PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft U. Palle
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Expires: March 4, 2012 Sept 2011
ISIS Protocol Extensions for Boundary Node Discovery (BND)
draft-dhody-pce-bn-discovery-isis-03
Abstract
There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable to be
able to dynamically and automatically discover a set of Boundary
Nodes (BN) along with their domain information. For that purpose,
this document defines extensions to the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System(IS-IS) routing protocol for the advertisement of
Boundary Node (BN)Discovery information within an IS-IS area or
within the entire IS-IS routing domain.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Boundary Node (BN) Discovery Information . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Flooding Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Existing Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Inter-AS TE Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. ISIS Area Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. HPCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Static Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Importance of Domain Information along with BNs . . . . . . . 7
8. Relationship to Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. The IS-IS BND Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. BN-ADDRESS Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. BN-DOMAIN Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
12. Impact on Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
15. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
16. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
1. Introduction
This document defines extensions to IS-IS [ISO] to allow a boundary
node in an IS-IS routing domain to advertise its location, along with
domain information.
Generic capability advertisement mechanisms for IS-IS are defined in
[RFC4971]. These allow a router to advertise its capabilities within
an IS-IS area or an entire IS-IS routing domain. This document
leverages this generic capability advertisement mechanism to fully
satisfy the dynamic BN discovery.
This document defines a new sub-TLV (named the BN Discovery (BND))to
be carried within the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ([RFC4971]).
The BN information advertised is detailed in Section 3. Protocol
extensions and procedures are defined in Sections 6 and 7.
The IS-IS extensions defined in this document allow for BN discovery
within an IS-IS routing domain. Boundary Node can be an ABR or ASBR.
This document defines a set of sub-TLVs that are nested within each
other. When the degree of nesting TLVs is 2 (a TLV is carried within
another TLV) the TLV carried within a TLV is called a sub-TLV.
Strictly speaking, when the degree of nesting is 3, a sub-sub-TLV is
carried within a sub-TLV that is itself carried within a TLV. For
the sake of terminology simplicity, a TLV carried within another TLV
is called a sub-TLV regardless of the degree of nesting.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC2119.
2. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document.
ABR: IS-IS Area Border Router. Routers used to connect two IGP
areas.
AS: Autonomous System.
ASBR: Autonomous System Border Router. Router used to connect
together ASes of the same or different service providers via one
or more inter-AS links
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
BN: A boundary node is either an ABR in the context of inter-area
Traffic Engineering or an ASBR in the context of inter-AS Traffic
Engineering.
BND: Boundary Node Discovery
BRPC: Backward Recursive Path Computation
Domain: Any collection of network elements within a common sphere of
address management or path computational responsibility. Examples
of domains include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas and
Autonomous Systems (ASs).
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. Either of the two routing
protocols, Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) or Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS).
LSA: Link State Advertisement.
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System.
PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (component, application,
or network node) that is capable of computing a network path or
route based on a network graph and applying computational
constraints.
TLV: Type-Length-Variable data encoding.
3. Overview
3.1. Boundary Node (BN) Discovery Information
The BN discovery information is composed of:
o The BN location: an IPv4 and/or IPv6 address that is used to reach
the BN. It is RECOMMENDED to use an address that is always
reachable from all connected domains;
o The set of two or more Domain(s) into which the BN has
connectivity;
Changes in BN discovery information may occur as a result of BN
configuration update or domain status change.
3.2. Flooding Scope
The flooding scope for BN information advertised through IS-IS can be
a single L1 area, an L1 area and the L2 sub-domain, or the entire
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
IS-IS routing domain.
4. Applications
BRPC procedure as defined in [RFC5441], requires Path Computation
Element (PCE)[RFC4655] to be aware of the BNs for the inter-domain
path computation. As shown in the figure 1, Incase of ISIS Backbone
area(L2), configuration of BNs at PCE5 is extensive. BRPC procedure
guarantees a best path only if BNs are selected correctly, any change
in BNs at run time may lead to sub-optimal path. Also Administrator
need to configure ABR / ASBR ID in such a way that it is reachable
from all the domains, BND Tlv can take care of this automatically.
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
| +------+| | +------+|
| Area1(L1) | PCE1 || | Area2(L1) | PCE2 ||
| +--+---+| | +--+---+|
| | | |
| +---------------------+----------+--------------------+ |
| | +------+ +------+| |+------+ +------+ | |
| | | BN1 | | BN2 || || BN3 | | BN4 | | |
| | +--+---+ +--+---+| |+--+---+ +---+--+ | |
+----+----|-----------+----+ +---+-----------+----+-----+
| | | | | |
| +-----------+-------+ +------+-----------+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| ++----++ |
| Backbone(L2) | PCE5 | |
| ++----++ |
| | | |
| | | |
| +-----------+-------+ +------+----------+ |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
+----+----+-----------+----+ +---+----------+-----+-----+
| | +--+---+ +--+---+| |+--+---+ +--+---+ | |
| | | BN5 | | BN6 || || BN7 | | BN8 | | |
| | +------+ +------+| |+------+ +------+ | |
| +---------------------+----------+--------------------+ |
| | | |
| +------+| | +------+|
| Area3(L1) | PCE3 || | Area4(L1) | PCE4 ||
| +--+---+| | +--+---+|
+--------------------------+ +--------------------------+
Figure 1: ISIS Area Topology
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
5. Existing Mechanisms
5.1. ISIS
o As specified in [RFC1142] ABR/ASBR can be identified but not their
domain information. As stated in section 7, Selection of correct
BN is based on domain and thus it is ineffective.
