IS-IS Flooding over TCP
draft-hsmit-lsr-isis-flooding-over-tcp-00
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2018-10-12
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Link-State Routing H. Smit, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track G. Van de Velde
Expires: April 15, 2019 Nokia
October 12, 2018
IS-IS Flooding over TCP
draft-hsmit-lsr-isis-flooding-over-tcp-00
Abstract
This document proposes a solution to use TCP for IS-IS flooding. The
proposed solution is a relative simple extension to implement. IS-IS
flooding over TCP brings BGP's property of scalable transport via TCP
to Link-State protocols.
This proposal defines a new TLV in point-to-point IIHs to signal the
intent of a router to do flooding over TCP, and it defines a small
header to encapsulate IS-IS PDUs in the TCP byte-stream.
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 RFC 2119 [1].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2019.
Smit & Van de Velde Expires April 15, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Flooding over TCP October 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. General scaling factors of IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Current scaling limitations of IS-IS flooding . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Packet pacing and throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.2. Reliable flooding on point-to-point interfaces . . . 4
2.1.3. Unreliability of CSNPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Improvements for IS-IS flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Using TCP to do IS-IS flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Negotiating Flooding over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. The new TLV to indicate that a router wants to flood over
TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Format of messages over TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. New behaviour of IS-IS flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Establishing a new IS-IS adjacency . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Behaviour during the existence of an IS-IS adjacency . . 10
7. Considerations regarding IS-IS flooding over TCP . . . . . . 11
7.1. Flooding over TCP is only done on point-to-point
interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Unnumbered interfaces and reachability of the interface
ip-address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Multiple levels of hierarchy on one interface . . . . . . 12
7.4. Downsides of using TCP for IS-IS flooding . . . . . . . . 12
7.5. What to do if the TCP connection breaks . . . . . . . . . 12
7.6. What to do if the TCP connection can not be set up . . . 13
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Smit & Van de Velde Expires April 15, 2019 [Page 2]
Show full document text