IS-IS for IP Internets                                    P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                H. Gredler
Intended status: Standards Track                                S. Hegde
Expires: September 10, 2015                       Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                             B. Decraene
                                                                   Z. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                E. Aries
                                                            R. Rodriguez
                                                            H. Raghuveer
                                                           March 9, 2015

                Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS


   This document describes an extension to IS-IS protocol [ISO10589],
   [RFC1195] to add an optional operational capability, that allows
   tagging and grouping of the nodes in an IS-IS domain.  This allows
   simple management and easy control over route and path selection,
   based on local configured policies.

   This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per-
   node administrative tags in IS-IS protocols.

Requirements Language

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

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

   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 September 10, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   ( 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

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Administrative Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  TLV format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Per-node Admin Tag sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Applications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Introduction

   This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node
   administrative tags in the IS-IS Link State PDU [RFC1195].  In
   certain path-selection applications like for example in traffic-
   engineering or LFA [RFC5286] selection there is a need to tag the
   nodes based on their roles in the network and have policies to prefer
   or prune a certain group of nodes.

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

2.  Administrative Tag

   For the purpose of advertising per-node administrative tags within
   IS-IS, a new sub-TLV to the IS-IS Router Capability TLV-242 that is
   defined in [RFC4971] is proposed.  Path selection is a functional set
   which applies both to TE and non-TE applications.  Per-node
   administrative tags are used to advertise an attribute of the node.
   As such they are independent of the routing protocol used to
   advertise them.  Because per-node administrative tags may be used to
   advertise many different attributes, associating the advertisement to
   TLVs specific to a particular use case (e.g.  TE extensions to IS-
   Neighbors TLVs [RFC5305] in the case of TE path selection) is not

   An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
   identify a group of nodes in the IS-IS domain.  The new sub-TLV
   specifies one or more administrative tag values.  An IS-IS router
   advertises the set of groups it is part of in the specific IS-IS
   level.  As an example, all PE-nodes may be configured with certain
   tag value, whereas all P-nodes are configured with a different tag

   The new sub-TLV defined will be carried inside the IS-IS Router
   Capability TLV-242 [RFC4971]) in the Link State PDUs originated by
   the router.  Link State PDUs [ISO10589] can be either flooded within
   the specific level (i.e.  L1 or L2) or can be relayed across from one
   level to another.  Per-node administrative tags included in a TLV 242
   to be distributed within the specific level are perceived to have
   'level-wide' scope only.  On the other hand, per-node administrative
   tag included in a TLV 242 to be distributed across levels are
   perceived to have 'domain-wide' scope.

   Choosing the flooding scope to be associate with group tags are
   defined by the needs of the operator's usage and is a matter of local
   policy or configuration.  Operator may choose to advertise a set of
   per-node administrative tags across levels and another set of per-
   node administrative tags within the specific level.  But evidently
   the same set of per-node administrative tags cannot be advertised
   both across levels and within a specific level.  A receiving IS-IS
   router will not be able to distinguish between the significance of a
   per-node administrative tag advertised globally from that of an
   administrative tag advertised locally if they have the same value
   associated but different significance across different scopes.

   Implementations SHOULD allow configuring one or more per-node
   administrative tags to be advertised from a given device along with
   the floofing scope associated with the same.  It SHOULD allow
   provisioning a set of per-node administrative tags having a 'domain-

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

   wide' flooding scope, as well as, a set of per-node administrative
   tags with 'level-wide' flooding scope only.  A given per-node
   administrative tag MAY be advertised with level-specific scope
   (Level-1 and/or Level-2) or with domain-wide scope, but MUST NOT be
   advertised in both scopes.  Hence implementations MUST NOT allow
   configuring the same per-node administrative tag values in both
   'domain-wide' and 'level-wide' scopes.  However the same
   administrative tag value MAY be allowed under multiple levels with
   'level-wide' scope.

   In deployments using multi-topology routing [RFC5120], since multiple
   topologies within same IS-IS level do not use seprate Router
   Capability TLVs (i.e. they share the same flooding scope) a given
   per-node administrative tag cannot be associated with different
   charateristic or attribute under different topology.
   Implementations, in addition to letting user configuring a set of
   'level-wide' and 'domain-wide' per-node administrative tags for each
   level, MAY also allow configuring a set of 'level-wide' and 'domain-
   wide' tags for each topology.  Operators may like to associate a
   single per-node administrative tag with same attribute across all
   topologies under a specific (or all) levels.  The same should be
   provisioned under specific 'level-wide' (or 'domain-wide')
   configurations.  However advertising the same tag value across
   multiple topologies will lead to same inconsistencies as with the
   case of advertising same tag value across 'domain-wide' and 'level-
   wide' flooding scope.  Hence such implementations that allow
   configuring topology-specific per-node administrative tags, MUST NOT
   allow configuring the same topology-specific per-node administrative
   tag across different topologies.  They MUST only allow disjoint sets
   of topology-specific 'level-wide' and 'domain-wide' per-node
   administrative tags across different topologies.

