Internet Engineering Task Force J. Parker, Editor
INTERNET DRAFT Axiowave Networks
Expiration Date: April 2004
September 20, 2003
Recommendations for Interoperable IP Networks using IS-IS
<draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable-01.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 (2003). All
Rights Reserved.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 1]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
2. Abstract
The difference between theory and practice is greater in
practice than it is in theory.
Apologies to Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
This document discusses a number of differences between the IS-IS
protocol used to route IP traffic as described in RFC 1195 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. A companion document describes the
differences between the protocol described in ISO 10589 and current
practice.
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. Unused Features...................................... 3
7. Overload Bit......................................... 4
8. Migration from Narrow Metrics to Wide................ 5
9. Intermediate System Hello (ISH) PDU.................. 7
10. Attached Bit......................................... 8
11. Default Route........................................ 8
12. Non-homogeneous Protocol Networks.................... 9
13. Adjacency Creation and IP Interface Addressing....... 9
14. Security Considerations............................. 10
15. Normative References................................. 10
16. Informative References............................... 11
17. Author's Address.................................... 11
18. Full Copyright Statement............................. 11
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 ISO 10589 [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 RFC 1195 [2] and the protocol
that can be observed on the wire today. A companion document
describes the differences between the protocol described in ISO 10589
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 2]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
and current practice.
5. Acknowledgments
This document is the work of many people, and is the distillation 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 to Don Goodspeed, for his close reading of
the text. Thanks to Michael Coyle for identifying the quotation from
Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut. 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. Unused Features
Some features defined in RFC 1195 are not in current use.
6.1 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. TLV 131 is not used, and MUST be ignored if
received.
6.2 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" [3].
TLV 133 is not used, and MUST be ignored.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 3]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
7. Overload Bit
To deal with transient problems that prevent an IS from storing all
the LSPs it receives, ISO 10589 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 ISO
10589 instructs other systems 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. However, 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
destinations not yet 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"
[5].
An implementation SHOULD use the Overload Bit to signal that it is
not ready to accept transit traffic.
An implementation SHOULD not set the Overload bit in PseudoNode LSPs
that it generates, and Overload bits seen in PseudoNode LSPs SHOULD
be ignored. This is also discussed in the companion document on ISO
interoperability.
RFC 1195 makes clear when describing the SPF algorithm for IP routers
in section C.1.4 that directly connected IP subnetworks are 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.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 4]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
8. 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
"IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering" [4]. 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 for IP Networks
and Hosts.
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 with wide
metrics, we need an algorithm that translates External and Internal
narrow metrics 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 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
have the same preference. As defined in "Domain-wide Prefix Distri-
bution with Two-Level IS-IS", 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. Metrics with
the external bit set are interpreted as metrics in the range
[64..127]. Metrics with the external bit clear are interpreted as
metrics in the range [0..63].
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 5]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
8.1 Transition Algorithm
To facilitate a smooth transition between the use of narrow metrics
exclusively to the use of wide metrics exclusively, the following
steps must be taken, in the order below.
(1) All routers advertise Narrow Metrics as defined in ISO 10589,
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.
8.2 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 same links. We resolve this by selecting
the minimum metric for each link. This may give us a path with some
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 ISO 10589.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 6]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
The variables MaxPathMetric and MaxLinkMetric SHOULD retain the
values defined in Table 2 of section 8 of ISO 10589.
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.
9. Intermediate System Hello (ISH) PDU
The original intent of RFC 1195 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 RFC 1195 states:
"On point-to-point links, the exchange of ISO 9542 ISHs
(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."
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 7]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
Section 5.1 RFC 1195 reinforces the need to comply with section 8.2.4
of ISO 10589. 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 ISO
10589 when CLNS functionality is enabled.
An IP only implementation SHOULD issue an ISH PDU as described in
section 8.2.3 of ISO 10589. This is to inter-operate with implemen-
tations 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 ISO 10589, even though it has not
received an ISH PDU.
10. The Attached Bit
In section 7.2.9.2 of ISO 10589, an algorithm is described to deter-
mining when the attachedFlag should be set on an intermediate system.
Some implementations also allow the attachedFlag to be set on Inter-
mediate Systems routing IP traffic when there is a default route in
the local routing table, or when some other state is reached that
implies a connection to the rest of the network.
11. Default Route
RFC 1195 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
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, an implementation MAY generate default routes in Level 1.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 8]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
12. Non-homogeneous Protocol Networks
RFC 1195 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.
RFC 1195 also requires the inclusion of the Protocol Supported TLV
with code 129 in IIH and ISH PDUs and in LSP number Zero. IP capable
routers MUST generate a Protocol Supported TLV, and MUST include the
IP protocol as a supported protocol. A router that does not include
the Protocols Supported TLV may be assumed to be a pure OSI router
and can be interpreted as implicitly "advertising" support for the
OSI protocol.
The requirements of RFC 1195 are ample if networks adhere to this
restriction. However, the behavior of mixed networks that do not fol-
low 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 networks remains incomplete.
Members of the ITU are actively working on a proposal: see "Architec-
ture and Specification of Data Communication Network", [6].
13. Adjacency Creation and IP Interface Addressing
RFC 1195 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, RFC 1195 requires routers with IP interface addresses
to advertise the addresses in an IP Interface Address TLV (132) car-
ried in IIH PDUs. Some implementations will not interoperate with a
neighbor router that does not include the IP Interface Address TLV.
Further, some implementations will not form an adjacency on broadcast
interfaces with a peer who does not share an interface address in
some common IP subnetwork.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 9]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
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 ISO 10589 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
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
MUST include an IP Interface address (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.
14. Security Considerations
The clarifications in this document do not raise any new security
concerns, as there is no change in the underlying protocol described
in ISO 10589 [1] and RFC 1195 [2].
The document does make clear that TLV 133 has been deprecated and
replaced with TLV 10.
15. Normative References
[1] 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 10589:2002.
[2] Callon, R., "OSI IS-IS for IP and Dual Environment," RFC 1195,
December 1990.
[3] Li, T., Atkinson, R. J., "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC
3567 July 2003.
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 10]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
[4] Li, T., Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering",
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-05.txt, August 2003.
[5] August 2001. McPherson, D., "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Transient Blackhole Avoidance", RFC 3277, April
2002.
16. Informative References
[6] ITU, "Architecture and Specification of Data Communication Net-
work", ITU-T Recommendation G.7712/Y.1703, November 2001
17. Author's Addresses
Jeff Parker
Axiowave Networks
200 Nickerson Road
Marlborough, Mass 01752
USA
e-mail: jparker@axiowave.com
18. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
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
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 11]
Internet Draft - draft-ietf-isis-ip-interoperable September 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MER-
CHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Parker Expires April 2004 [Page 12]