Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4970 Redback Networks
Category: Standards Track N. Shen
JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems
R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
S. Shaffer
BridgePort Networks
July 2007
Network Working Group A. Lindem, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4970 Redback Networks
Category: Standards Track N. Shen
JP. Vasseur
Cisco Systems
R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
S. Shaffer
BridgePort Networks
July 2007
Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional Router Capabilities
OSPF的扩展，用于宣传可选路由器功能
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
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.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
Abstract
摘要
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the routing domain. This document proposes extensions to OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 for advertising optional router capabilities. A new Router Information (RI) Link State Advertisement (LSA) is proposed for this purpose. In OSPFv2, the RI LSA will be implemented with a new opaque LSA type ID. In OSPFv3, the RI LSA will be implemented with a new LSA type function code. In both protocols, the RI LSA can be advertised at any of the defined flooding scopes (link, area, or autonomous system (AS)).
OSPFv2或OSPFv3路由域中的路由器了解其邻居和路由域中其他路由器的能力非常有用。本文档建议对OSPFv2和OSPFv3进行扩展，以宣传可选路由器功能。为此，提出了一种新的路由器信息（RI）链路状态公告（LSA）。在OSPFv2中，RI LSA将使用新的不透明LSA类型ID实现。在OSPFv3中，RI LSA将使用新的LSA类型功能代码实现。在这两个协议中，RI LSA可以在任何定义的泛洪作用域（链路、区域或自治系统（AS））上公布。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits . . . . 6
2.5. Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA . . . . . . . 7
3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. OSPF Router Information (RI) LSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. OSPFv2 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Assigned OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits . . . . 6
2.5. Flooding Scope of the Router Information LSA . . . . . . . 7
3. Router Information LSA Opaque Usage and Applicability . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
It is useful for routers in an OSPFv2 [OSPF] or OSPFv3 [OSPFV3] routing domain to know the capabilities of their neighbors and other routers in the routing domain. This can be useful for both the advertisement and discovery of OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 capabilities. Throughout this document, OSPF will be used when the specification is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. Similarly, OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 will be used when the text is protocol specific.
OSPFv2[OSPF]或OSPFv3[OSPFv3]路由域中的路由器了解其邻居和路由域中其他路由器的能力非常有用。这对于OSPFv2和OSPFv3功能的发布和发现都很有用。在本文件中，当规范同时适用于OSPFv2和OSPFv3时，将使用OSPF。类似地，当文本特定于协议时，将使用OSPFv2或OSPFv3。
OSPF uses the options field in LSAs and hello packets to advertise optional router capabilities. In the case of OSPFv2, all the bits in this field have been allocated so new optional capabilities cannot be advertised. This document proposes extensions to OSPF to advertise these optional capabilities via opaque LSAs in OSPFv2 and new LSAs in OSPFv3. For existing OSPF capabilities, backward- compatibility issues dictate that this advertisement is used primarily for informational purposes. For future OSPF features, this advertisement MAY be used as the sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery.
OSPF使用LSA和hello数据包中的选项字段来公布可选的路由器功能。在OSPFv2的情况下，此字段中的所有位都已分配，因此无法公布新的可选功能。本文档建议对OSPF进行扩展，通过OSPFv2中的不透明LSA和OSPFv3中的新LSA宣传这些可选功能。对于现有的OSPF功能，向后兼容性问题表明此公告主要用于信息目的。对于未来的OSPF功能，此播发可以用作播发和发现的唯一机制。
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 [RFC-KEYWORDS].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC-关键词]中所述进行解释。
OSPF routers MAY optionally advertise their optional capabilities in a link-scoped, area-scoped, or AS-scoped LSA. For existing OSPF capabilities, this advertisement will be used primarily for informational purposes. Future OSPF features could use the RI LSA as the sole mechanism for advertisement and discovery. The RI LSA will be originated initially when an OSPF router instance is created and whenever one of the advertised capabilities is configured or changed.
OSPF路由器可以选择在链路范围、区域范围或AS范围LSA中公布其可选功能。对于现有的OSPF功能，此公告将主要用于信息目的。未来的OSPF功能可以使用RI LSA作为广告和发现的唯一机制。RI LSA最初将在创建OSPF路由器实例时以及在配置或更改其中一个播发功能时发起。
OSPFv2 routers will advertise a link scoped, area-scoped, or AS-scoped Opaque-LSA [OPAQUE]. The OSPFv2 Router Information LSA has an Opaque type of 4 and Opaque ID of 0.