3.  TLV format

3.1.  Per-node Admin Tag sub-TLV

   The new Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV, like other ISIS
   Capability sub-TLVs, is formatted as Type/Length/Value (TLV)triplets.
   Figure 1 below shows the format of the new sub-TLV.

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

     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     |
    +- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                   Administrative Tag #1                       |
    |                   Administrative Tag #2                       |
    //                                                             //
    |                   Administrative Tag #N                       |

    Type :  TBA

    Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value
            portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets
            dependent on the number of tags advertised.

    Value:  A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the
            administrative tags.

            Figure 1: IS-IS Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV

   The 'Per-node Admin Tag' sub-TLV may be generated more than once by
   an originating router.  This MAY happen if a node carries more than
   63 per-node administrative groups and a single sub-TLV does not
   provide sufficient space.  As such occurence of the 'Per-node Admin
   Tag' sub-TLV does not cancel previous announcements, but rather is

4.  Elements of Procedure

   Meaning of the Per-node administrative tags is generally opaque to
   IS-IS.  Router advertising the per-node administrative tag (or tags)
   may be configured to do so without knowing (or even explicitly
   supporting) functionality implied by the tag.

   Interpretation of tag values is specific to the administrative domain
   of a particular network operator.  The meaning of a per-node
   administrative tag is defined by the network local policy and is
   controlled via the configuration.  If a receiving node does not
   understand the tag value, it ignores the specific tag and floods the
   Router Capability TLV without any change as defined in [RFC4971].

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

   The semantics of the tag order has no meaning.  There is no implied
   meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a certain
   operation or set of operations that need to be performed based on the

   Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be
   used in policy to perform a policy action.  Tags carried by the
   administrative tag TLV SHOULD be used to indicate independent
   characteristics of a node.  The TLV SHOULD be considered as an
   unordered list.  Whilst policies may be implemented based on the
   presence of multiple tags (e.g., if tag A AND tag B are present),
   they MUST NOT be reliant upon the order of the tags (i.e., all
   policies should be considered commutative operations, such that tag A
   preceding or following tag B does not change their outcome).

   As mentioned earlier, to avoid incomplete or inconsistent
   interpretations of the per-node administrative tags the same tag
   value MUST NOT be advertised by a router in Router Capabilities of
   different scopes.  Implementations MUST NOT allow configuring the
   same tag value across domain-wide and 'level-wide' scopes.  The same
   tag value MAY be allowed to be configured and advertised under
   'level-wide' scope for all levels.  A IS-IS Area Border Router (ABR)
   participating in both levels 1 and 2 MAY advertise the same tag value
   in the level-specific Router Capability TLVs with 'level-wide' scope
   generated by it.  But the same tag value MUST not be advertised in
   any of level 1 or level 2 Router-Capability TLV with 'domain-wide'
   flooding scope (refer to [RFC4971] for more details).

   The per-node administrative tags sub-TLV don't need to be extended to
   advertise newer per-node attributes or capabilities in future.
   Future IS-IS protocol extensions MUST NOT require use of per-node
   administrative tags or define well-known tag values to advertise
   well-known capabilities.  Per-node administrative tags are for
   generic use and do not require IANA registry.  Theny future IS-IS
   extensions requiring well known values to advertise well-known
   capabilities MAY define and use new Router Capability sub-TLVs
   tailored to the needs of the specific solution (refer to [RFC4971]
   for more details).

   Being part of the Router Capability TLV, the per-node administrative
   tag sub-TLV MUST be reasonably small and stable.  In particular, but
   not limited to, implementations supporting the per-node
   administrative tags MUST NOT associate advertised tags to changes in
   the network topology (both within and outside the IS-IS domain) or
   reachability of routes.

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

5.  Applications

   This section lists several examples of how implementations might use
   the Per-node administrative tags.  These examples are given only to
   demonstrate generic usefulness of the router tagging mechanism.
   Implementation supporting this specification is not required to
   implement any of the use cases.  It is also worth noting that in some
   described use cases routers configured to advertise tags help other
   routers in their calculations but do not themselves implement the
   same functionality.

