<?xml version='1.0'?>
    <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd' [
        <!ENTITY rfc2119 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc2328 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2328.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc3630 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3630.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc4915 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4915.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc5250 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5250.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc5340 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5340.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc5572 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5572.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc6549 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6549.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc6823 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6823.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc8174 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml'>
        <!ENTITY rfc8362 PUBLIC '' 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8362.xml'>
        <!ENTITY I-D.wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit PUBLIC ''
      'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml-ids/reference.I-D.draft-wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit-01.xml'>
        ]>
<?rfc  toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="no"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="6"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-transport-instance-02">
  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="OSPF Transport Instance">OSPF Transport Instance Extensions</title>

    <author initials="A" surname="Lindem"
    fullname="Acee Lindem">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>

      <address>
       <postal>
         <street>301 Midenhall Way</street>

        <region>CARY, NC 27513</region>

        <country>UNITED STATES</country>
       </postal>

       <phone></phone>
       <email>acee@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Yingzhen Qu" initials="Y" surname="Qu">
      <organization>Futurewei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>2330 Central Expressway</street>
          <city>Santa Clara</city>
          <region>CA</region>
          <code>95050</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <phone></phone>
        <email>yingzhen.qu@futurewei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Abhay Roy" initials="A"
            surname="Roy">
      <organization>Arrcus, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>abhay@arrcus.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Sina Mirtorabi" initials="S" surname="Mirtorabi">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
          <city>San Jose</city>
          <region>CA</region>
          <code>95134</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <phone></phone>
        <email>smirtora@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>


    <date/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>LSR Workgroup</workgroup>
    <abstract>
        <t>
   OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 include a reliable flooding mechanism to
   disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering (TE) information
   within a routing domain.  Given the effectiveness of these
   mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same mechanism for
   dissemination of other types of information within the domain.
   However, burdening OSPF with this additional information will impact
   intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize the
   stability of the OSPF routing domain.  This document presents
   mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF
   instance and minimize the impact.

    </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <!-- ***** MIDDLE MATTER ***** -->

  <middle>
      <section title="Introduction">
	<t>
	  OSPFv2 <xref target="RFC2328"/>  and OSPFv3 <xref target="RFC5340"/>
	  include a reliable flooding
	  mechanism to disseminate routing topology and Traffic Engineering
	  (TE) information within a routing domain.  Given the effectiveness of
	  these mechanisms, it is convenient to envision using the same
	  mechanism for dissemination of other types of information within the
	  domain.  However, burdening OSPF with this additional information
	  will impact intra-domain routing convergence and possibly jeopardize
	  the stability of the OSPF routing domain.  This document presents
	  mechanism to relegate this ancillary information to a separate OSPF
	  instance and minimize the impact.
	</t>
	<t>
	  This OSPF protocol extension provides functionality similar to
	  "Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS" <xref target="RFC6823"/>.
	  Additionally, OSPF is extended to support sparse non-routing overlay
	  topologies <xref target="sparse"/>.
	</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 title="Possible Use Cases">
      <section title="MEC Service Discovery">
        <t>Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) plays an important role in
          5G architecture. MEC optimizes the performance for ultra-low
          latency and high bandwidth services by providing networking
          and computing at the edge of the network <xref target="ETSI-WP28-MEC"/>.
          To achieve this goal, it’s important to expose the network
          capabilities and services of a MEC device to 5G User Equipment UE, i.e. UEs.</t>
        <t>The followings are an incomplete list of the kind of
          information that OSPF transport instance can help to
          disseminate:
          <list style="symbols">
          <t>A network service is realized using one or more physical or
            virtualized hosts in MEC, and the locations of these service
            points might change. The auto-discovery of these service
            locations can be achieved using an OSPF transport instance.</t>
          <t>UEs might be mobile, and MEC should support service
            continuity and application mobility. This may require service
            state transferring and synchronization. OSPF transport
            instance can be used to synchronize these states.</t>
          <t>Network resources are limited, such as computing power,
            storage. The availability of such resources is dynamic, and
            OSPF transport instance can be used to populate such
            information, so applications can pick the right location of
            such resources, hence improve user experience and resource
            utilization.</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>
      <section title="Application Data Dissemination">
        <t>Typically a network consists of routers from different
          vendors with different capabilities, and some applications may
          want to know whether a router supports certain functionality
          or where to find a router supports a functionality, so it will
          be ideal if such kind of information is known to all routers
          or a group of routers in the network. For example, an ingress
          router needs to find an egress router that supports In-situ
          Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT)
          <xref target="I-D.wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit"/> and obtain
	  IFIT parameters.</t>
        <t>OSPF transport instance can be used to populate such router
          capabilities/functionalities without impacting the performance
          or convergence of the base OSPF protocol.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Intra-Area Topology for BGP-LS Distribution">
	<t>In some cases, it is desirable to limit the number of
	BGP-LS  <xref target="RFC5572"/> sessions
	with a controller to the a one or two routers in an OSPF domain.
	However, many times those router(s) do not have full visibility to the
	complete topology of all the areas. To solve this problem without extended
	the BGP-LS domain, the OSPF LSAs for non-local area could be flooded
	over the OSPF transport instance topology using
	remote neighbors <xref target="remote-neighbor"/>.</t>
      </section>	
     </section>