OSPFv2路由器将公布链路范围、区域范围或AS范围不透明LSA[不透明]。OSPFv2路由器信息LSA的不透明类型为4，不透明ID为0。
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
| ... |
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 4 | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
| ... |
OSPFv2 Router Information Opaque LSA
OSPFv2路由器信息不透明LSA
The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is the same as the format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF [TE]. The LSA payload consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets. The format of each TLV is:
RI LSA主体内TLV的格式与OSPF[TE]的流量工程扩展使用的格式相同。LSA有效负载由一个或多个嵌套类型/长度/值（TLV）三元组组成。每个TLV的格式为：
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
TLV Format
TLV格式
The Length field defines the length of the value portion in octets (thus a TLV with no value portion would have a length of 0). The TLV is padded to 4-octet alignment; padding is not included in the length field (so a 3-octet value would have a length of 3, but the total size of the TLV would be 8 octets). Nested TLVs are also 32-bit aligned. For example, a 1-byte value would have the length field set to 1, and 3 octets of padding would be added to the end of the value portion of the TLV. Unrecognized types are ignored.
长度字段以八位字节定义值部分的长度（因此，没有值部分的TLV的长度为0）。TLV填充为4-八位组对齐；长度字段中不包括填充（因此3个八位字节的值的长度为3，但TLV的总大小为8个八位字节）。嵌套TLV也是32位对齐的。例如，一个1字节的值将把length字段设置为1，并在TLV的值部分的末尾添加3个八位字节的填充。将忽略无法识别的类型。
The OSPFv3 Router Information LSA has a function code of 12 while the S1/S2 bits are dependent on the desired flooding scope for the LSA. The U bit will be set indicating that the OSPFv3 RI LSA should be flooded even if it is not understood. The Link State ID (LSID) value for this LSA is 0. This is unambiguous since an OSPFv3 router will only advertise a single RI LSA per flooding scope.
OSPFv3路由器信息LSA的功能代码为12，而S1/S2位取决于LSA的期望泛洪范围。U位将被设置，指示即使无法理解OSPFv3 RI LSA，也应被淹没。此LSA的链路状态ID（LSID）值为0。这是明确的，因为OSPFv3路由器在每个泛洪作用域中只公布一个RI LSA。
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 |1|S12| 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 (Link State ID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
| ... |
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 |1|S12| 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0 (Link State ID) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Advertising Router |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS sequence number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LS checksum | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+- TLVs -+
| ... |
OSPFv3 Router Information LSA
OSPFv3路由器信息LSA
The format of the TLVs within the body of an RI LSA is as defined in Section 2.1
RI LSA主体内TLV的格式如第2.1节所述
When a new Router Information LSA TLV is defined, the specification MUST explicitly state whether the TLV is applicable to OSPFv2 only, OSPFv3 only, or both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
定义新路由器信息LSA TLV时，规范必须明确说明TLV是否仅适用于OSPFv2、OSPFv3或OSPFv2和OSPFv3。
The first defined TLV in the body of an RI LSA is the Router Informational Capabilities TLV. A router advertising an RI LSA MAY include the Router Informational Capabilities TLV. If included, it MUST be the first TLV in the LSA. Additionally, the TLV MUST accurately reflect the OSPF router's capabilities in the scope advertised. However, the informational capabilities advertised have no impact on the OSPF protocol's operation -- they are advertised purely for informational purposes.
RI LSA主体中第一个定义的TLV是路由器信息能力TLV。公布RI LSA的路由器可以包括路由器信息能力TLV。如果包括，则必须是LSA中的第一个TLV。此外，TLV必须准确反映所宣传范围内OSPF路由器的能力。然而，所宣传的信息功能对OSPF协议的运行没有影响——它们纯粹是为了信息目的而宣传的。
The format of the Router Informational Capabilities TLV is as follows:
路由器信息功能TLV的格式如下：
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Informational Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Informational Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type A 16-bit field set to 1.
键入设置为1的16位字段。
Length A 16-bit field that indicates the length of the value portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets dependent on the number of capabilities advertised. Initially, the length will be 4, denoting 4 octets of informational capability bits.
长度一个16位字段，以八位字节表示值部分的长度，是4个八位字节的倍数，具体取决于播发的功能数量。最初，长度为4，表示信息能力位的4个八位字节。
Value A variable length sequence of capability bits rounded to a multiple of 4 octets padded with undefined bits. Initially, there are 4 octets of capability bits. Bits are numbered left-to-right starting with the most significant bit being bit 0.
值功能位的可变长度序列，舍入为4个八位字节的倍数，并填充未定义的位。最初，有4个八位字节的能力位。位从左到右编号，最高有效位为位0。
OSPF Router Informational Capabilities TLV
OSPF路由器信息功能TLV
The Router Informational Capabilities TLV MAY be followed by optional TLVs that further specify a capability.
