ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 5316.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mach Chen , Xiaodong Duan , Renhai Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-20 (Latest revision 2008-09-04) | ||
| Replaces | draft-chen-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 5316 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Ross Callon | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04
Network working group M. Chen
Internet Draft Renhai Zhang
Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Created: September 4, 2008 Xiaodong Duan
Expires: March 4, 2009 China Mobile
ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
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, 2009.
Abstract
This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol to
support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems
(ASes). It defines ISIS-TE extensions for the flooding of TE
information about inter-AS links which can be used to perform inter-
AS TE path computation.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS
is proposed or defined in this document.
Conventions used in this document
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 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................ 2
2. Problem Statement .......................................... 3
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives............................... 4
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination.......................... 4
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.................... 6
3. Extensions to ISIS-TE....................................... 7
3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV.............................. 8
3.2. TE Router ID .......................................... 9
3.3. Sub-TLV Detail........................................ 10
3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV......................... 10
3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV...................... 11
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV...................... 11
3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV........................ 12
3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV........................ 13
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links............................ 13
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information...................... 15
5. Security Considerations.................................... 15
6. IANA Considerations........................................ 16
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV............................. 16
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV............ 16
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV.......... 17
7. Acknowledgments............................................ 17
8. References................................................. 17
8.1. Normative References.................................. 17
8.2. Informative References................................ 18
Authors' Addresses............................................ 19
Intellectual Property Statement .............................. 19
Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 20
Copyright Statement........................................... 20
1. Introduction
[ISIS-TE] defines extensions to the ISIS protocol [ISIS] to support
intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
(TE links) and flooding this information within an area. The
Extended IS Reachability TLV and Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV,
which are defined in [ISIS-TE], are used to carry such TE
information. The Extended IS Reachability TLV has several nested
sub-TLVs which describe the TE attributes for a TE link.
[ISIS-TE-V3] and [GMPLS-TE] define similar extensions to ISIS [ISIS]
in support of IPv6 and GMPLS traffic engineering respectively.
Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous
Systems (ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As described in
[INTER-AS-TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a
path spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation entity that may
be the head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router
(ASBR), or a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs to know the
TE information not only of the links within an AS, but also of the
links that connect to other ASes.
In this document, a new TLV, which is referred to as the Inter-AS
Reachability TLV, is defined to advertise inter-AS TE information,
three new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the Inter-AS
Reachability TLV to carry the information about the remote AS number
and remote ASBR ID. The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3]
and other documents for inclusion in the Extended IS Reachability
TLV for describing the TE properties of a TE link are applicable to
be included in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV for describing the TE
properties of an inter-AS TE link as well. And two more new sub-TLVs
are defined for inclusion in the IS-IS Router Capability TLV to
carry the TE Router ID when TE Router ID needs to reach all routers
within an entire ISIS routing domain. The extensions are equally
applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 as identical extensions to [ISIS-TE] and
[ISIS-TE-V3]. The detailed definitions and procedures are discussed
in the following sections.
This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise
any other extra-AS TE information within ISIS. See Section 2.1 for a
full list of non-objectives for this work.
2. Problem Statement
As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an
inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209]
may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
in order to describe the path of the LSP:
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
- a set of AS numbers as loose hops; and/or
- a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.
Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
discussed. The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one
domain at a time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses
cooperation between PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path.
The sections that follow examine how inter-AS TE link information
could be useful in both cases.
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives
It is important to note that this document does not make any change
to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use
of ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant
to the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].
The following features are explicitly excluded:
o There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
AS to another AS.
o There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
reachability information for destinations outside the AS.
o There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.
o TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.
o There is no exchange of private information between ASes.
o No ISIS adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination
In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an
MPLS-TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a
Path message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop
that is an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the
local AS are connected to the downstream AS so that it can compute a
TE LSP segment across the local AS to one of those LSRs and forward
the Path message to it and hence into the next AS. See Figure 1 for
an example:
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model
The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1
through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are
ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.
If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
the AS sequence will be: AS1, AS2, AS3.
Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in
the ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2
to reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7,
and R8) and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity
to AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.
Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
(say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link
that connects to R9. Since there may be multiple ASBRs that are
connected to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to
know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can
select the correct exit ASBR.
Once the path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS
TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by entry ASBR
that computed the segment.
More details can be found in the Section 4. of [PD-PATH], which
clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.
To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR the following
information is needed:
o List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.
o TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
o AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
link.
o Identity (TE Router ID) of the neighboring ASBR connected to by
each inter-AS TE link.
In GMPLS networks further information may also be required to select
the correct TE links as defined in [GMPLS-TE].
The example above shows how this information is needed at the entry
point ASBRs for each AS (or the PCEs that provide computation
services for the ASBRs), but this information is also needed
throughout the local AS if path computation function is fully
distributed among LSRs in the local AS, for example to support LSPs
that have start points (ingress nodes) within the AS.
