Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-dyname-03
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 2763.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Naiming Shen , Henk Smit | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 (Latest revision 1999-12-14) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 2763 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Ross Callon | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-isis-dyname-03
Internet Engineering Task Force Naiming Shen
INTERNET-DRAFT Siara Systems
draft-ietf-isis-dyname-03.txt Henk Smit
Expiration Date: June 2000 Cisco Systems
December 1999
Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism
for IS-IS
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Abstract
Currently there does not exist a simple and dynamic mechanism for
routers running IS-IS to learn about symbolic hostnames. This
document defines a new TLV which allows the IS-IS routers to flood
their name to system ID mapping information across the IS-IS network.
1. Introduction
IS-IS uses a 1-8 byte system ID (normally 6 bytes) to represent a
node in the network. For management and operation reasons, network
operators need to check the status of IS-IS adjacencies, entries in
the routing table and the content of the IS-IS link state database.
It is obvious that, when looking at diagnostics information,
hexadecimal representations of systemIDs and LSP identifiers are
less clear than symbolic names.
Shen & Smit [Page 1]
Internet Draft Dynamic Hostname October 1999
One way to overcome this problem is to define a name-to-systemID
mapping on a router. This mapping can be used bidirectionally. E.g.
to find symbolic names for systemIDs, and to find systemIDs for
symbolic names. One way to build this table of mappings is by
static definitions. Among network administrators who use IS-IS as
their IGP it is current practice to define such static mappings.
Thus every router has to maintain a table with mappings between
router names and systemIDs. These tables need to contain all names
and systemIDs of all routers in the network.
There are several ways one could build such a table. One is via
static configurations. Another scheme that could be implemented is
via DNS lookups. In this document we propose a third solution. We
hope the proposed solution is easier and more manageable than
static mapping or DNS schemes.
2. Possible solutions
The obvious drawback of static configuration of mappings is the
issue of scalability and maintainability. The network operators
have to maintain the name tables. They have to maintain an entry
in the table for every router in the network. They have to maintain
this table on each router in the network. The effort to create and
maintain these static tables grows with the total number of routers
on the network. Changing the name or systemID of one router, or
adding one new router introduced will affect the configurations of
all the other routers on the network. This will make it very likely
that those static tables are outdated.
Having one table that can be updated in a centralized place would
be helpful. One could imagine using the DNS system for this. A
drawback is that during the time of network problems, the response
time of DNS services might not be satisfactory or the DNS services
might not even be available. Another possible drawback might be the
added complexity of DNS. Also, some DNS implementations might not
support A and PTR records for CLNS NSAPs.
A third way to build dynamic mappings would be to use the transport
mechanism of the routing protocol itself to advertise symbolic names
in IS-IS link-state PDU. This document defines a new TLV which
allows the IS-IS routers to include the name to systemID mapping
information in their LSPs. This will allow simple and reliable
transport of name mapping information across the IS-IS network.
Shen & Smit [Page 2]
Internet Draft Dynamic Hostname October 1999
3. The Dynamic Hostname TLV
The Dynamic hostname TLV is defined here as TLV type 137.
LENGTH - total length of the value field.
VALUE - a string of 1 to 255 bytes.
The Dynamic hostname TLV is optional. This TLV may be present in any
fragment of a non-pseudo node LSP. The value field identifies the
symbolic name of the router originating the LSP. This symbolic name
can be the FQDN for the router, it can be a subset of the FQDN or any
string operators want to use for the router. The use of FQDN or a
subset of it is strongly recommended. The content of this value is a
domain name, see RFC 2181. The string is not null-terminated. The
systemID of this router can be derived from the LSP identifier.
If this TLV is present in a pseudo node LSP, then it should not be
interpreted as the DNS hostname of the router.
4. Implementation
The Dynamic Hostname TLV is optional. When originating an LSP, a
router may decide to include this TLV in its LSP. Upon receipt of an
LSP with the dynamic hostname TLV, a router may decide to ignore this
TLV, or to install the symbolic name and systemID in its hostname
mapping table.
A router may also optionally insert this TLV in it's pseudo node LSP
for the association of a symbolic name to a local LAN.
5. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS. However it is
encouraged to use authentications for IS-IS routing protocol. The
authentication mechanism for IS-IS protocol is specified in [1] and
it is being enhanced within IETF in [2].
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Enke Chen and Yakov Rekhter for
their comments on this work.
Shen & Smit [Page 3]
Internet Draft Dynamic Hostname October 1999
7. References
[1] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the
Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
(ISO 8473)," ISO/IEC 10589:1992.
[2] draft-ietf-isis-hmac-00.txt, "IS-IS HMAC-MD5 Authentication",
T. Li, work in progress.
8. Author's Address:
Naiming Shen
Siara Systems, Inc.
1195 Borregas Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
Email: naiming@siara.com
Henk Smit
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA, 95134
Email: hsmit@cisco.com
Shen & Smit Expires April 2000 [Page 4]