<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
    <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
    <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
    <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
    <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std"
    docName="draft-hu-fantel-area-00"
    ipr="trust200902">
    <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt'?>

    <?rfc strict="yes"?>

    <?rfc toc="yes"?>

    <!-- generate a ToC -->
    <?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
    <?rfc compact="yes"?>

    <front>
        <title abbrev="draft-hu-fantel-area-00">A Scoping Mechanism for Fast Notification Using IGP Areas</title>

        <author initials="Z" surname="Hu" fullname="Zehua Hu">
            <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            <address>
                <postal>
                    <city>Guangzhou</city>
                    <country>China</country>
                </postal>
                <email>huzh2@chinatelecom.cn</email>
            </address>
        </author>
        
        <date year="2025" />

        <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

        <area>Routing Area</area>

        <workgroup>RTGWG</workgroup>

        <abstract>
            <t>Fast Notification for Traffic Engineering and Load Balancing (FaNTEL) enables real-time dissemination 
                of network events such as link failure, congestion, or load imbalance. However, unbounded flooding of 
                FaNTEL messages can lead to control plane overload and state explosion.
            </t>

            <t>This document defines a scoping mechanism for FaNTEL based on IGP area boundaries. 
                It formally specifies the concept of a FaNTEL Area, the structure of scoped notification messages, and the 
                precise forwarding behavior within and across areas. The mechanism leverages existing IGP topological partitions 
                (e.g., OSPF areas, IS-IS levels) to contain message propagation, ensuring rapid local response while preventing 
                unnecessary global churn. This document focuses exclusively on the propagation model and provides normative rules for implementation.
            </t>
        </abstract>

    </front>

    <middle>
        <section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">
            <t>The FaNTEL mechanism aims to deliver network event notifications with minimal latency, such as congestion, 
                failure, or load shift. Unlike periodic telemetry, FaNTEL operates as an event-driven push system. 
                However, unrestricted reachability undermines scalability and stability.
            </t>

            <t>This document defines a scoped propagation model where FaNTEL message dissemination is bound by IGP area topology. 
                We introduce the formal notion of a FaNTEL Area, aligned with IGP routing domains, and specify the exact message 
                format and forwarding semantics that enforce scope. The goal of this document is not to define FaNTEL signaling end-to-end, 
                but to standardize how far a notification should travel. 
            </t>

        </section>

        <section title="Conventions Used in This Document">
            <section title="Abbreviations">
                <t>IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol</t>
                <t>FaNTEL: Fast Notification for Traffic Engineering and Load Balancing</t>
                <t>WAN: Wide Area Network</t>
            </section>

            <section title="Requirements Language">
                <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119" /> <xref
                    target="RFC8174" /> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </t>
            </section>
        </section>      

        <section anchor="solution" title="FaNTEL Area Definition">

            <t>A FaNTEL Area is a set of routers sharing the same IGP area context and participating in a common FaNTEL flooding domain.
                A router belongs to a FaNTEL Area if:
            </t>

            <list style="symbols">
                <t>It runs an IGP (OSPF or IS-IS) and is assigned to a specific area.</t>
                <t>It is configured to participate in FaNTEL.</t>
                <t>It has established adjacency with at least one other FaNTEL-capable router in the same IGP area.</t>
            </list>
            
            <t>The FaNTEL Area Identifier (FA-ID) is a 32-bit value derived from the underlying IGP's area identification mechanism. 
                The derivation method is protocol-specific and MUST be consistent across all routers within a single deployment.
            </t>

            <section title="For OSPFv2 and OSPFv3">
                <t>In OSPF, the topology is partitioned into logical areas identified by a 32-bit Area ID, as defined in [RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. 
                    This Area ID is carried in all OSPF packets (Hello, Database Description, LSA headers) and is used to determine adjacency 
                    formation and routing information scope.
                </t>

                <t>The FA-ID SHALL be set directly to the OSPF Area ID of the interface or router generating the FaNTEL message. 
                    The Area ID may be represented in dotted-decimal notation but is interpreted and transmitted as a 32-bit 
                    integer in network byte order.
                </t>
            </section>
            

