Internet Engineering Task Force J. Parker, Editor
INTERNET DRAFT Axiowave Networks
Expiration Date: November 2002
May 17, 2002
Recommendations for Interoperable IP Networks using IS-IS
<draft-ietf-isis-interoperable-00.txt>
1. 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.
Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All
Rights Reserved.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 1]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
2. Abstract
"The difference between theory and practice is greater in
practice than it is in theory." (Author unknown)
This document discusses a number of differences between the IS-IS
protocol as described in ISO 10589 [1] and RFC 1195 [3] and the
protocol as it is deployed today. These differences are discussed as
a service to those implementing, testing, and deploying the IS-IS
Protocol to route IP traffic.
3. Table of Contents
1. Status of this Memo.................................. 1
2. Abstract............................................. 2
3. Table of Contents.................................... 2
4. Overview............................................. 2
5. Acknowledgments...................................... 3
6. Constants Which Are Variable......................... 3
7. Variables Which Are Constant......................... 5
8. Unused Features...................................... 6
9. Overload Bit......................................... 7
10. ReceiveLSPBufferSize................................. 8
11. Padding Hello PDUs................................... 9
12. Migration from Narrow Metrics to Wide................ 11
13. Intermediate System Hello (ISH) PDU.................. 13
14. Attached Bit......................................... 14
15. Default Route........................................ 14
16. Zero Checksum........................................ 15
17. Purging Corrupted LSPs............................... 15
18. Non-homogeneous Protocol Networks.................... 15
19. Interface Address and Adjacency Creation............. 16
20. Checking System ID in Received point-to-point IIH PDUs 16
21. Security Implications............................... 17
22. References........................................... 17
23. Author's Address.................................... 18
24. Full Copyright Statement............................. 18
4. Overview
Interior Gateway Protocols such as IS-IS are designed to provide
timely information about the best routes in a routing domain. The
original design of IS-IS, as described in [1] has proved to be quite
durable. However, a number of original design choices have been
modified. This document describes some of the differences between the
protocol as described in [1] and [3] and the protocol that can be
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 2]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
observed on the wire today.
5. Acknowledgments
This document is the work of many people, and is the distilation of
over a thousand mail messages. Thanks to Vishwas Manral, who pushed
to create such a document. Thanks to Danny McPherson, the original
editor, for kicking things off. Thanks to Mike Shand, for his work
in creating the protocol, and his uncanny ability to remember what
everything is for. Thanks to Micah Bartell and Philip Christian, who
showed us how to document difference without displaying discord.
Thanks to Les Ginsberg, Neal Castagnoli, Jeff Learman, and Dave Katz,
who spent many hours educating the editor. Thanks to Radia Perlman,
who is always ready to explain anything. Thanks to Satish Dattatri,
who was tenacious in seeing things written up correctly, and to Bryan
Boulton for his work on the IP adjacency issue. Thanks to Russ
White, whose writing improved the treatment of every topic he
touched. Thanks to Shankar Vemulapalli, who read several drafts with
close attention. Thanks for Alex Zinin's ministrations behind the
scenes. Thanks to Tony Li and Tony Przygienda, who kept us on track
as the discussions veered into the weeds. And thanks to all those who
have contributed, but whose names I have carelessly left from this
list.
6. Constants Which Are Variable
Some parameters to the protocol were defined as constants, but are
modified in practice. These include the following
(1) MaxAge - the lifetime of a Link State PDU (LSP)
(2) ISISHoldingMultiplier - a parameter used to describe the genera-
tion of hello packets
6.1 MaxAge
Each LSP contains a RemainingLifeTime field which is set to the Max-
Age of the generating IS. When an LSP has been in the network for
RemainingLifeTime, it is removed, ensuring that corrupted or other-
wise invalid LSPs do not remain in the network for too long. The rate
at which LSPs are regenerated is determined by the value of max-
imumLSPGenerationInterval.