路由器信息能力TLV后面可能是进一步指定能力的可选TLV。
The following informational capability bits are assigned:
分配了以下信息能力位：
Bit Capabilities
比特能力
0 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE]
1 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE]
2 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB]
3 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE]
4 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN]
5 OSPF Experimental TE [EXP-TE]
6-31 Unassigned (Standards Action)
0 OSPF graceful restart capable [GRACE]
1 OSPF graceful restart helper [GRACE]
2 OSPF Stub Router support [STUB]
3 OSPF Traffic Engineering support [TE]
4 OSPF point-to-point over LAN [P2PLAN]
5 OSPF Experimental TE [EXP-TE]
6-31 Unassigned (Standards Action)
OSPF Router Informational Capabilities Bits
路由器信息能力
The flooding scope for a Router Information LSA is determined by the LSA type. For OSPFv2, type 9 (link-scoped), type 10 (area-scoped), or a type 11 (AS-scoped) opaque LSA may be flooded. For OSPFv3, the S1 and S2 bits in the LSA type determine the flooding scope. If AS-wide flooding scope is chosen, the originating router should also advertise area-scoped LSA(s) into any attached Not-So-Stubby Area (NSSA) area(s). An OSPF router MAY advertise different capabilities when both NSSA area scoped LSA(s) and an AS-scoped LSA are advertised. This allows functional capabilities to be limited in scope. For example, a router may be an area border router but only support traffic engineering (TE) in a subset of its attached areas.
路由器信息LSA的泛洪范围由LSA类型确定。对于OSPFv2，类型9（链路范围）、类型10（区域范围）或类型11（范围）不透明LSA可能被淹没。对于OSPFv3，LSA类型中的S1和S2位确定泛洪范围。如果选择宽泛洪范围，则发起路由器还应将区域范围的LSA播发到任何连接的非短截线区域（NSSA）区域。当NSSA区域作用域LSA和AS作用域LSA都被通告时，OSPF路由器可以通告不同的功能。这使得功能能力的范围受到限制。例如，路由器可以是区域边界路由器，但仅支持其连接区域的子集中的流量工程（TE）。
The choice of flooding scope is made by the advertising router and is a matter of local policy. The originating router MAY advertise multiple RI LSAs as long as the flooding scopes differ. TLV flooding scope rules will be specified on a per-TLV basis and MUST be specified in the accompanying specifications for new Router Information LSA TLVs.
泛洪范围的选择由广告路由器决定，并由当地政策决定。只要泛洪作用域不同，发起路由器就可以播发多个RI-lsa。TLV泛洪范围规则将在每个TLV的基础上指定，并且必须在新路由器信息LSA TLV的随附规范中指定。
The purpose of the Router Information (RI) LSA is to advertise information relating to the aggregate OSPF router. Normally, this should be confined to TLVs with a single value or very few values. It is not meant to be a generic container to carry any and all information. The intent is to both limit the size of the RI LSA to the point where an OSPF router will always be able to contain the TLVs in a single LSA and to keep the task of determining what has changed between LSA instances reasonably simple. Hence, discretion and sound engineering judgment will need to be applied when deciding whether newly proposed TLV(s) in support of a new application are advertised in the RI LSA or warrant the creation of an application specific LSA.
路由器信息（RI）LSA的目的是公布与聚合OSPF路由器相关的信息。通常，这应限于具有单个值或很少值的TLV。它并不意味着一个通用的容器来承载任何和所有的信息。目的是将RI LSA的大小限制在OSPF路由器始终能够在单个LSA中包含tlv的点上，并使确定LSA实例之间发生了什么变化的任务合理地简单。因此，在决定是否在RI LSA中公布支持新应用的新提议TLV或保证创建特定于应用的LSA时，需要运用自由裁量权和合理的工程判断。
This document describes both a generic mechanism for advertising router capabilities and a TLV for advertising informational capability bits. The latter TLV is less critical than the topology information currently advertised by the base OSPF protocol. The security considerations for the generic mechanism are dependent on the future application and, as such, should be described as additional capabilities are proposed for advertisement. Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in [OSPF] and [OSPFV3].
本文档描述了用于公布路由器功能的通用机制和用于公布信息功能位的TLV。后一种TLV没有基本OSPF协议当前公布的拓扑信息那么重要。通用机制的安全考虑因素取决于未来的应用，因此，应在建议发布附加功能时予以说明。[OSPF]和[OSPFV3]中介绍了基本OSPF协议的安全注意事项。
The following IANA assignment was made from an existing registry:
以下IANA分配是从现有注册表中进行的：
The OSPFv2 opaque LSA type 4 has been reserved for the OSPFv2 RI opaque LSA.