            <section title="For IS-IS">
                <t>In IS-IS, level-1 routing domains are defined by matching Area Addresses (also known as Area IDs or NSAP prefixes), as specified in [RFC1195]. 
                    Unlike OSPF, IS-IS allows multiple Area Addresses per system, and the identifier is variable-length.  
                    To derive a consistent 32-bit FA-ID across all routers in the same level-1 domain:
                </t>

                <list style="symbols">
                    <t>The FA-ID SHALL be derived from the set of locally configured IS-IS Area Addresses using a deterministic hashing function.</t>
                    <t>All routers within the same level-1 area MUST use the same hashing algorithm to ensure identical FA-ID computation.</t>
                    <t>If no Area Address is configured for Level-1 routing, the FA-ID MUST be set to 0x00000000.</t>
                </list>
            </section>

        </section>

        <section title="FaNTEL Message Procession">
            <section title="Prerequisites for Processing">
                <t>Before evaluating the scope of a received FaNTEL message, the router MUST authenticate it using a pre-shared key 
                    and a cryptographic hash function such as HMAC-SHA256; 
                    if authentication fails, the message MUST be dropped immediately without further processing.
                </t>
            </section>

            <section title="Local FA-ID Determination">
                <t>The router derives its local_FA-ID from the underlying IGP configuration: for OSPF, the 32-bit Area ID is used directly; 
                    for IS-IS, a deterministic 32-bit hash is computed over the set of locally configured Area Addresses, 
                    ensuring consistent derivation across all routers in the same domain.
                </t>
            </section>

            <section title="FA-ID Matching and Decision Logic">
                <t>The router compares the message’s Originating FA-ID with its own local_FA-ID(s); if they match, the message is considered 
                    locally relevant and proceeds to intra-area processing, otherwise it is discarded unless the router is a border node and 
                    administrative policy allows inter-area relay.
                </t>
            </section>

            <section title="Intra-Area Processing Procedure">
                <t>Upon successful FA-ID match, the router processes the event (e.g., updates forwarding state), suppresses duplicates using 
                    the Originating Router ID and Sequence Number, and reliably floods the message to all FaNTEL-capable neighbors within the 
                    same area using a multicast or reliable unicast transport.
                </t>
            </section>

            <section title="Border Node Relay Decision">
                <t>A border node that receives a FaNTEL message with a non-matching FA-ID may, based on configured policy, generate a new message 
                    in an adjacent area by setting the Originating FA-ID to the target area’s identifier, decrementing the TTL, and optionally 
                    summarizing the event before flooding, but MUST NOT forward the original message across areas.
                </t>
            </section>
        </section>

        <section anchor="sec" title="Security Considerations">
            <t>TBD</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
            <t>TBD</t>
        </section>

        <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgments">
            <t>TBD</t>
        </section>
        <!---->
    </middle>

    <back>

        <references title="Normative References">
            <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
                <front>
                    <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
                    <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner" />
                    <date month="March" year="1997" />
                    <abstract>
                        <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the
                            requirements in the
                            specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines
                            these words as they should
                            be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet
                            Best Current Practices for
                            the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
                            improvements.</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14" />
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119" />
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119" />
            </reference>
            
            <reference anchor="RFC3688" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688">
                <front>
                    <title>The IETF XML Registry</title>
                    <author fullname="M. Mealling" initials="M." surname="Mealling" />
                    <date month="January" year="2004" />
                    <abstract>
                        <t>This document describes an IANA maintained registry for IETF standards
                            which use Extensible Markup
                            Language (XML) related items such as Namespaces, Document Type
                            Declarations (DTDs), Schemas, and
                            Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schemas.</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="81" />
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3688" />
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3688" />
            </reference>
                                 
            <reference anchor="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">
                <front>
                    <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
                    <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba" />
                    <date month="May" year="2017" />
                    <abstract>
                        <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol
                            specifications. This document
                            aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of
                            the key words have the
                            defined special meanings.</t>
                    </abstract>
                </front>
                <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14" />
                <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174" />
                <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174" />
            </reference>
        </references>

        <references title="Informative References">
           

        </references>

<!-- appendix -->      
    </back>
</rfc>