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation
Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem. [BRPC]
defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called Backward
Recursive Path Computation) to compute optimal inter-domain
constrained MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSPs. In this path computation method,
a specific set of traversed domains (ASes) are assumed to be
selected before computation starts. Each downstream PCE in domain(i)
returns to its upstream neighbor PCE in domain(i-1) a multipoint-to-
point tree of potential paths. Each tree consists of the set of
paths from all Boundary Nodes located in domain(i) to the
destination where each path satisfies the set of required
constraints for the TE LSP (bandwidth, affinities, etc.).
So a PCE needs to select Boundary Nodes (that is, ASBRs) that
provide connectivity from the upstream AS. In order that the tree of
paths provided by one PCE to its neighbor can be correlated, the
identities of the ASBRs for each path need to be referenced, so the
PCE must know the identities of the ASBRs in the remote AS reached
by any inter-AS TE link, and, in order that it provides only
suitable paths in the tree, the PCE must know the TE properties of
the inter-AS TE links. See the following figure as an example:
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
PCE1<------>PCE2<-------->PCE3
/ : :
/ : :
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model
The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1,
PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are
ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are
ASBRs in AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS
path computation and are responsible for path segment computation
within their own domain(s).
If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and
the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation
request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2
along the PCE chain to PCE3, then PCE3 begins to compute the path
segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from
AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments,
PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity
to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number), and must
know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way,
PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to
its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.
Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation the same
information listed in Section 2.2 is required. The AS number of the
neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE link is particularly
important.
3. Extensions to ISIS-TE
Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
information between ASes. See Section 2.1.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
In this document, for the advertisement of inter-AS TE links, a new
TLV, which is referred to as the Inter-AS Reachability TLV, is
defined and three new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the
Inter-AS Reachability TLV to carry the information about the
neighboring AS number and the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS link.
The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3] and other documents
for inclusion in the Extended IS Reachability TLV are applicable to
be included in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV for inter-AS TE links
advertisement. And another two new sub-TLVs are defined for
inclusion in the IS-IS Router Capability TLV to carry the TE Router
ID when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an
entire ISIS routing domain.
While some of the TE information of an inter-AS TE link may be
available within the AS from other protocols, in order to avoid any
dependency on where such protocols are processed, this mechanism
carries all the information needed for the required TE operations.
3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV
The Inter-AS Reachability TLV has type 141 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA see Section 6.1), it contains a data structure
consisting of:
4 octets of Router ID
3 octets of default metric
1 octet of control information, consisting of:
1 bit of flooding-scope information (S bit)
1 bit of up/down information (D bit)
6 bits reserved
1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
0-246 octets of sub-TLVs
where each sub-TLV consists of a sequence of:
1 octet of sub-type
1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
0-244 octets of value
Compare to the Extended Reachability TLV which is defined in [ISIS-
TE], the Inter-AS Reachability TLV replaces the "7 octets of System
ID and Pseudonode Number" field with a "4 octets of Router ID" field
and introduces an extra "control information" field which is
consisted of a flooding-scope bit (S bit), a up/down bit (D bit) and
6 reserved bits.
The Router ID field of the Inter-AS Reachability TLV is four octets
in length, which contains the Router ID of the router who generates
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
the Inter-AS Reachability TLV. The Router ID MUST be unique within
the ISIS area. If the router generates Inter-AS Reachability TLV
with entire ISIS routing domain flooding scope, then the Router ID
MUST also be unique within the entire ISIS routing domain. The
Router ID could be used to indicate the source of the Inter-AS
Reachability TLV.
The flooding procedures for Inter-AS Reachability TLV are identical
to the flooding procedures for the GENINFO TLV which are defined in
the Section 4 of [GENINFO]. These procedures have been previously
discussed in [ISIS-CAP]. The flooding-scope bit (S bit) SHOULD be
set to 0 if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single
IGP area to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be set to 1 if the
information is intended to reach all routers (including area border
routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the entire ISIS routing domain. The
choice between the use of 0 or 1 is an AS-wide policy choice, and
configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations
that supports the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
The sub-TLVs which are defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3] and other
documents for describing the TE properties of an TE link are also
applicable to be carried in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV to
describe the TE properties of an Inter-AS TE link. Apart from these
sub-TLVs, three new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the Inter-
AS Reachability TLV in this document:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
------------ ------ ---------------------------
23 4 Remote AS number
24 4 IPv4 Remote ASBR Identifier
25 16 IPv6 Remote ASBR Identifier
The detailed definitions of the three new sub-TLVs are described in
Section 3.3.