OSPFv2不透明LSA类型4已为OSPFv2 RI不透明LSA保留。
The following registries have been defined for the following purposes:
以下登记处的定义是为了以下目的：
1. Registry for OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes - This new top-level registry will be comprised of the fields Value, LSA function code name, and Document Reference. The OSPFv3 LSA function code is defined in section A.4.2.1 of [OSPFV3]. The OSPFv3 LSA function code 12 has been reserved for the OSPFv3 Router Information (RI) LSA.
1. OSPFv3 LSA功能代码注册表-这个新的顶级注册表将由字段值、LSA功能代码名称和文档引用组成。OSPFv3 LSA功能代码在[OSPFv3]第A.4.2.1节中定义。OSPFv3 LSA功能代码12已为OSPFv3路由器信息（RI）LSA保留。
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Assignment Policy |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved (not to be assigned) |
| | |
| 1-9 | Already assigned |
| | |
| 10-11 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | |
| 12 | OSPFv3 RI LSA (Assigned herein) |
| | |
| 13-255 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | |
| 256-8175 | Reserved (No assignments) |
| | |
| 8176-8183 | Experimentation (No assignments) |
| | |
| 8184-8191 | Vendor Private Use (No assignments) |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
| Range | Assignment Policy |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved (not to be assigned) |
| | |
| 1-9 | Already assigned |
| | |
| 10-11 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | |
| 12 | OSPFv3 RI LSA (Assigned herein) |
| | |
| 13-255 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | |
| 256-8175 | Reserved (No assignments) |
| | |
| 8176-8183 | Experimentation (No assignments) |
| | |
| 8184-8191 | Vendor Private Use (No assignments) |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes
OSPFv3 LSA功能代码
* OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the range 256-8175 are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that cover the range being assigned.
* 此时不分配256-8175范围内的OSPFv3 LSA功能代码。在此范围内进行任何分配之前，必须有一个标准跟踪RFC，指定涵盖所分配范围的IANA注意事项。
* OSPFv3 LSA function codes in the range 8176-8181 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
* 8176-8181范围内的OSPFv3 LSA功能代码用于实验用途；这些将不会在IANA注册，RFC不得提及。
* OSPFv3 LSAs with an LSA Function Code in the Vendor Private Use range 8184-8191 MUST include the Vendor Enterprise Code as the first 4 octets following the 20 octets of LSA header.
* LSA功能代码在供应商专用范围8184-8191中的OSPFv3 LSA必须包括供应商企业代码，作为LSA头20个八位字节后的前4个八位字节。
* If a new LSA Function Code is documented, the documentation MUST include the valid combinations of the U, S2, and S1 bits for the LSA. It SHOULD also describe how the Link State ID is to be assigned.
* 如果记录了新的LSA功能代码，则文件必须包括LSA的U、S2和S1位的有效组合。它还应该描述如何分配链路状态ID。
2. Registry for OSPF RI TLVs - This top-level registry will be comprised of the fields Value, TLV Name, and Document Reference. The value of 1 for the capabilities TLV is defined herein.
2. OSPF RI TLV注册表-此顶级注册表将由字段值、TLV名称和文档引用组成。此处定义了能力TLV的值1。
+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| Range | Assignment Policy |
+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved (not to be assigned) |
| | |
| 1 | Already assigned |
| | |
| 2-32767 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | |
| 32768-32777 | Experimentation (No assignements) |
| | |
| 32778-65535 | Reserved (Not to be assigned) |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| Range | Assignment Policy |
+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| 0 | Reserved (not to be assigned) |
| | |
| 1 | Already assigned |
| | |
| 2-32767 | Unassigned (Standards Action) |
| | |
| 32768-32777 | Experimentation (No assignements) |
| | |
| 32778-65535 | Reserved (Not to be assigned) |
+-----------+-------------------------------------+
OSPF RI TLVs
OSPF RI TLV
* Types in the range 32768-32777 are for experimental use; these will not be registered with IANA and MUST NOT be mentioned by RFCs.
* 32768-32777范围内的类型用于实验用途；这些将不会在IANA注册，RFC不得提及。
* Types in the range 32778-65535 are reserved and are not to be assigned at this time. Before any assignments can be made in this range, there MUST be a Standards Track RFC that specifies IANA Considerations that covers the range being assigned.