MaxAge is defined in ISO 10589 as an Architectural constant of 20
minutes, and it is recommended that maximumLSPGenerationInterval be
set to 15 minutes. These times have proven to be too short in some
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 3]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
networks, as they result in a steady flow of LSP updates even when
nothing is changing. To reduce the rate of generation, some implemen-
tations allow these times to be set by the network operator.
The relation between MaxAge and maximumLSPGenerationInterval is dis-
cussed in section 7.3.21 of [1]. If MaxAge is smaller than max-
imumLSPGenerationInterval, then an LSP will expire before it is
replaced. Further, as Remaining Lifetime is decremented each time it
is forwarded, an LSP far from it's origin appears older and is
removed sooner. To make sure that an LSP survives long enough to be
replaced, MaxAge should exceed maximumLSPGenerationInterval by at
least ZeroAgeLifetime + minimumLSPTransmissionInterval. The first
term, ZeroAgeLifetime, is an estimate of how long it takes to flood
an LSP through the network. The second term, minimumLSPTransmis-
sionInterval, takes into account how long a router might delay before
sending an LSP. The original recommendation was that MaxAge be at
least 5 minutes larger than maximumLSPGenerationInterval, and that
recommendation is still valid today.
An implementation MAY use a value of MaxAge that is greater than 1200
seconds. MaxAge SHOULD exceed maximumLSPGenerationInterval by at
least 300 seconds. An implementation SHOULD NOT use it's value of
MaxAge to discard LSPs from peers.
An implementation is not required to coordinate the ReminingLifetime
it assigns to LSPs to the RemainingLifetime values it accepts, and
MUST ignore the following sentence from section 7.3.16.3. of 10589.
"If the value of Remaining Lifetime [of the received LSP] is
greater than MaxAge, the LSP shall be processed as if there
were a checksum error."
6.2 ISISHoldingMultiplier
An IS sends IS to IS Hello Protocol Data Units (IIHs) on a periodic
basis over active circuits, allowing other attached routers to moni-
tor their aliveness. The IIH includes a two byte field called the
Holding Time which defines the time to live of an adjacency. If an IS
does not receive a hello from an adjacent IS within this holding
time, the adjacent IS is assumed to be no longer operational, and the
adjacency is removed.
ISO [1] defines ISISHoldingMultiplier to be 10, and states that the
value of Holding Time should be ISISHoldingMultiplier multiplied by
iSISHelloTimer for ordinary systems, and dRISISHelloTimer for a DIS.
This implies that the neighbor must lose 10 IIHs before an adjacency
times out.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 4]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
In practice, a value of 10 for the ISISHoldingMultiplier has proven
to be too large. DECnet PhaseV defined two related values. The vari-
able holdingMultiplier, with a default value of 3, was used for
point-to-point IIHs, while the variable ISISHoldingMultiplier, with a
default value of 10, was used for LAN IIHs. Most implementations
today set the default ISISHoldingMultiplier to 3.
Note that adjacent systems may use different values for Holding Time
and will form an adjacency with non-symmetric hold times.
An implementation MAY allow ISISHoldingMultiplier to be configurable.
Values lower than 3 are less stable, and may cause adjacencies to
flap.
7. Variables Which Are Constant
Some parameters to the protocol were defined as variable, but do not
vary in practice. These include
(1) ID Length - the length of the SystemID
(2) maximumAreaAddresses
7.1 ID Length
The ID Length defines the length of the System ID, and is allowed to
take values from 0 to 8. A value of 0 is interpreted to define a
length of 6 bytes. As suggested in B.1.1.3 of [1], it is easy to use
an Ethernet MAC address to generate a unique 6 byte System ID. Since
the SystemID only has significance within the IGP Domain, 6 bytes has
proved to be easy to use and ample in practice. Moreover, new IS-IS
TLVs such as the Traffic Engineering TLVs, assume a 6 byte System ID,
so choices other than 6 are difficult to support. Implementations may
interoperate without being able to deal with System IDs of any length
other than 6.