o Selection of ABR/ASBR based on ISIS Database is not a good idea,
first it requires PCE to look into ISIS Database thus adding to
coupling, second it MAY require BGP routes to be redistributed
into ISIS which is also not a good network design principle.
5.2. Inter-AS TE Link
o [RFC5316] specifies how to advertise TE properties of inter-AS
links; through which ASBR and remote AS can be discovered, but ABR
and their domain information cannot be discovered via above RFC.
o AS is made up of multiple Area, there maybe a need to clearly
identify a BN by combination of both AS number and Area-id. Refer
Section 3.3.3 of [DOMAIN-SEQ].
5.3. ISIS Area Topology
o To uniquely identify an ISIS L1 area , an unique area Id MUST be
assigned. BND can be used to advertise this information.
5.4. HPCE
o Section 4 of [H-PCE] specifies each child PCE should know the
identity of the domains that neighbor its own domain and
advertises the same to the parent PCE. No method exist to find
the neighbor domain which need to be carried in NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN
Sub-TLV and BN discovery along with neighbor domain information
can help in generating NEIG-PCE-DOMAIN Sub-TLV.
6. Static Configurations
A simple solution would be to configure BNs [ABR and ASBR] at PCE(s)
along with their domain information. As this information is fairly
static this could work in simple situations. But as PCE are being
used in bigger and multiple domains, any sort of static
configurations would put extra effort on the system administrator.
Selection of correct BNs is the core of the BRPC procedure, we feel
this information should be dynamically learned and maintained.
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
7. Importance of Domain Information along with BNs
There are methods to learn BNs dynamically from IGP, but the
knowledge of neighboring-domains is not possible to obtain. Without
this the correct BN based on the domain-path can't be selected.
[RFC5441] mentions:
" Note that PCE(i) only considers the entry BNs of domain(i), i.e.,
only the BNs that provide connectivity from domain(i-1). In other
words, the set BN-en(k,i) is only made of those BNs that provide
connectivity from domain (i-1) to domain(i). "
This selection of correct BNs providing connectivity between correct
domains cannot be made by the information obtained from IGP. Without
the correct selection we would not be following [RFC5441].
8. Relationship to Domain-Sequence
[DOMAIN-SEQ] provides a standard representation of Domain Sequence in
all deployment scenarios. The Domain Information carried in the BN-
DOMAIN sub-tlv is same as the sub-objects inside the domain sequence.
9. The IS-IS BND Sub-TLV
The IS-IS BND sub-TLV contains a non-ordered set of sub-TLVs.
The format of the IS-IS BND sub-TLV and its sub-TLVs is identical to
the TLV format used by the Traffic Engineering Extensions to IS-IS
[RFC5305]. That is, the TLV is comprised of 1 octet for the type, 1
octet specifying the TLV length, and a value field. The Length field
defines the length of the value portion in octets.
The IS-IS BND sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: To be assigned by IANA (suggested value 6)
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: Set of sub-TLVs
Two sub-TLVs are defined:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
1 variable BN-ADDRESS sub-TLV
2 variable BN-DOMAIN sub-TLV
The BN-ADDRESS and BN-DOMAIN sub-TLVs MUST always be present within
the BND sub-TLV.
Any unrecognized sub-TLV MUST be silently ignored.
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
The BND sub-TLV is carried within an IS-IS CAPABILITY TLV defined in
[RFC4971].
The following sub-sections describe the sub-TLVs.
9.1. BN-ADDRESS Sub-TLV
The BN-ADDRESS sub-TLV specifies an IP address that can be used to
reach the BN. It is RECOMMENDED to make use of an address that is
always reachable, provided the BN is alive and reachable.
The BN-ADDRESS sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the
BND sub-TLV. It MAY appear twice, when the BN has both an IPv4 and
IPv6 address. It MUST NOT appear more than once for the same address
type. If it appears more than once for the same address type, only
the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored.
The BN-ADDRESS sub-TLV has the following format:
TYPE: 1
LENGTH: 5 for an IPv4 address or 17 for an IPv6 address.
VALUE: This comprises one octet indicating the address-type and 4
or 16 octets encoding the IPv4 or IPv6 address to be used
to reach the BN.
