Network Working Group                                         S. Previdi
Internet-Draft                                               L. Ginsberg
Intended status: Standards Track                                M. Shand
Expires: August 18, 2008                                         D. Ward
                                                                  A. Roy
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       February 15, 2008

                          IS-IS Multi-Instance

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).


   This draft describes a mechanism that allows a single router to share
   one or more links among multiple IS-IS routing protocol instances.

   Multiple instances allow the isolation of resources associated with
   each instance.  Routers will form instance specific adjacencies,

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

   exchange instance specific routing updates and compute paths
   utilizing instance specific LSDB information.  Each PDU will contain
   a new TLV identifying the instance to which the PDU belongs.  This
   allows a network operator to deploy multiple IS-IS instances in
   parallel, using the same set of links when required and still have
   the capability of computing instance specific paths.  This draft does
   not address the forwarding paradigm that needs to be used in order to
   ensure data PDUs are forwarded according to the paths computed by a
   specific instance.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Elements Of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Instance Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.2.  Instance Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     2.3.  Adjacency Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       2.3.1.  Point-to-Point Adjacencies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
       2.3.2.  Multi-Access Adjacencies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     2.4.  Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       2.4.1.  Interoperability Issues on Broadcast Networks . . . . . 5
       2.4.2.  Interoperability using p2p networks . . . . . . . . . . 6
   3.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.  Informational References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

1.  Introduction

   An existing limitation of the protocol defined by [IS-IS] is that
   only one instance of the protocol can operate on a given link.  This
   document defines an extension to IS-IS to remove this restriction.
   The extension is referred to as "multi-instance IS-IS" (MI-IS-IS).

   Routers which support this extension are referred to as "multi-
   instance capable routers" (MI-RTR).

   The use of multiple instances enhances the ability to isolate the
   resources associated with a given instance both within a router and
   across the network.  Instance specific prioritization for processing
   PDUs and performing routing calculations within a router may be
   specified.  Instance specific flooding parameters may also be defined
   so as to allow different instances to consume network wide resources
   at different rates.

   MI-IS-IS might be used to support IS-IS for multiple topologies.
   When used for this purpose it is an alternative to [MT-IS-IS].

   MI-IS-IS might also be used to support an instance which advertises
   information on behalf of applications.  The advertisement of
   information not directly related to the operation of the IS-IS
   protocol can therefore be done in a manner which minimizes its impact
   on the operation of routing.

   The above are examples of how MI-IS-IS might be used.  The
   specification of uses of MI-IS-IS is outside the scope of this

2.  Elements Of Procedure

   The protocol extension uses a new TLV called the Instance Identifier
   (IID) that is included in each IS-IS PDU originated by an MI-RTR.
   MI-RTRs form instance specific adjacencies and exchange instance
   specific routing updates only for the instance IDs which are
   supported both by the MI-RTR and its neighbor.

   This also implies an instance specific flooding scheme, instance
   specific LSDBs and instance specific routing calculations.  It MAY
   also imply instance specific routing and forwarding tables.  However,
   this aspect is outside the scope of this specification.  When
   multiple instances share the same link each instance will have a
   separate set of adjacencies.  Each IS-IS PDU is associated with only
   one IS-IS instance.

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

   The mechanisms used to implement support for the separation of IS-IS
   instances within a router are outside the scope of this

2.1.  Instance Identifier

   A new TLV is defined in order to convey an instance identifier (IID).
   The purpose of the IID is to identify the PDUs associated with each
   IS-IS instance using a unique 16-bit number.  The IID TLV is carried
   in all IS-IS PDUs (IIHs, SNPs and LSPs) originated by the router.

   Multiple instances of IS-IS may co-exist on the same network and on
   the same physical router.  IIDs MUST be unique within the same
   routing domain.

   Instance identifier #0 is reserved for the standard instance
   supported by legacy systems.

   The following format is used for the IID:

       Type:   7
       Length: 2
       Value:  Instance Identifier (0 to 65535)

2.2.  Instance Membership

   Each router is configured to be participating in one or more
   instances of IS-IS.  For each instance in which it participates, a
   router marks all IS-IS PDUs (IIHs, LSPs or SNPs) generated pertaining
   to that instance by including the IID TLV with the appropriate
   instance identifier.  Note that this applies to the standard instance
   (instance identifier #0).  A PDU MUST NOT be generated with multiple
   IID TLVs.  PDUs received with multiple IID TLVs MUST be ignored.  A
   PDU without an IID TLV is assumed to belong to the standard instance

2.3.  Adjacency Establishment

   In order to establish adjacencies, IS-IS routers exchange IIH PDUs.
   Two types of adjacencies exist in IS-IS: point-to-point and
   broadcast.  The following sub-sections describe the additional rules
   an MI-RTR MUST follow when establishing adjacencies.

2.3.1.  Point-to-Point Adjacencies

   MI-RTRs include the IID TLV in the p2p hello PDUs they originate.
   Upon reception of an IIH, an MI-RTR inspects the received IID TLV and
   if it matches any of the IIDs which the router supports on that link,

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

   normal adjacency establishment procedures are used to establish an
   instance specific adjacency.  Note that the absence of the IID TLV
   implies instance ID #0.