3.2. TE Router ID
The IPv4 TE Router ID TLV (type 134) and IPv6 TE Router ID TLV (type
140), which are defined in [ISIS-TE] and [ISIS-TE-V3] respectively,
only have area flooding-scope, when performing inter-AS TE, the TE
Router ID MAY be needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS
routing domain, and it MUST have the same flooding scope as the
Inter-AS Reachability TLV does.
[ISIS-CAP] defines a generic advertisement mechanism for ISIS which
allows a router to advertise its capabilities within an ISIS area or
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
an entire ISIS routing domain. And [ISIS-CAP] also points out that
TE Router ID is candidate to be carried in the IS-IS Router
Capability TLV when performing inter-area TE.
This document uses such mechanism for TE Router ID advertisement
when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an
entire ISIS Routing domain. Two new sub-TLVs are defined for
inclusion in the IS-IS Router Capability TLV to carry the IPv4 and
IPv6 TE Router ID respectively:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
------------ ------ -----------------
11 4 IPv4 TE Router ID
12 16 IPv6 TE Router ID
The Detailed definitions of the two new sub-TLVs are described in
Section 3.3.
3.3. Sub-TLV Detail
3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
A new sub-TLV, the Remote AS Number sub-TLV is defined for inclusion
in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS links.
The Remote AS Number sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the
neighboring AS to which the advertised link connects.
The Remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 23 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA see Section 6.2), and is four octets in length.
The format is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are
used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-
order) two octets MUST be set to zero. The Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
MUST be included when a router advertises an inter-AS TE link.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV, is defined for inclusion in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV when
advertising inter-AS links. The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
specifies the IPv4 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the
advertised inter-AS link connects. This could be any stable and
routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as
specified in the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [ISIS-TE] is
RECOMMENDED.
The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 24 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA see Section 6.2), and is four octets in length.
The format of the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
ASBR has an IPv4 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
IPv4 address (not even an IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 Remote ASBR
ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an Extended
IS Reachability TLV.
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV, is defined for inclusion in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV when
advertising inter-AS links. The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
specifies the IPv6 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the
advertised inter-AS link connects. This could be any stable and
routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as
specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV [ISIS-TE-V3]
is RECOMMENDED.
The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 25 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA see Section 6.2), and is sixteen octets in length.
The format of the IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is as follows:
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
ASBR has an IPv6 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
IPv6 address, the IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included
instead. An IPv4 Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV MAY both be present in an Extended IS Reachability TLV.
3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV
The IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 11 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA see Section 6.3), and is four octets in length.
The format of the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an
entire ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS Router Capability TLV MUST be
included in its LSP. And if an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for
IPv4, the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the ASBR has
an IPv4 TE Router ID. If the ASBR does not have an IPv4 TE Router ID,
the IPv6 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 TE
Router ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present
in an IS-IS Router Capability TLV.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV
The IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 12 (which needs to be
confirmed by IANA see Section 6.3), and is four octets in length.
The format of the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an
entire ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS Router Capability TLV MUST be
included in its LSP. And if an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for
IPv6, the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the ASBR has
an IPv6 TE Router ID. If the ASBR does not have an IPv6 TE Router ID,
the IPv4 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 TE
Router ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present
in an IS-IS Router Capability TLV.
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links
When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR
SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for ISIS-TE
[ISIS-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the
link, the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are
changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the
available bandwidth changes) the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link,
but the ASBR MUST take precautions against excessive re-
advertisements.
Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged over the inter-AS link, and
consequently, an ISIS adjacency MUST NOT be formed.
The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE
capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote
AS number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.
Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link
are able to ignore it because they do not know the new TLV and sub-
TLVs that are defined in Section 3 in this document. They will
continue to flood the LSP, but will not attempt to use the
information received.
In the current operation of ISIS TE the LSRs at each end of a TE
link emit LSAs describing the link. The databases in the LSRs then
have two entries (one locally generated, the other from the peer)
that describe the different 'directions' of the link. This enables
CSPF to do a two-way check on the link when performing path
computation and eliminate it from consideration unless both
directions of the link satisfy the required constraints.
In the case we are considering here (i.e., of a TE link to another
AS) there is, by definition, no IGP peering and hence no bi-
directional TE link information. In order for the CSPF route
computation entity to include the link as a candidate path, we have
to find a way to get LSAs describing its (bidirectional) TE
properties into the TE database.
This is achieved by the ASBR advertising, internally to its AS,
information about both directions of the TE link to the next AS. The
ASBR will normally generate a LSA describing its own side of a link;
here we have it 'proxy' for the ASBR at the edge of the other AS and
generate an additional LSA that describes that devices 'view' of the
link.
Only some essential TE information for the link needs to be
advertised; i.e., the Interface Address, the Remote AS number and
the Remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS TE link.
Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of
inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that
exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS
through another TE link. Such paths would constitute extremely rare
occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of
specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the
path.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information
Section 4 describes how to an ASBR advertises TE link information as
a proxy for its neighbor ASBR, but does not describe where this
information comes from.
Although the source of this information is outside the scope of this
document, it is possible that it will be a configuration requirement
at the ASBR, as are other, local, properties of the TE link. Further,
where BGP is used to exchange IP routing information between the
ASBRs, a certain amount of additional local configuration about the
link and the remote ASBR is likely to be available.
We note further that it is possible, and may be operationally
advantageous, to obtain some of the required configuration
information from BGP. Whether and how to utilize these possibilities
is an implementation matter.
5. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively
minor and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the
existing ISIS security mechanisms.
There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to
the ISIS security relationship between the ASes. In particular,
since no ISIS adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
requirement for ISIS security between the ASes.
Some of the information included in these new advertisements (e.g.,
the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID) is obtained manually
from a neighboring administration as part of commercial relationship.
The source and content of this information should be carefully
checked before it is entered as configuration information at the
ASBR responsible for advertising the inter-AS TE links.
It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering a Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and
this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration (e.g.,
the administration that originally supplied the information may be
lying, or some manual mis-configurations or mistakes are made by the
operators). For example, if a different remote AS number is received
in a BGP OPEN [BGP] from that locally configured into ISIS-TE, as we
describe here, then local policy SHOULD be applied to determine
whether to alert the operator to a potential mis-configuration or to
suppress the ISIS advertisement of the inter-AS TE link. Note,
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
further, that if BGP is used to exchange TE information as described
in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP session SHOULD be secured using
mechanisms as described in [BGP] to provide authentication and
integrity checks.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries
under its control.
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV
This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type, described in
Section 3.4, that needs to be registered in the ISIS TLV code-point
registry:
Type Description IIH LSP SNP
---- ---------------------- --- --- ---
141 Inter-AS reachability n y n
information
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in
Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3, of top-level TLV 141 (see section
6.1 above) that need to be registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
for TLV 141, note that these three new sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT appear in
TLV 22 (or TLV 222) and MUST be ignored in TLV 22 (or TLV 222):
Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ --------
23 Remote AS number 4
24 IPv4 Remote ASBR Identifier 4
25 IPv6 Remote ASBR Identifier 16
As described above in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs which are defined in
[ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3] and other documents for describing the TE
properties of an TE link are applicable to describe an inter-AS TE
link and MAY be included in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV when
adverting inter-AS TE links. And it's possible that some sub-TLVs
may be defined for inclusion in both TLV 22 and TLV 141 in the
future. It's better if these sub-TLVs have the same registry value
no matter where they are included in TLV 22 or TLV 141. The same
condition will occur when these sub-TLVs need to be included in TLV
222. So, in order to simplify the registration and reduce the
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
potential code point conflict, this document suggests that TLV 22,
TLV 141 and TLV 222 share the same sub-TLV registry. The proposal is
that change the current Registry Name from "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22" to
"Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141 and 222" and add three columns ("May be
present on TLV 22","May be present on TLV 141" and "May be present
on TLV 222") to the registry for indicating whether a specific sub-
TLV may be present on the TLV.
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in
Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, of top-level TLV 242 (which is defined in
[ISIS-CAP]) that need to be registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
for TLV 242:
Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ --------
11 IPv4 TE Router ID 4
12 IPv6 TE Router ID 16
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux,
Christian Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler for their review
and comments on this document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[ISIS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS-CAP] Vasseur, J.P. et al., "IS-IS extensions for advertising
router information", RFC 4971, July 2007.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
8.2. Informative References
[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang and Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
Engineering Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.
[PD-PATH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP., and Zhang, R., "A Per-domain
path computation method for establishing Inter-domain",
RFC 5152, February 2008.
[BRPC] JP. Vasseur, Ed., R. Zhang, N. Bitar, JL. Le Roux, "A
Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure
to compute shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label
Switched Paths", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, (work in progress)
[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006.
[ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
RFC 3784, June 2004.
[ISIS-TE-V3] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and Bartlett, M., "IPv6
Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te,
{work in progress}.
[GMPLS-TE] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC 4205,
October 2005.
[BGP] Rekhter, Li, Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC4271, January 2006.
[GENINFO] L. Ginsberg., S. Previdi., and M. Shand., "Advertising
Generic Information in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-genapp,
(work in progress).
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
Authors' Addresses
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: mach@huawei.com
Renhai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District
Beijing, 100085
P.R. China
Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com
Xiaodong Duan
China Mobile
53A,Xibianmennei Ave,Xunwu District
Beijing, China
Email: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
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
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE September 2008
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at 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.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
Chen, et al. Expires March 4, 2009 [Page 20]