Address-type:
1 IPv4
2 IPv6
9.2. BN-DOMAIN Sub-TLV
The BN-DOMAIN sub-TLV specifies a BN-Domain (area and/or AS) where
the BN has topology connectivity.
The BN-DOMAIN sub-TLV is mandatory; it MUST be present within the BND
TLV.
A BND sub-TLV MUST include two or more BN-DOMAIN sub-TLVs as the BN
has connectivity into multiple BN-Domains.
The BN-DOMAIN sub-TLV has the following format:
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
TYPE: 2
LENGTH: Variable
VALUE: This is composed of one octet indicating the domain-type
(area ID or AS Number) and a variable length IS-IS area ID
or a 32-bit AS number, identifying a BN-Domain where the
BN has visibility and can compute paths.
Two domain types are defined:
1 Area ID
2 AS Number
The Area ID is the area address as defined in [ISO].
When the AS number is coded in two octets, the AS Number field MUST
have its first two octets set to 0.
10. Elements of Procedure
The BND sub-TLV is advertised within an IS-IS Router Capability TLV
defined in [RFC4971]. As such, elements of procedures are inherited
from those defined in [RFC4971].
The flooding scope is controlled by the S flag in the IS-IS Router
Capability TLV (see [RFC4971]). When the scope of the BND sub-TLV is
area local, it MUST be carried within an IS-IS Router Capability TLV
having the S bit cleared. When the scope of the BND sub-TLV is the
entire IS-IS routing domain, it MUST be carried within an IS-IS
Router Capability TLV having the S bit set.
Note that an L1L2 node may include a BND TLV in a Router Capability
TLV with the S bit cleared in both in its L1 and L2 LSPs. This
allows the flooding scope to be restricted to the L1 area and the L2
sub-domain.
When the BN function is deactivated, the IS-IS speaker MUST originate
a new IS-IS LSP that no longer includes the corresponding BND TLV.
The BN address (i.e., the address indicated within the BN-ADDRESS
sub-TLV) SHOULD be reachable via some prefixes advertised by IS-IS.
The BND sub-TLV information regarding a specific BN is only
considered current and useable when the router advertising this
information is itself reachable via IS-IS calculated paths at the
level of the LSP in which the BND sub-TLV appears.
A change in the state of a BN (activate, deactivate, domain change)
MUST result in a corresponding change in the BND sub-TLV information
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
advertised by an IS-IS router (inserted, removed, updated) in its
LSP. The way BNs determine the information they advertise, and how
that information is made available to IS-IS, is out of the scope of
this document. Some information may be configured and other
information may be automatically determined by ISIS.
A change in information in the BND sub-TLV MUST NOT trigger any SPF
computation at a receiving router.
11. Backward Compatibility
The BND TLV defined in this document does not introduce any
interoperability issues.
An IS-IS router not supporting the BND sub-TLV will just silently
ignore the sub-TLV as specified in [RFC4971].
12. Impact on Network
The routers acting as BNs will originate LSP with BND Tlv; As there
are only few BNs exist in the network, the performance impact in
flooding is very less.
13. IANA Considerations
IANA has defined a registry for the sub-TLVs carried in the IS-IS
Router Capability TLV defined in [RFC4971]. IANA has assigned a new
sub-TLV codepoint for the BND sub-TLV carried within the Router
Capability TLV.
Value Sub-TLV References
----- -------- ----------
To be BND sub-TLV (this document)
assigned
by IANA
14. Security Considerations
This document defines IS-IS extensions for BN discovery within an
administrative domain. Hence the security of the BN discovery relies
on the security of IS-IS.
Mechanisms defined to ensure authenticity and integrity of IS-IS LSPs
[RFC5304] and their TLVs, can be used to secure the BND sub-TLV as
well.
IS-IS provides no encryption mechanism for protecting the privacy of
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
LSPs and, in particular, the privacy of the BN discovery information.
15. Manageability Considerations
TBD
16. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Quintin Zhao, Daniel King, Adrian Ferral,
Suresh babu, Pradeep Shastry, Saravana Kumar and srinivasan for their
useful comments and suggestions.
17. References
17.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", March 1997.
[RFC4971] Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for
Advertising Router Information", July 2007.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
Authentication", October 2008.
[RFC5305] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
Engineering (TE)", October 2008.
17.2. Informative References
[DOMAIN-SEQ] Dhody, D. and U. Palle, "Standard Representation Of
Domain Sequence", March 2011.
[RFC1142] David and Oran, "OSI ISIS Intradomain Routing
Protocol", Febrauary 1990.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture",
August 2006.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", December 2008.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, "A
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ISIS BND Sept 2011
Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", April 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Leela Palace
Bangalore, Karnataka 560008
INDIA
EMail: udayasreepalle@huawei.com
Dhody & Palle Expires March 4, 2012 [Page 12]