 <section title="OSPF Transport Instance">
     <t>
   In order to isolate the effects of flooding and processing of non-
   routing information, it will be relegated to a separate protocol
   instance.  This instance should be given lower priority when
   contending for router resources including processing, backplane
   bandwidth, and line card bandwidth.  How that is realized is an
   implementation issue and is outside the scope of this document.
     </t>
     <t>
   Throughout the document, non-routing refers to routing information
   that is not used for IP or IPv6 routing calculations.  The OSPF
   transport instance is ideally suited for dissemination of routing
   information for other protocols and layers.
     </t>

 <section title="OSPFv2 Transport Instance Packet Differentiation">
   <t>
   OSPFv2 currently does not offer a mechanism to differentiate Transport
   instance packets from normal instance packets sent and received on
   the same interface.  However, the <xref target="RFC6549"/> provides the
   necessary packet encoding to support multiple OSPF protocol instances.
   </t>
 </section>

 <section title="OSPFv3 Transport Instance Packet Differentiation">
   <t>
   Fortunately, OSPFv3 already supports separate instances within the
   packet encodings.  The existing OSPFv3 packet header instance ID
   field will be used to differentiate packets received on the same link
   (refer to section 2.4 in <xref target="RFC5340"/>).
   </t>
 </section>

<section title="Instance Relationship to Normal OSPF Instances">
  <t>In OSPF transport instance, we must guarantee that any information
    we've received is treated as valid if and only if the router
    sending it is reachable.  We'll refer to this as the "condition of
    reachability" in this document.</t>
  <t>The OSPF transport instance is not dependent on any
    other OSPF instance.  It does, however, have much of the same as
    topology information must be advertised to satisfy the "condition of
    reachability".</t>
  <t>Further optimizations and coupling between an OSPF transport instance
    and a normal OSPF instance are beyond the scope of this document.
    This is an area for future study.</t>
</section>

 <section title="Network Prioritization">
   <t>
   While OSPFv2 (section 4.3 in <xref target="RFC2328"/>) are normally sent with IP
   precedence Internetwork Control, any packets sent by an OSPF
   transport instance will be sent with IP precedence Flash (B'011').
   This is only appropriate given that this is a pretty flashy
   mechanism.
   </t>
   <t>
   Similarly, OSPFv3 transport instance packets will be sent with the
   traffic class mapped to flash (B'011') as specified in (<xref target="RFC5340"/>).
   </t>
   <t>
   By setting the IP/IPv6 precedence differently for OSPF transport
   instance packets, normal OSPF routing instances can be given priority
   during both packet transmission and reception.  In fact, some router
   implementations map the IP precedence directly to their internal
   packet priority.  However, internal router implementation decisions
   are beyond the scope of this document.
   </t>
 </section>

