959 Concourse Drive
San Jose,CA 95131
EMail: azinin@nexsi.com
Danny McPherson
Amber Networks
48664 Milmont Drive
Fremont, CA 94538
EMail: danny@ambernetworks.com
Retana, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3137 OSPF Stub Router Advertisement June 2001
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Retana, et al. Informational [Page 5]
