Network Working Group F.J. Baker
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track D. Lamparter
Expires: April 23, 2015 NetDEF
October 20, 2014
IPv6 Source/Destination Routing using IS-IS
draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-02
Abstract
This note describes the changes necessary for IS-IS to route IPv6
traffic from a specified prefix to a specified prefix.
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 http://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 23, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
(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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Theory of Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Dealing with ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Interactions with other constraints . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Multi-topology Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Extensions necessary for IPv6 Source/Destination Routing in
IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Source Prefix sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
This specification builds on IS-IS for IPv6 [RFC5308] and the
critical extension TLV in [critical-subtlvs]. This note defines the
sub-TLV for an IPv6 [RFC2460] Source Prefix, to define routes from a
source prefix to a destination prefix.
This implements the Destination/Source Routing mechanism described in
[dst-src-routing]. This implies not simply routing "to a
destination", but routing "to that destination AND from a specified
source". It may be combined with other qualifying attributes, such
as "traffic going to that destination AND using a specified flow
label AND from a specified source prefix". The obvious application
is egress routing, as required for a multihomed entity with a
provider-allocated prefix from each of several upstream networks.
Traffic within the network could be source/destination routed as
well, or could be implicitly or explicitly routed from "any prefix",
::/0. Other use cases are described in
[I-D.baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases]. If a FIB contains a
route to a given destination from one or more prefixes not including
::/0, and a given packet destined there that has a source address
that is in none of them, the packet in effect has no route, just as
if the destination itself were not in the route table.
1.1. Requirements Language
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
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. Theory of Routing
Both IS-IS and OSPF perform their calculations by building a lattice
of routers and links from the router performing the calculation to
each router, and then use routes (sequences in the lattice) to get to
destinations that those routes advertise connectivity to. Following
the SPF algorithm, calculation starts by selecting a starting point
(typically the router doing the calculation), and successively adding
{link, router} pairs until one has calculated a route to every router
in the network. As each router is added, including the original
router, destinations that it is directly connected to are turned into
routes in the route table: "to get to 2001:db8::/32, route traffic to
{interface, list of next hop routers}". For immediate neighbors to
the originating router, of course, there is no next hop router;
traffic is handled locally.
In this context, the route is qualified by a source prefix; It is
installed into the FIB with the destination prefix, and the FIB
applies the route if and only if the IPv6 source address also matches
the advertised prefix. Of course, there may be multiple LSPs in the
RIB with the same destination and differing source prefixes; these
may also have the same or differing next hop lists. The intended
forwarding action is to forward matching traffic to one of the next
hop routers associated with this destination and source prefix, or to
discard non-matching traffic as "destination unreachable".
TLVs that lack a source prefix sub-TLV match any source address
(i.e., the source prefix TLV defaults to ::/0), by definition.
When resolving Destination/Source Reachabilities, the SPF calculation
results used MUST reflect a calculation performed including only
routers that advertise support for the critical Source Prefix TLV
defined in section 3. The mechanism for signaling this is described
in [critical-subtlvs]. Routers that support this extension MUST
advertise support as described there.
2.1. Notation
For the purposes of this document, a route from the prefix A to the
prefix B (in other words, whose source prefix is A and whose
destination prefix is B) is expressed as A->B. A packet with the
source address A and the destination address B is similarly described
as A->B.
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
2.2. Dealing with ambiguity
In any routing protocol, there is the possibility of ambiguity. For
example, one router might advertise a fairly general prefix - a
default route, a discard prefix (which consumes all traffic that is
not directed to an instantiated subnet), or simply an aggregated
prefix while another router advertises a more specific one. In
source/destination routing, potentially ambiguous cases include cases
in which the link state database contains two routes A->B' and A'->B,
in which A' is a more specific prefix within the prefix A and B' is a
more specific prefix within the prefix B. Traditionally, we have
dealt with ambiguous destination routes using a "longest match first"
rule. If the same datagram matches more than one destination prefix
advertised within an area, we follow the route with the longest
matching prefix.
With source/destination routes, as noted in
[I-D.baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases], we follow a similar but
slightly different rule; the FIB lookup MUST yield the route with the
longest matching destination prefix that also matches the source
prefix constraint. In the event of a tie on the destination prefix,
it MUST also match the longest matching source prefix among those
options.
An example of the issue is this. Suppose we have two routes:
1. 2001:db8:1::/48 -> 2001:db8:3:3::/64
2. 2001:db8:2::/48 -> 2001:db8:3::/48
and a packet
2001:db8:2::1 -> 2001:db8:3:3::1
If we require the algorithm to follow the longest destination match
without regard to the source, the destination address matches
2001:db8:3:3::/64 (the first route), and the source address doesn't
match the constraint of the first route; we therefore have no route.