An implementation SHOULD use an ID Length of 6, and SHOULD check the
ID Length defined in the IS-IS PDUs it receives. If a router
encounters a PDU with an ID Length different from 0 or 6, it SHOULD
discard the PDU, and MAY generate an appropriate notification. ISO
[1] defines the notification iDFieldLengthMismatch, while the ISIS
MIB [9] defines the notificationeisisIDLenMismatch.
7.2 maximumAreaAddresses
The value of maximumAreaAddresses is defined to be an integer between
1 and 254, and defines the number of synonymous Area Addresses that
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 5]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
can be in use in an L1 area. This value is advertised in the header
of each IS-IS PDU.
Most deployed networks use one Area Address for an L1 area. When
merging or splitting areas, a second address is required for seamless
transition. The third area address was originally required to sup-
port DECnet PhaseIV addresses as well as OSI addresses during a tran-
sition.
ISO 10589 requires that all Intermediate Systems in an area or domain
use a consistent value for maximumAreaAddresses. Common practice is
for an implementation to always use the value 3. Therefore an imple-
mentation that only supports 3 can expect to interoperate success-
fully with other conformant systems.
ISO 10589 specifies that an advertised value of 0 is treated as
equivalent to 3, and that checking the value for consistency may be
omitted if an implementation only supports the value 3.
An implementation SHOULD use the value 3, and it SHOULD check the
value advertised in IS-IS PDUs it receives. If a router receives a
PDU with maximumAreaAddresses that is not 0 or 3, it MUST discard the
PDU, and it SHOULD generate an appropriate match. ISO [1] defines
the notification maximumAreaAddressMismatch, while the ISIS MIB [8]
defines the notification isisMaxAreaAddressesMismatch.
8. Unused Features
Some features defined in [1] and [3] are not in current use.
8.1 Inter-Domain Routing Protocol Information TLV, Code 131
RFC 1195 defines an Inter-Domain Routing Protocol Information TLV,
with code 131, designed to convey information transparently between
boundary routers. This TLV is not used, and SHOULD be ignored.
8.2 Authentication TLV, Code 133
RFC 1195 defines an authentication TLV, code 133, which contains
information used to authenticate the PDU. This TLV has been replaced
by TLV 10, described in "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication" [5].
This TLV is not used, and SHOULD be ignored.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 6]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
8.3 Alternative Metrics
Section 7.2.2, ISO [1] describes four metrics: Default Metric, Delay
Metric, Expense Metric, and Error Metric. None but the default metric
are used in deployed networks, and most implementations only consider
the default metric. In ISO, the most significant bit of the 8 bit
metrics was the field S (Supported), used to define if the metric was
meaninful.
If this IS does not support this metric it shall set bit S to
1 to indicate that the metric is un-supported.
This bit was always 0 for the default metric, which was always sup-
ported. RFC 2966 [6] uses this bit in the default metric to mark L1
routes that have been leaked from L1 to L2 and back down into L1
again.
Implementations MUST generate the default metric when using narrow
metrics, and SHOULD ignore the other three metrics when using narrow
metrics.
9. Overload Bit
To deal with transient problems that prevent an IS from storing all
the LSPs it receives, [1] defines an LSP Database Overload condition
in section 7.3.19. When an IS is in Database Overload condition, it
sets a flag called the Overload Bit in the non-pseudonode LSP number
Zero that it generates. Section 7.2.8.1 of [1] instructs other sys-
tems not to use the overloaded IS as a transit router. Since the
overloaded IS does not have complete information, it may not be able
to compute the right routes, and routing loops could develop. How-
ever, an overloaded router may be used to reach End Systems directly
attached to the router, as it may provide the only path to an End
System.
The ability to signal reduced knowledge is so useful that the meaning
of this flag has been overloaded. In a Service Provider's network,
when a router running BGP and IS-IS reboots, BGP might take more time
to converge than IS-IS. Thus the router may drop traffic for destina-
tions not learned via BGP. It is convenient to set the Overload Bit
until BGP has converged, as described in "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Transient Blackhole Avoidance" [8].