   1.  Auto-discovery of Services

       Router tagging may be used to automatically discover group of
       routers sharing a particular service.

       For example, service provider might desire to establish full mesh
       of MPLS TE tunnels between all PE routers in the area of MPLS VPN
       network.  Marking all PE routers with a tag and configuring
       devices with a policy to create MPLS TE tunnels to all other
       devices advertising this tag will automate maintenance of the
       full mesh.  When new PE router is added to the area, all other PE
       devices will open TE tunnels to it without the need of
       reconfiguring them.

   2.  Policy-based Fast-Reroute

       Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in
       [RFC5286] poses operation and management challenges.
       [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes policies which, when
       implemented, will ease LFA operation concerns.

       One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes
       in IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA based
       on configured policies.

       (a)  Administrative limitation of LFA scope

           Service provider access infrastructure is frequently designed
           in layered approach with each layer of devices serving
           different purposes and thus having different hardware
           capabilities and configured software features.  When LFA
           repair paths are being computed, it may be desirable to
           exclude devices from being considered as LFA candidates based
           on their layer.

           For example, if the access infrastructure is divided into the
           Access, Distribution and Core layers it may be desirable for

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

           a Distribution device to compute LFA only via Distribution or
           Core devices but not via Access devices.  This may be due to
           features enabled on Access routers; due to capacity
           limitations or due to the security requirements.  Managing
           such a policy via configuration of the router computing LFA
           is cumbersome and error prone.

           With the Per-node administrative tags it is possible to
           assign a tag to each layer and implement LFA policy of
           computing LFA repair paths only via neighbors which advertise
           the Core or Distribution tag.  This requires minimal per-node
           configuration and network automatically adapts when new links
           or routers are added.

       (b)  Optimizing LFA calculations

           Calculation of LFA paths may require significant resources of
           the router.  One execution of Dijkstra algorithm is required
           for each neighbor eligible to become next hop of repair
           paths.  Thus a router with a few hundreds of neighbors may
           need to execute the algorithm hundreds of times before the
           best (or even valid) repair path is found.  Manually
           excluding from the calculation neighbors which are known to
           provide no valid LFA (such as single-connected routers) may
           significantly reduce number of Dijkstra algorithm runs.

           LFA calculation policy may be configured so that routers
           advertising certain tag value are excluded from LFA
           calculation even if they are otherwise suitable.

   3.  Controlling Remote LFA tunnel termination

       [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] proposed method of tunneling traffic
       after connected link failure to extend the basic LFA coverage and
       algorithm to find tunnel tail-end routers fitting LFA
       requirement.  In most cases proposed algorithm finds more than
       one candidate tail-end router.  In real life network it may be
       desirable to exclude some nodes from the list of candidates based
       on the local policy.  This may be either due to known limitations
       of the per-node (the router does accept targeted LDP sessions
       required to implement Remote LFA tunneling) or due to
       administrative requirements (for example, it may be desirable to
       choose tail-end router among co-located devices).

       The Per-node administrative tag delivers simple and scalable
       solution.  Remote LFA can be configured with a policy to accept
       during the tail-end router calculation as candidates only routers
       advertising certain tag.  Tagging routers allows to both exclude

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

       nodes not capable of serving as Remote LFA tunnel tail-ends and
       to define a region from which tail-end router must be selected.

   4.  Mobile backhaul network service deployment

       The topology of mobile backhaul network usually adopts ring
       topology to save fiber resource and it is divided into the
       aggregate network and the access network.  Cell Site
       Gateways(CSGs) connects the eNodeBs and RNC(Radio Network
       Controller) Site Gateways(RSGs)connects the RNCs.  The mobile
       traffic is transported from CSGs to RSGs.  The network takes a
       typical aggregate traffic model that more than one access rings
       will attach to one pair of aggregate site gateways(ASGs) and more
       than one aggregate rings will attach to one pair of RSGs.