The FIB algorithm, in this example, must therefore match the second
route, even though it is not the longest destination match, because
it also matches the source address.
2.3. Interactions with other constraints
In the event that there are other constraints on routing, such as
proposed in [I-D.baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing], the effect
is a logical AND. The FIB lookup must yield the route with the
longest matching destination prefix that also matches each of the
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
constraints. The general mechanics for this are described in
[extra-qualifiers].
2.4. Multi-topology Routing
While not mandatory, IS-IS is often implemented as Multi Topology
Routing [RFC5120] with IPv4 or other protocols in the same or
different topologies. The TLV structure in [critical-subtlvs] is
topology-agnostic in that it always includes the topology ID, which
may be zero to indicate the default topology.
The mechanism in this document and its Sub-TLV are applicable to any
topology that carries routing information used for IPv6 Unicast
routing. Destination/Source reachability information SHOULD NOT be
placed differently from "plain" destination reachabilities.
A system MUST NOT originate Destination/Source Reachabilities in a
topology that is exclusively configured for multicast RPF operation.
If a topology is shared between unicast lookups and multicast reverse
path lookups, reachabilities with a source prefix other than ::/0
MUST be ignored for multicast reverse path lookups.
The statements in the previous two paragraphs currently result in
applicability of Destination/Source routes as:
MT-ID designated usage applicability
0 default topology yes
1 IPv4 management no
2 IPv6 default yes
3 IPv4 multicast no
4 IPv6 multicast no
5 IPv6 management yes
Applicability of Destination/Source IPv6 Reachabilities
3. Extensions necessary for IPv6 Source/Destination Routing in IS-IS
Section 2 of [RFC5308] defines the "IPv6 Reachability TLV", and
carries in it destination prefix advertisements. It has the
capability of extension, using sub-TLVs.
We define the Source Prefix Sub-TLV as in Section 3.1. As noted in
Section 2, any IPv6 Reachability TLV that does not specify a source
prefix is understood to as specifying ::/0 (any IPv6 address) as the
source prefix.
3.1. Source Prefix sub-TLV
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
The following Sub-TLV is defined for the critical part of TLV TBD2
defined in [critical-subtlvs]:
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 |Prefix Length | Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Source Prefix Sub-TLV
Source Prefix Type: assigned by IANA
TLV Length: Length of the sub-TLV in octets
Prefix Length: Length of the prefix in bits
Prefix: (source prefix length+7)/8 octets of prefix
4. IANA Considerations
The "Sub-TLVs for TLVs TBD1 (critical) and TBD2 (critical)" registry
defined in [critical-subtlvs] is extended by the following element:
Source Prefix Type: assigned by IANA
Description: IPv6 Source Prefix
Applicable to TLV TBD1 (IPv4): No
Applicable to TLV TBD2 (IPv6): Yes
5. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations specific to this document.
However, the considerations from [dst-src-routing] and
[critical-subtlvs] are particularly relevant to this document.
6. Acknowledgements
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
[IS-IS] ISO/IEC, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System
Intra-Domain Routing Exchange Protocol for use in
Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the
Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC
10589:2002, Second Edition, 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, October
2008.
[critical-subtlvs]
Lamparter, D., "IS-IS Reachability with critical Sub-
TLVs", draft-lamparter-isis-reachability-critical-
subtlvs-00 (work in progress), October 2014.
[dst-src-routing]
Lamparter, D., "Destination/Source Routing", draft-
lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-00 (work in progress),
October 2014.
[]
Lamparter, D., "Considerations and Registry for extending
IP route lookup", draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-
discriminators-00 (work in progress), October 2014.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing]
Baker, F., "Using IS-IS with Token-based Access Control",
draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing-01 (work in
progress), August 2013.
[I-D.baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases]
Baker, F., "Requirements and Use Cases for Source/
Destination Routing", draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-
use-cases-00 (work in progress), August 2013.
Appendix A. Change Log
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IS-IS Source/Destination Routing October 2014
Initial Version: February 2013
updated Version: August 2013
Added MTR: August 2014
Split into 4 drafts: October 2014
Authors' Addresses
Fred Baker
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Email: fred@cisco.com
David Lamparter
NetDEF
Leipzig 04103
Germany
Email: david@opensourcerouting.org
Baker & Lamparter Expires April 23, 2015 [Page 8]