An implementation MAY use the Overload Bit to signal that it is not
ready to accept transit traffic.
RFC 1195 [3] makes clear when describing the SPF algorithm for IP
routers in section C.1.4 that directly connected IP subnetworks are
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 7]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
reachable when an IS is overloaded.
Note that the End Systems neighbors of the system P includes
IP reachable address entries included in the LSPs from system
P.
When processing LSPs received from a router which has the Overload
bit set in LSP number Zero, the receiving router SHOULD treat all IP
reachability advertisements as directly connected and use them in its
SPF computation.
Since the IP prefixes that an overloaded router announces will be
treated as directly attached, an overloaded router SHOULD take care
in selecting which routes to advertise in the LSPs it generates.
10. ReceiveLSPBufferSize
Since IS-IS does not allow segmentation of protocol PDUs, Link State
PDUs (LSPs) must be propagated without modification on all IS-IS
enabled links throughout the area/domain. Thus it is essential to
configure a maximum size that all routers can forward, receive, and
store.
This affects three aspects, which we discuss in turn:
(1) The largest LSP we can receive (ReceiveLSPBufferSize)
(2) The size of the largest LSP we can generate
(originatingL1LSPBufferSize and originatingL2LSPBufferSize)
(3) Available Link MTU for supported Circuits (MTU). Note this
may differ from the MTU available to IP clients.
The protocol provides the architectural constant ReceiveLSPBufferSize
with value 1492 bytes, and two private management parameters,
originatingL1LSPBufferSize for level 1 PDUs and
originatingL2LSPBufferSize for level 2 PDUs. The originating buffer
size parameters define the maximum size of an LSP that a router can
generate. The protocol directs the implementor to treat a PDU larger
than ReceiveLSPBufferSize as an error.
It is crucial that
originatingL1LSPBufferSize <= ReceiveLSPBufferSize
originatingL2LSPBufferSize <= ReceiveLSPBufferSize
and that for all L1 links in the area
originatingL1LSPBufferSize <= MTU
and for all L2 links in the domain
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 8]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
originatingL2LSPBufferSize <= MTU
The original thought was that operators could decrease the originat-
ing Buffer size when dealing with smaller MTUs, but would not need to
increase ReceiveLSPBufferSize beyond 1492.
With the definition of new information to be advertised in LSPs, such
as the Traffic Engineering TLVs, the limited space of the LSP data-
base which may be generated by each router (256 * 1492 bytes at each
level) has become an issue. Given that modern networks with MTUs
larger than 1492 on all links are not uncommon, one method which can
be used to expand the LSP database size is to allow values of
ReceiveLSPBufferSize greater than 1492.
Allowing ReceiveLSPBUfferSize to become a configurable parameter
rather than an architectural constant must be done with care: if any
system in the network does not support values larger than 1492 or one
or more link MTUs used by IS-IS anywhere in the area/domain is
smaller than the largest LSP which may be generated by any router,
then full propagation of all LSPs may not be possible.
The steps below are recommended when changing ReceiveLSPBufferSize.
(1) Set the ReceiveLSPBufferSize to a consistent value throughout
the network.
(2) The implementation SHOULD not enable IS-IS on circuits which
do not support an MTU at least as large as the originating
BufferSize at the appropriate level.
(3) Include an originatingLSPBufferSize TLV when generating LSPs,
as described in section 9.8 of [2].
(4) When receiving LSPs, check for an originatingLSPBufferSize
TLV, and report the receipt of values larger than the local
value of ReceiveLSPBufferSize through the defined Notifica-
tions and Alarms.
(5) Report the receipt of a PDU larger than the local ReceiveL-
SPBufferSize through the defined Notifications and Alarms.
(6) Do not discard large PDUs by default. Storing and processing
them as normal PDUs may help maintain coherence in a miscon-
figured network.
