Browse Prior Art Database

OSPF Stub Router Advertisement (RFC3137)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000005321D
Original Publication Date: 2001-Jun-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2001-Aug-21
Document File: 6 page(s) / 8K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

A. Retana: AUTHOR [+5]

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.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 41% of the total text.

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-L...