 <section anchor="routing-omission" title="OSPF Transport Instance Omission of Routing Calculation">
   <t>
   Since the whole point of the transport instance is to separate the
   routing and non-routing processing and fate sharing, a transport
   instance SHOULD NOT install any IP or IPv6 routes.  OSPF routers
   SHOULD NOT advertise any transport instance LSAs containing IP or
   IPv6 prefixes and OSPF routers receiving LSAs advertising IP or IPv6
   prefixes SHOULD ignore them.  This implies that an OSPF transport
   instance Link State Database should not include any of the LSAs as
   shown in Table 1.
    <figure title="LSAs not included in OSPF transport instance">
      <artwork>

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   OSPFv2            |  summary-LSAs (type 3)                  |
  |                     |  AS-external-LSAs (type 5)              |
  |                     |  NSSA-LSAs (type 7)                     |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   OSPFv3            |  inter-area-prefix-LSAs (type 2003)     |
  |                     |  AS-external-LSAs (type 0x4005)         |
  |                     |  NSSA-LSAs (type 0x2007)                |
  |                     |  intra-area-prefix-LSAs (type 0x2009)   |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | OSPFv3 Extended LSA |  E-inter-area-prefix-LSAs (type 0xA023) |
  |                     |  E-as-external-LSAs (type 0xC025)       |
  |                     |  E-Type-7-NSSA (type 0xA027)            |
  |                     |  E-intra-area-prefix-LSA (type 0xA029)  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     </artwork>
    </figure></t>

   <t>If these LSAs are erroneously advertised, they will be flooded
    as per standard OSPF but MUST be ignored by OSPF routers supporting
    this specification.
   </t>
 </section>

 <section title="Non-routing Instance Separation">
  <t>
   It has been suggested that an implementation could obtain the same
   level of separation between IP routing information and non-routing
   information in a single instance with slight modifications to the
   OSPF protocol.  The authors refute this contention for the following
   reasons:
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>Adding internal and external mechanisms to prioritize routing
       information over non-routing information are much more complex
       than simply relegating the non-routing information to a separate
       instance as proposed in this specification.</t>

    <t>The instance boundary offers much better separation for allocation
       of finite resources such as buffers, memory, processor cores,
       sockets, and bandwidth.</t>

    <t>The instance boundary decreases the level of fate sharing for
       failures.  Each instance may be implemented as a separate process
       or task.</t>

     <t>With non-routing information, many times not every router in the
        OSPF routing domain requires knowledge of every piece of non-
        routing information.  In these cases, groups of routers which need
        to share information can be segregated into sparse topologies
        greatly reducing the amount of non-routing information any single
        router needs to maintain.</t>
    </list></t>
 </section>

 <section anchor="sparse" title="Non-Routing Sparse Topologies">
   <t>
   With non-routing information, many times not every router in the OSPF
   routing domain requires knowledge of every piece of non-routing
   information.  In these cases, groups of routers which need to share
   information can be segregated into sparse topologies.  This will
   greatly reduce the amount of information any single router needs to
   maintain with the core routers possibly not requiring any non-routing
   information at all.
   </t>
   <t>
   With normal OSPF, every router in an OSPF area must have every piece
   of topological information and every intra-area IP or IPv6 prefix.
   With non-routing information, only the routers needing to share a set
   of information need be part of the corresponding sparse topology.
   For directly attached routers, one only needs to configure the
   desired topologies on the interfaces with routers requiring the non-
   routing information.  When the routers making up the sparse topology
   are not part of a uniconnected graph, two alternatives exist.  The
   first alternative is configuring tunnels to form a fully connected
   graph including only those routers in the sparse topology.  The
   second alternative is use remote neighbors as described in
   <xref target="remote-neighbor"/>.
  </t>
 <section anchor="remote-neighbor" title="Remote OSPF Neighbor">
   <t>
   With sparse topologies, OSPF routers sharing non-routing information
   may not be directly connected.  OSPF adjacencies with remote
   neighbors are formed exactly as they are with regular OSPF neighbors.
   The main difference is that a remote OSPF neighbor's address is
   configured and IP routing is used to deliver OSPF protocol packets to
   the remote neighbor.  Other salient feature of the remote neighbor
   include:
    <list style="symbols">
    <t>All OSPF packets have the remote neighbor's configured IP address
       as the IP destination address. This address has be to reachable
       usig the unicast topology.</t>