Steps 1 and 2 are enough by themselves, but the consequences of
mismatch are serious enough and difficult enough to detect, that
steps 3-6 are recommended to help track down and correct problems.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 9]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
11. Padding Hello PDUs
To prevent the establishment of adjacencies between systems which may
not be able to successfully receive and propagate IS-IS PDUs due to
inconsistent settings for originatingLSPBufferSize and ReceiveLSPBuf-
ferSize, section 8.2.3 of [1] requires padding on point-to-point
links.
On point-to-point links, the initial IIH is to be padded to the max-
imum of
(1) Link MTU
(2) originatingL1LSPBufferSize if the link is to be used for L1
traffic
(3) originatingL2LSPBufferSize if the link is to be used for L2
traffic
In section 6.7.2 e) ISO 10589 [1] assumes
Provision that failure to deliver a specific subnetwork SDU
will result in the timely disconnexion of the subnetwork con-
nection in both directions and that this failure will be
reported to both systems
With this service provided by the link layer, the requirement that
only the initial IIH be padded was sufficient. If the PDU was too
big to be received, the link would be reset. However, link layer pro-
tocols in use on point-to-point circuits today often lack this ser-
vice. Therefore, the requirement that only the initial IIH be padded
is inadequate.
If an implementation is using padding to detect problems, point-to-
point IIH PDUs SHOULD be padded until the sender declares an adja-
cency on the link to be in state Up. If the implementation implements
[4] then this is when three-way state is Up: if the implementation
use the "classic" algorithm described in [1], this is when adjacency-
State is Up. Transmission of padded IIH PDUs SHOULD be resumed when-
ever the adjacency is torn down, and SHOULD continue until the sender
declares the adjacency to be in state Up again.
If an implementation is using padding, and originatingL1LSPBUfferSize
or originatingL2LSPBUfferSize is modified, adjacencies SHOULD be
brought down and reestablished so the protection provided by padding
IIH PDUs is performed consistent with the modified values.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 10]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
Some implementations choose not to pad. Padding does not solve all
problems of misconfigured systems. In particular, it does not pro-
vide a transitive relation. Assume that A, B, and C all pad IIH
PDUs, that A and B can establish an adjacency, and that B and C can
establish an adjacency. We still cannot conclude that A and C could
establish an adjacency, were they neighbors.
The presence or absence of padding TLVs MUST NOT be one of the accep-
tance tests applied to a received IIH regardless of the state of the
adjacency.
12. Migration from Narrow Metrics to Wide
The IS-Neighbors TLV (TLV 2) as defined in ISO 10589 and the IP
Reachability TLV (TLV 128/TLV 130) as defined in RFC 1195 provide a 6
bit metric for the default link metric to the listed neighbor. This
metric has proved too limited. The Extended IS-Neighbors TLV (TLV
22) and the Extended IP Reachability TLV (TLV 135) are defined in
[7]. The Extended IS-Neighbors TLV (TLV 22) defines a 24 bit metric,
and the Extended IP Reachability TLV (TLV 135) defines a 32 bit
metric.
If not all devices in the IS-IS domain support wide metrics, narrow
metrics MUST continue to be used. Once all devices in the network are
able to support the new TLVs containing wide metrics, the network can
be migrated to the new metric style, though care must be taken to
avoid routing loops.
We make the following assumptions about the implementation:
(1) Each system can generate and understand both narrow and wide
metrics.
(2) The implementation can run the SPF algorithm on an LSP DB with
instances of both metric styles.
(3) If there are two metric styles for a link or IP prefix, it
will pick one of them as the true cost for the link.
To compare the different variants of the narrow metric, we need an
algorithm that translates different types of narrow metric into a
common integer range. Since we have different computations for the L1
and L2 routes, we only need to map metrics from a single level.