* 32778-65535范围内的类型为保留类型，此时不进行分配。在此范围内进行任何分配之前，必须有一个标准跟踪RFC，指定涵盖所分配范围的IANA注意事项。
3. Registry for OSPF Router Informational Capability Bits - This sub-registry of the OSPF RI TLV registry will be comprised of the fields Bit Number, Capability Name, and Document Reference. The values are defined in Section 2.4. All Router Informational Capability TLV additions are to be assigned through standards action.
3. OSPF路由器信息能力位注册表-OSPF RI TLV注册表的子注册表将由位号、能力名称和文档引用字段组成。数值在第2.4节中定义。所有路由器信息能力TLV添加都将通过标准行动分配。
[OPAQUE] Coltun, R., "The OSPF Opaque LSA Option", RFC 2370, July 1998.
[不透明]Coltun，R.，“OSPF不透明LSA选项”，RFC 23701998年7月。
[OSPF] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[OSPF]Moy，J.，“OSPF版本2”，STD 54，RFC 23281998年4月。
[OSPFV3] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 2740, December 1999.
[OSPFV3]Coltun，R.，Ferguson，D.，和J.Moy，“IPv6的OSPF”，RFC 27401999年12月。
[RFC-KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFC's to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC-关键词]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[TE] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF", RFC 3630, September 2003.
[TE]Katz，D.，Kompella，K.，和D.Yaung，“OSPF的交通工程扩展”，RFC 3630，2003年9月。
[EXP-TE] Srisuresh, P. and P. Joseph, "OSPF-xTE: Experimental Extension to OSPF for Traffic Engineering", RFC 4973, July 2007.
[EXP-TE]Srisuresh，P.和P.Joseph，“OSPF xTE：交通工程对OSPF的实验扩展”，RFC 4973，2007年7月。
[GRACE] Moy, J., Pillay-Esnault, P., and A. Lindem, "Graceful OSPF Restart", RFC 3623, November 2003.
[GRACE]Moy，J.，Pillay Esnault，P.，和A.Lindem，“优雅的OSPF重启”，RFC 36232003年11月。
[P2PLAN] Shen, N. and A. Zinin, "Point-to-point operation over LAN in link-state routing protocols", Work in Progress, April 2006.
[P2PLAN]Shen，N.和A.Zinin，“链路状态路由协议中局域网上的点对点操作”，正在进行的工作，2006年4月。
[STUB] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D. McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137, June 2001.
[STUB]Retana，A.，Nguyen，L.，White，R.，Zinin，A.，和D.McPherson，“OSPF存根路由器广告”，RFC 3137，2001年6月。
The idea for this work grew out of a conversation with Andrew Partan and we would like to thank him for his contribution. The authors would like to thanks Peter Psenak for his review and helpful comments on early versions of the document.
这项工作的想法来源于与安德鲁·帕坦（Andrew Partan）的对话，我们要感谢他的贡献。作者要感谢Peter Psenak对该文件早期版本的评论和有益的评论。
Comments from Abhay Roy, Vishwas Manral, Vivek Dubey, and Adrian Farrel have been incorporated into later versions.
来自Abhay Roy、Vishwas Manral、Vivek Dubey和Adrian Farrel的评论已被纳入后续版本中。
The RFC text was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
RFC文本是使用Marshall Rose的xml2rfc工具生成的。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Acee Lindem (editor) Redback Networks 102 Carric Bend Court Cary, NC 27519 USA
Acee Lindem（编辑）Redback Networks 102美国北卡罗来纳州卡里克本德法院，邮编27519
EMail: acee@redback.com
EMail: acee@redback.com
Naiming Shen Cisco Systems 225 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA
美国加利福尼亚州圣何塞市西塔斯曼大道225号思科系统公司沈乃明95134
EMail: naiming@cisco.com
EMail: naiming@cisco.com
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Cisco Systems 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 USA
Jean-Philippe Vasseur Cisco Systems美国马萨诸塞州Boxborough马萨诸塞大道1414号01719
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
EMail: jpv@cisco.com
Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Rahul Aggarwal Juniper Networks 1194 N.Mathilda Ave.Sunnyvale，加利福尼亚州94089
EMail: rahul@juniper.net
EMail: rahul@juniper.net
Scott Shaffer BridgePort Networks One Main Street, 7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 USA
Scott Shaffer BridgePort Networks One Main Street，剑桥7楼，美国马萨诸塞州02142
EMail: sshaffer@bridgeport-networks.com
EMail: sshaffer@bridgeport-networks.com
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
版权所有（C）IETF信托基金（2007年）。
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.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
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.
本文件及其包含的信息以“原样”为基础提供，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会、IETF信托基金和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
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.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和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.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为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.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。