    <t>The adjacency is represented in the router Router-LSA as a router
       (type-1) link with the link data set to the remote neighbor's
       configured IP address.</t>

    <t>Similar to NBMA networks, a poll-interval is configured to
       determine if the remote neighbor is reachable.  This value is
       normally much higher than the hello interval with 40 seconds
       RECOMMENDED as the default.</t>
    </list></t>
 </section>
 </section>
 <section anchor="mtr" title="Multiple Topologies">
   <t>For some applications, the information need to be flooded only to
    a topology which is a subset of routers of the transport instance.
    This allows the application specific information only to be flooded
    to routers that support the application. A transport instance
    may support multiple topologies as defined in <xref target="RFC4915"/>. 
    But as pointed out in <xref target="routing-omission"/>, a transport 
    instance or topology
    SHOULD NOT install any IP or IPv6 routes.</t>
   <t>Each topology associated with the transport instance MUST be
    fully connected in order for the LSAs to be successfully flooded
    to all routers in the topology.</t>
 </section>
</section>

<section title="OSPF Transport Instance Information (TII) Encoding">
  <section title="OSPFv2 Transport Instance Information Encoding">
    <t>
      Application specific information will be flooded in opaque LSAs as
      specified in <xref target="RFC5250"/>. An Opaque LSA option code will be
      reserved for Transport Instance Information (TII) as described
      in <xref target="IANA"/>. The TII LSA can be advertised at any of
      the defined flooding scopes (link, area, or autonomous system (AS)).
   <figure title="OSPFv2 Transport Instance Information Opaque LSA">
     <artwork>
   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 |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |       TBD1    |     Opaque ID (Instance ID)                   |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                     Advertising Router                        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                     LS sequence number                        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |         LS checksum           |             length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  +-                            TLVs                             -+
  |                             ...                               |

g    </artwork>
  </figure></t>
   <t> 
   The format of the TLVs within the body of an TII LSA is as defined in
   <xref target="TTI-TLVS"/>.
   </t>
  </section>
  <section title="OSPFv3 Transport Instance Information Encoding">
    <t>
      Application specific information will be flooded in separate LSAs
      with a separate function code. 
      Refer to section A.4.2.1 of <xref target="RFC5340"/>.
      for information on the LS Type encoding in OSPFv3, and section 2 of
      <xref target="RFC8362"/> for OSPFv3 extended LSA types. An OSPFv3 function
      code will be reserved for Transport Instance
      Information (TII) as described in <xref target="IANA"/>. Same as
      OSPFv2, the TII LSA can be advertised at any of the defined flooding scopes 
      (link, area, or autonomous system (AS)).  The U bit will be set indicating
      that OSPFv3 TTI LSAs should be flooded even if it is not understood. 
    <figure title="OSPFv3 Transport Instance Information LSA">
     <artwork>
   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|          TBD2           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                       Link State ID (Instance ID)             |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                       Advertising Router                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                       LS sequence number                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |        LS checksum            |            Length             |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  +-                            TLVs                             -+
  |                             ...                               |

  </artwork>
  </figure>
    </t>
   <t> 
   The format of the TLVs within the body of an TII LSA is as defined in
   <xref target="TTI-TLVS"/>.
   </t>
  </section>
  <section anchor="TTI-TLVS" title="Transport Instance Information (TII) TLV Encoding">
   <t>
   The format of the TLVs within the body of the LSAs
   containing non-routing information is the same as the format used by the Traffic
   Engineering Extensions to OSPF <xref target="RFC3630"/>. The LSA payload
   consists of one or more nested Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplets.
   The format of each TLV is:
   <figure title="TLV Format">
     <artwork>

   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...                           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    </artwork>
  </figure></t>