In RFC 1195 [3] section 3.10.2, item 2c) states that The IP prefixes
located in "IP External Reachability" with internal-metric and IP
prefixes located in "IP Internal Reachability" with internal-metric
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 11]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
have the same preference. As defined in "Domain-wide Prefix Distri-
bution with Two-Level IS-IS" [6], the Most Significant Bit on an L1
metric tells us if the route has been leaked down, but does not
change the distance. Thus we will ignore the MSBit.
We interpret the default metric as an 7 bit quantity. Thus metrics
with the external bit set are treated as metrics in the range
[64..127].
12.1 Transition Algorithm
The following steps are taken, in order:
(1) All routers advertise Narrow Metrics as defined in [1], and
consider narrow metrics only in their SPF computation.
(2) Each system is configured in turn to send wide metrics as well
as narrow metrics. The two metrics for the same link or IP
prefix SHOULD agree.
(3) When all systems are advertising wide metrics, make any
changes necessary on each system to consider Wide Metrics dur-
ing the SPF, and change MaxPathMetric to 0xfe000000.
(4) Each system is configured in turn to stop advertising narrow
metrics.
(5) When the network is only using wide metrics, metrics on indi-
vidual links may be rescaled to take advantage of the larger
metric.
12.2 Dealing with Non-Equal Metrics
The algorithm above assumes that the metrics are equal, and thus
needs to make no assumption about which metric the SPF algorithm
uses. This section describes the changes that should be made to the
SPF algorithm when both Narrow and Wide metric styles should be con-
sidered. Using a common algorithm allows different implementations to
compute the same distances independently, even if the wide and narrow
metrics do not agree.
The standard SPF algorithm proceeds by comparing sums of link costs
to obtain a minimal cost path. During transition, there will be more
than one description of the some links. We resolve this by selecting
the minimum metric for each link. This may give us a path with some
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 12]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
links chosen due to a wide metric and some links chosen due to a nar-
row metric.
The description below is more complex than the implementation needs
to be: the implementation may simply select the minimal cost neighbor
in TENT, discarding paths to destinations we have already reached, as
described in [1]
The variables MaxPathMetric and MaxLinkMetric SHOULD retain the
values defined in Table 2 of section 8 of [1].
In C.2.5 Step 0 of the description of the SPF algorithm, section b)
d(N) = cost of the parent circuit of the adjacency N
If multiple styles of metric for the link are defined, the
cost will be the minimum available cost for the circuit.
In C.2.5 Step 0 of the description of the SPF algorithm, section i)
d(N) = metric of the circuit
If multiple styles of metric for the link are defined, the
cost will be the minimum available cost for the circuit.
In C.2.6 Step 1 of the description of the SPF algorithm, section a)
dist(P,N) = d(P) + metric(P,N)
If multiple styles of metric for the neighbor are defined, the
cost will be the minimum available cost for the circuit.
13. ISH
The original intent of RFC 1195 [3] was to provide a routing protocol
capable of handling both CLNS and IPv4 reachability information. To
allow CLNS Endstations (ES) to know that they are attached to a
router, Intermediate Systems are required to send Intermediate System
Hello PDUs (ISH) for End Stations when a point-to-point circuit comes
up. Furthermore, an IS is not allowed to send Intermediate System to
Intermediate System Hello PDUs (IIH) before receiving an ISH from a
peer. This reduces routing protocol traffic on links with a single
IS.
For this reason section 5.1 [3] states:
"On point-to-point links, the exchange of ISO 9542 ISHs
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 13]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
(intermediate system Hellos) is used to initialize the link,
and to allow each router to know if there is a router on the
other end of the link, before IS-IS Hellos are exchanged. All
routers implementing IS-IS (whether IP-only, OSI-only, or
dual), if they have any interfaces on point-to-point links,
must therefore be able to transmit ISO 9542 ISHs on their
point-to-point links."
Section 5.1 [3] reinforces the need to comply with section 8.2.4 [1].
However, in an IP Only environment, the original need for the ISH PDU
is not present.
A multi-protocol IS that supports the attachment of CLNS ESs over
Point to Point circuits must act in accordance with section 8.2.2 [1]
when CLNS functionality is enabled.