   This extension allows an MI-RTR to establish multiple adjacencies to
   the same physical neighbor over a p2p link.  However, as the
   instances are logically independent, the normal expectation of at
   most one neighbor on a given p2p link still applies.

2.3.2.  Multi-Access Adjacencies

   Multi-Access (broadcast) networks behave differently than p2p in that
   PDUs sent by one router are visible to all routers and all routers
   must agree on the election of a DIS.

   MI-RTRs will establish adjacencies and elect a DIS per IS-IS
   instance.  Each MI-RTR will form adjacencies only with routers which
   advertise support for the instances which the local router has been
   configured to support on that link.  Since an MI-RTR is not required
   to support all possible instances on a LAN, it's possible to elect a
   different DIS for different instances.

2.4.  Interoperability Considerations

   [IS-IS] requires that any TLV that is not understood is silently
   ignored without compromising the processing of the whole IS-IS PDU
   (IIH, LSP, SNP).

   To a router not implementing this extension, all IS-IS PDUs received
   will appear to be associated with the standard instance regardless of
   whether an IID TLV is present in those PDUs.  This can cause
   interoperability issues unless the mechanisms and procedures
   discussed below are followed.

2.4.1.  Interoperability Issues on Broadcast Networks

   In order for routers to correctly interoperate with routers not
   implementing this extension and in order not to cause disruption, a
   specific and dedicated MAC address is used for multicasting IS-IS
   PDUs with any non-zero IID.  Each level will use a specific layer 2
   multicast address.  Such an address allows MI-RTRs to exchange IS-IS
   PDUs with non-zero IIDs without these PDUs being processed by legacy
   routers and therefore no disruption is caused.

   An MI-RTR will use the AllL1IS and AllL2IS ISIS mac layer addresses
   (as defined in [IS-IS]) when sending ISIS PDUs for the standard
   instance (IID #0).  An MI-RTR will use two new (TBD) dedicated layer
   2 multicast addresses (one for each level) when sending IS-IS PDUs

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

   for any non-zero IID.

   MI-RTRs MUST discard IS-IS PDUs received if either of the following
   is true:

   o  The destination multicast address is AllL1IS or AllL2IS and the
      PDU contains an IID TLV with non-zero value

   o  The destination multicast address is one of the two new addresses
      and the PDU contains an IID TLV with a zero value or has no IID

   NOTE: If the multicast addresses AllL1IS and/or AllL2IS are
   improperly used to send IS-IS PDUs for non-zero IIDs, legacy systems
   will interpret these PDUs as being associated with IID #0.  This will
   cause inconsistencies in the LSDB in those routers, may incorrectly
   maintain adjacencies, and may lead to inconsistent DIS election.

2.4.2.  Interoperability using p2p networks

   In order for an MI-RTR to interoperate over a p2p link with a router
   which does NOT support this extension, the MI-RTR MUST NOT send IS-
   IS PDUs for instances other than IID #0 over the p2p link as these
   PDUs may affect the state of IID #0 in the neighbor.

   The presence/absence of the IID TLV in an IIH indicates that the
   neighbor does/does not support this extension.  Once it is determined
   that the neighbor does not support this extension, an MI-RTR MUST NOT
   send PDUs (including IIHs) for instances other than IID #0.

   Until an IIH is received from a neighbor, an MI-RTR MAY send IIHs for
   a non-zero instance.  However, once an IIH with no IID TLV has been
   received - indicating that the neighbor is not an MI-RTR - the MI-RTR
   MUST NOT send IIHs for a non-zero instance.  The temporary relaxation
   of the restriction on sending IIHs for non-zero instances allows a
   non-zero instance adjacency to be established on an interface on
   which an MI-RTR does NOT support instance #0.

3.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires the definition a new ISIS TLV that needs to be
   reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry:

   Type        Description                            IIH   LSP   SNP
   ----        -----------------------------------    ---   ---   ---
   230         MI-MT IID                               y     y     y

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

4.  Security Considerations

   Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in the IS-IS specification
   [IS-IS], and accompanying specifications on [HMAC-MD5].  No
   additional considerations need to be made for the extension.

5.  Informational References

   [HMAC-MD5] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
   Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567,
   July 2003.

   [MT-IS-IS] Pryzgienda, T., Shen, N., and Sheth, N., "Multi Topology
   (MT) Routing in IS-IS", RFC5120, February 2008.

6.  Normative References

   [IS-IS] 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 10589:2002, Second Edition.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge contributions made by Dino
   Farinacci and Tony Li.

Authors' Addresses

   Stefano Previdi
   Cisco Systems
   Via Del Serafico 200
   Roma, RM  00142


Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

   Les Ginsberg
   Cisco Systems
   510 McCarthy Blvd.
   Milpitas, CA  95035


   Mike Shand
   Cisco Systems
   250 Longwater Avenue
   Reading, Berkshire  RG2 6GB


   Dave Ward
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134


   Abhay Roy
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Dr.
   San Jose, CA  95134


Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft            IS-IS Multi-Instance             February 2008

Full 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.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   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
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Previdi, et al.          Expires August 18, 2008                [Page 9]