                   /                \
                  /                  \
                 /                    \
    +------+   +----+    Access     +----+
    |eNodeB|---|CSG1|    Ring 1     |ASG1|-------------
    +------+   +----+               +----+             \
                 \                    /                 \
                  \                  /                   +----+    +---+
                   \             +----+                  |RSG1|----|RNC|
                    -------------|    |    Aggregate     +----+    +---+
                                 |ASG2|      Ring          |
                    -------------|    |                  +----+    +---+
                   /             +----+                  |RSG2|----|RNC|
                  /                  \                   +----+    +---+
                 /                    \                 /
    +------+   +----+     Access     +----+            /
    |eNodeB|---|CSG2|     Ring 2     |ASG3|------------
    +------+   +----+                +----+
                \                     /
                 \                   /
                  \                 /

                     Figure 2: Mobile Backhaul Network

       A typical mobile backhaul network with access rings and aggregate
       links is shown in figure above.  The mobile backhaul networks
       deploy traffic engineering due to the strict Service Level

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

       Agreements(SLA).  The TE paths may have additional constraints to
       avoid passing via different access rings or to get completely
       disjoint backup TE paths.  The mobile backhaul networks towards
       the access side change frequently due to the growing mobile
       traffic and addition of new eNodeBs.  It's complex to satisfy the
       requirements using cost, link color or explicit path
       configurations.  The per-node administrative tag defined in this
       document can be effectively used to solve the problem for mobile
       backhaul networks.  The nodes in different rings can be assigned
       with specific tags.  TE path computation can be enhanced to
       consider additional constraints based on per-node administrative

   5.  Policy-based Explicit Routing

       Partially meshed network provides multiple paths between any two
       nodes in the network.  In a data center environment, the topology
       is usually highly symmetric with many/all paths having equal
       cost.  In a long distance network, this is usually less the case
       for a variety of reasons (e.g. historic, fiber availability
       constraints, different distances between transit nodes, different
       roles ...).  Hence between a given source and destination, a path
       is typically preferred over the others, while between the same
       source and another destination, a different path may be

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

                                  |                    |
                                  |    +----------+    |
                                  |    |          |    |
                                  T-10-T          |    |
                                 /|   /|          |    |
                                / |  / |          |    |
                             --+  | |  |          |    |
                            /  +--+-+ 100         |    |
                           /  /   |    |          |    |
                          /  /    R-18-R          |    |
                         /  /    /\   /\          |    |
                        /  |    /  \ /  \         |    |
                       /   |   /    x    \        |    |
                      A-25-A  10  10 \    \       |    |
                             /    /   10   10     |    |
                            /    /     \    \     |    |
                           A-25-A       A-25-A    |    |
                            \    \     /    /     |    |
                            201  201  201 201     |    |
                              \    \ /    /       |    |
                               \    x    /        |    |
                                \  / \  /         |    |
                                 \/   \/          |    |
                                 I-24-I          100  100
                                 |    |           |    |
                                 |    +-----------+    |
                                 |                     |

                    Figure 3: Explicit Routing topology

       In the above topology, operator may want to enforce the following
       high level explicitly routed policies: - Traffic from A nodes to
       A nodes must not go through I nodes - Traffic from A nodes to I
       nodes must not go through R and T nodes with per-node
       administrative tag, tag A can be configured on all A nodes,
       (similarly I, R, T), and then configure this single CSPF policy
       on all A nodes to avoid I nodes for path calculation.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any further security issues other
   than those discussed in [ISO10589] and [RFC1195].

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA maintains the registry for the Router Capability sub-TLVs.  IS-
   IS Administrative Tags will require new type code for the following
   new sub-TLV defined in this document.

   i) Per-Node-Admin-Tag Sub-TLV, Type: TBD

8.  Acknowledgments

   Many thanks to Les Ginsberg, Dhruv Dhody, Uma Chunduri for useful
   inputs.  Thanks to Chris Bowers for providing useful inputs to remove
   ambiguity related to tag-ordering.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

              "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
              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.", Nov 2002.

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

9.2.  Informative References

              Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
              Horneffer, M., and p., "Operational
              management of Loop Free Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-
              manageability-04 (work in progress), August 2014.

              Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
              So, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-09 (work
              in progress), December 2014.

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC4971]  Vasseur, JP., Shen, N., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate
              System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for
              Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007.

Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

   [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.

   [RFC5286]  Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
              Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.

   [RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
              Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

Authors' Addresses

   Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Electra, Exora Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560103


   Hannes Gredler
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, CA  94089


   Shraddha Hegde
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Electra, Exora Business Park
   Bangalore, KA  560103


   Stephane Litkowski


Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft  Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS      March 2015

   Bruno Decraene


   Li Zhenbin
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd
   Beijing, KA  100095


   Ebben Aries


   Rafael Rodriguez


   Harish Raghuveer


Sarkar, et al.         Expires September 10, 2015              [Page 14]