An IP Only implementation should issue an ISH PDU as described in
section 8.2.3 of [1]. This is to inter-operate with implementations
which require an ISH to initiate the formation of an IS-IS adjacency.
An IP Only implementation may issue an IIH PDU when a point to point
circuit transitions into an "Up" state to initiate the formation of
an IS-IS adjacency, without sending an ISH PDU. However, this may
not inter-operate with implementations which require an ISH for adja-
cency formation.
An IS may issue an IIH PDU in response to the receipt of an IIH PDU
in accordance with section 8.2.5.2 [1], even though it has not
received an ISH PDU.
14. The Attached Bit
In [1] 7.2.9.2, an algorithm is described to determining when the
attachedFlag should be set on an intermediate system. Some implemen-
tations allow the attachedFlag to be set on Intermediate Systems
routing IP traffic under restricted conditions, such as the existence
of a default route in the local routing table.
15. Default Route
RFC1195 [3] states in section 1.3:
Default routes are permitted only at level 2 as external
routes (i.e., included in the "IP External Reachability Infor-
mation" field, as explained in sections 3 and 5). Default
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 14]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
routes are not permitted at level 1.
Because of the utility of the default route when dealing with other
routing protocols and the ability to influence the exit point from an
area, default routes can be generated into level 1 in most implemen-
tations.
16. Zero Checksum
A checksum of 0 is impossible if the checksum is computed according
to the rules of ISO 8473.
ISO 10589, section 7.3.14.2(i), states:
A Link State PDU received with a zero checksum shall be
treated as if the Remaining Lifetime were zero. The age, if
not zero, shall be overwritten with zero.
However, an implementation SHOULD treat all LSPs with a zero checksum
and a non-zero remaining lifetime as if they had as checksum error.
Such packets SHOULD be discarded.
17. Purging Corrupted PDUs
While ISO [1] requires in section 7.3.14.2 e) that any LSP received
with an invalid PDU checksum should be purged, this has been found to
be disruptive. Most implementations today follow the revised specif-
ication, and simply drop the LSP.
In [2], Section 7.3.14.2, it states:
(e) An Intermediate system receiving a Link State PDU with an
incorrect LSP Checksum or with an invalid PDU syntax SHOULD
1) generate a corruptedLSPReceived circuit event,
2) discard the PDU.
18. Non-homogeneous Protocol Networks
RFC 1195 [3] assumes that every deployment of IS-IS routers will sup-
port a homogeneous set of protocols. It anticipates OSI only, IP
only, or dual OSI and IP routers. While it allows mixed areas with,
for example, both pure IP and Dual IP and OSI routers, it allows only
IP traffic in such domains, and OSI traffic only when pure OSI and
Dual IP and OSI routers are present. Thus it provides only lowest
common denominator routing.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 15]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
Also required in [3] is the inclusion of the Protocol Supported TLV
in IIH and ISH PDUs and LSP number Zero. IP capable routers MUST gen-
erate a Protocol Supported TLV, and include the IP protocol as a sup-
ported protocol. A router that does not include the Protocols Sup-
ported TLV may be assumed to be a pure OSI router and can be inter-
preted as implicitly "advertising" support for the OSI protocol.
The requirements of [3] are ample if networks adhere to this restric-
tion. However, the behavior of mixed networks that do not follow
these guidelines is not well defined.
The ITU-T requires that SONET/SDH equipment running the IS-IS proto-
col must not form an adjacency with a neighbour unless they share at
least one network layer protocol in common. Unless this feature is
present in every IS in the SONET or SDH DCN network the network may
not function correctly. Implementors MAY include this feature if they
wish to ensure interoperability with SONET and SDH DCN networks.
Definition of an interoperable strategy for resolving the problems
that arise in non-homogeneous protocol remains incomplete. Members of
the ITU are actively working on a proposal: see "Architecture and
Specification of Data Communication Network", [10].