  <section anchor="TIIA-TLV" title="Top-Level TII Application TLV">
  <t>An Application top-level TLV will be used to encapsulate application
     data advertised within TII LSAs.   
     This top-level TLV may be used to handle the local publication/subscription
     for application specific data. The details of such a publication/subscription
     mechanism are beyond the scope of this document.
     An Application ID is used in the top-level application TLV and shares
     the same code point with IS-IS as defined in <xref target="RFC6823"/>.
  <figure title="Top-Level TLV">
     <artwork>
   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 (1)         |      Length - Variable        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Application ID             |       Reserved                |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  .                                                               .
  .                            Sub-TLVs                           .
  .                                                               .
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


  Application ID:
    An identifier assigned to this application via the IANA registry,
    as defined in RFC 6823. Each unique application will have a
    unique ID.

  Additional Application-Specific Sub-TLVs:
    Additional information defined by applications can be encoded as 
    Sub-TLVs. Definition of such information is beyond the scope of 
    this document.
     </artwork>
  </figure></t>

  <t>
   The specific TLVs and sub-TLVs relating to a given application and
   the corresponding IANA considerations MUST be specified in the 
   document corresponding to that application.
  </t>
  </section>
  </section>
</section>
  <section title="Manageability Considerations">
  </section>
  <section title="Security Considerations">
    <t>
   The security considerations for the Transport Instance will not be
   different for those for OSPFv2 <xref target="RFC2328"/> and
   OSPFv3 <xref target="RFC5340"/>.
    </t>
   </section>
   <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
   <section title="OSPFv2 Opaque LSA Type Assignment">
     <t>
       IANA is requested to assign an option type, TBD1, for Transport Instance Information (TII)
       LSA from the "Opaque Link-State Advertisements (LSA) Option Types" registry.
     </t>
    </section>
   <section title="OSPFv3 LSA Function Code Assignment">
     <t>
       IANA is requested to assign a function code, TBD2, for Transport Instance Information (TII)
       LSAs from the "OSPFv3 LSA Function Codes" registry.
     </t>
    </section>
   <section title="OSPF Transport Instance Information Top-Level TLV Registry">
     <t>
       IANA is requested to create a registry for OSPF Transport Instance Information (TII)
       Top-Level TLVs. The first available TLV (1) is assigned to the
       Application TLV <xref target="TIIA-TLV"/>. The allocation of the unsigned 16-bit
       TLV type are defined in the table below.
        <figure title="TII Top-Level TLV Registry Assignments">
      <artwork>
          +-------------+-----------------------------------+
          | Range       | Assignment Policy                 |
          +-------------+-----------------------------------+
          | 0           | Reserved (Not to be assigned)     |
          |             |                                   |
          | 1           | Application TLV                   |
          |             |                                   |
          | 2-16383     | Unassigned (IETF Review)          |
          |             |                                   |
          | 16383-32767 | Unassigned (FCFS)                 |
          |             |                                   |
          | 32768-32777 | Experimentation (No assignements) |
          |             |                                   |
          | 32778-65535 | Reserved (Not to be assigned)     |
          +-----------+-------------------------------------+
</artwork>
     </figure></t>
    </section>
  </section>

 <section title="Acknowledgement">
    <t>
  The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg for review and comments. 
    </t>
 </section>



  </middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
          &rfc2119;
          &rfc2328;
          &rfc3630;
          &rfc4915;
          &rfc5250;
          &rfc5340;
          &rfc6549;
          &rfc6823;
          &rfc8174;
          &rfc8362;
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
      &rfc5572;
      &I-D.wang-lsr-igp-extensions-ifit;
      <reference anchor="ETSI-WP28-MEC"

    target="https://www.etsi.org/images/files/ETSIWhitePapers/etsi_wp28_mec_in_5G_FINAL.pdf">

  <front>

   <title>MEC in 5G Networks</title>

   <author>

     <organization>Sami Kekki, etc.</organization>

   </author>

   <date year="2018" />

       </front>

     </reference>
    </references>

  </back>
</rfc>