19. Adjacency Creation and IP Interface Addressing
RFC 1195 [3] states that adjacencies are formed without regard to IP
interface addressing. However, many current implementations refuse
adjacencies based on interface addresses and related issues.
In section 4.2 [3] requires routers with IP interface addresses to
advertise the addresses in an IP Interface Address TLV (132) carried
in IIH PDUs. Some implementations will not interoperate with a neigh-
bor router that does not include the IP Interface Address TLV.
Further, some implementations will not form an adjacency on boadcast
interfaces with a peer who does not share an interface address in
some common IP subnetwork.
If a LAN contains a mixture of implementations, some that form adja-
cencies with all neighbors and some that do not, care must be taken
when assigning IP addresses. If not all routers in a LAN are on the
same IP subnet, it is possible that DIS election may fail, leading to
the election of multiple DISs on a LAN, or no DIS at all. Even if DIS
election succeeds, black holes can result because the IS-IS LAN tran-
sitivity requirements of section 6.7.3 [1] are not met.
Unnumbered point to point links do not have IP interface addresses,
though they may have other IP addresses assigned to the routers. The
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 16]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
IP address assigned to two routers that are neighbors on an unnum-
bered point to point link do not need to be related. However, some
implementations will not form an adjacency on numbered point to point
links if the interface addresses of each endpoint are not in the same
IP subnetwork. This means that care must be taken in assigning IP
interface addresses in all networks.
For an implementation to interoperate in a such mixed environment, it
SHOULD include TLV 132 in its IIH PDUs. The network administrator
should ensure that there is a common IP subnet assigned to links with
numbered interfaces, and that all routers on each link have a IP
Interface Addresses belonging to the assigned subnet.
20. Checking System ID in Received point-to-point IIH PDUs
In section 8.4.2.4.b), ISO [1] makes it clear that an implementation
MUST check the System ID in an IIH on a Broadcast Link before accept-
ing the PDU and updating an existing adjacency. This test is not
explicitly included in section 8.2.4.2 which discusses the receipt of
Point to Point IIH PDUs.
To address this omission, replace the text in section 8.2.4.2.d that
reads
If the action taken is "Accept" and the new value computed for
the circuitID is different from that in the existing adja-
cency, the IS shall
with the following text
If the action taken is "Accept" and the neightbourSystemID in
the Adjacency does not match the Source ID field from the PDU,
or the new value computed for the circuitID is different from
that in the existing adjacency, the IS shall
21. Security Implications
The clarifications in this document do not raise any new security
concerns, as there is no change in the underlying protocol.
22. References
[1] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing informa-
tion exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the Protocol for
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 17]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473),"
ISO/IEC 10589:1992.
[2] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing informa-
tion exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the Protocol for
providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473),"
ISO/IEC 10589:2001.
[3] Callon, R., "OSI IS-IS for IP and Dual Environment," RFC 1195,
December 1990.
[4] Katz, D. and Saluja, R., "Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-
Point Adjacencies", draft-ietf-isis-3way-06.txt, April 2002.
[5] Li, T., Atkinson, R. J., "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication",
draft-ietf-isis-hmac-03.txt, July 2001.
[6] Li, T., Przygienda, T., "Domain-wide Prefix Distribution with Two-
Level IS-IS", RFC 2966, October 2000.
[7] Li, T. and Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-04.txt, August 2001.
[8] McPherson, D., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Transient Blackhole Avoidance", RFC 3277, April 2002.
[9] Parker, J., "Management Information Base for IS-IS", draft-ietf-
isis-wg-mib-08.txt, May 2002.
[10] ITU, "Architecture and Specification of Data Communication Net-
work", ITU-T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, November 2001
23. Author's Addresses
Jeff Parker
Axiowave Networks
200 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, Mass 01752
USA
e-mail: jparker@axiowave.com
24. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 18]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-interoperable May 2002
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of develop-
ing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights
defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as
required to translate it into languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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 MER-
CHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Parker Expires November 2002 [Page 19]
