INTERNET-DRAFT Danny McPherson (Ed.)
Arbor Networks
Les Ginsberg
Stefano Previdi
Mike Shand
Cisco Systems
Expires: December 2008 June 25, 2008
Intended Status: Proposed Standard
Simplified Extension of LSP Space for IS-IS
<draft-ietf-isis-wg-extlsp-03.txt>
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-
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
McPherson, et al. [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
Abstract
This draft describes a simplified method for extending the LSP space
beyond the 256 Link State PDU (LSP) limit defined in [ISO 10589].
This method is intended as a preferred replacement for the method
defined in [RFC 3786].
McPherson, et al. [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Specification of Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Definition of Commonly Used Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Utilizing Additional System IDs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Additional Information in Extended LSPs . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Extended LSP Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. TLVs Which MUST NOT Appear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Leaf Advertisements in Extended LSPs . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. IS Neigbor Advertisement Restrictions. . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4. Area Adresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.5. Overload, Attached, Partition Repair Bits. . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Originating LSP Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. IS Alias ID TLV (IS-Alias). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.5. New TLVs in Support of IS Neighbor Attributes . . . . . . . 9
5. Comparison with the RFC 3786 Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Deployment Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Advertising New TLVs in Extended LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Reachability and non-SPF TLV Staleness. . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Normal LSP OL State and Use of Extended LSPs. . . . . . . . 11
6.4. Moving Neighbor Attribute INFO LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. Advertising Leaf INFO Extended LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
McPherson, et al. [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
1. Overview
[IS-IS] defines the set of LSP fragments which may be originated by a
system at each level. This set is limited to 256 fragments. [IS- IS]
also defines a maximum value for an LSP fragment
(originatingLxLSPBufferSize) as 1492 bytes. The carrying capacity of
an LSP set, while bounded, has thus far been sufficient for
advertisements associated with an area/domain in existing deployment
scenarios. However, the definition of additional information to be
included in LSPs (e.g. multitopology support, traffic engineering
information, router capabilities, etc.) has the potential to exceed
the carrying capacity of an LSP set.
This issue first drew interest when traffic engineering extensions
were introduced. This interest resulted in the solution defined in
RFC 3786. However, that solution suffers from restrictions required
to maintain interoperability with systems which do not support the
extensions.
This document defines extensions which allow a system to exceed the
256 fragment limit and do so in a way which has no interoperability
issues with systems which do not support the extension. It is seen as
a simpler and therefore preferred solution to the problem.
2. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].
3. Definition of Commonly Used Terms
This section provides definitions for terms that are used throughout
the text. The terminology is consistent with that used in RFC 3786.
Originating System: A physical IS running the IS-IS protocol. As
this document describes a method which allows a single physical IS to
originate LSPs on behalf of multiple virtual ISs, the Originating
System represents the single physical IS.
Normal system-id: The system-id of an Originating System as defined
McPherson, et al. Section 3. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
by [IS-IS].
Additional system-id: A system-id other than the "Normal system-id"
that is assigned by the network administrator to an Originating
System in order to allow the generation of extended LSP fragments.
The Additional system-id, like the Normal system-id, must be unique
throughout the routing area (Level-1) or domain (Level-2).
Original LSP: An LSP using the Normal system-id in its LSP ID.
Extended LSP: An LSP using an Additional system-id in its LSP ID.
LSP set: Logical LSP. A group of LSP fragments (for a given level)
which have the same LSPID. This term is used to resolve the ambiguity
between a logical LSP and an LSP fragment, both of which are
sometimes termed "LSP".
Extended LSP set: An LSP set consisting of LSP fragments using an
Additional system-id.
Extension-capable IS: An IS implementing the mechanisms described in
this document.
4. Utilizing Additional System IDs
This extension allows an Originating System to be assigned additional
system-ids which may be used to generate additional LSP sets. The
additional system-ids are subject to the same restrictions as normal
system-ids i.e. when used at Level-1 the additional system-id MUST be
unique within the Level-1 area. When used at Level-2 the additional
system-id MUST be unique within the domain.
Extended LSPs are treated by the IS-IS Update Process in the same
manner as normal LSPs i.e. the same rules as to generation, flooding,
purging, etc. apply. In particular, if the Extended LSP with LSP
Number zero and remaining lifetime > 0 is not present for a
particular additional system-id then none of the extended LSPs in
that Extended LSP set shall be processed.
4.1. Additional Information in Extended LSPs
Fragment 0 of an Extended LSP Set MUST include the new IS alias ID
McPherson, et al. Section 4.1. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
TLV defined in Section 4.4. This allows the Extended LSP set to be
associated with the Originating System which generated the LSP(s).
4.2. Extended LSP Restrictions
The following restrictions on the information which may appear in an
Extended LSP are defined in order to avoid interoperability issues
with systems which do not support the extensions defined in this
document. All TLV references are based on the current definitions in
the IANA IS-IS TLV Codepoints Registry.
4.2.1. TLVs Which MUST NOT Appear
The following TLVs MUST NOT appear in an Extended LSP:
TLV Name (#)
-----------
ES Neighbors (3)
Part. DIS (4)
Prefix Neighbors (5)
If any of the TLVs listed above appear in an Extended LSP, an
Extension Capable IS MUST ignore those TLVs on receipt and SHOULD
report an error. Other TLVs in that extended LSP set MUST be
processed normally.
4.2.2. Leaf Advertisements in Extended LSPs
Advertisement of leaf information in Extended LSPs is allowed.
Inclusion of such information requires the advertisement of a
neighbor between the Originating System and the Virtual IS associated
with the extended LSP set in which the leaf advertisements appear.
See section 4.2.3.
When leaf advertisements for multiple topologies (see [M-IS-IS]) are
included in an Extended LSP set, the multi-topology TLV (229) MUST
McPherson, et al. Section 4.2.2. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
include all topologies for which a leaf advertisement is included.
The following TLVs fall into this category:
TLV Name (#)
-----------
IP Int. Reach (128)
IP Ext. Address (130)
The extended IP reachability TLV (135)
MT IP Reach (235)
IPv6 IP Reach (236)
MT IPv6 IP Reach (237)
4.2.3. IS Neigbor Advertisement Restrictions
Advertisement of IS Neighbor Reachability in an Extended LSP is
restricted to advertisement of neighbor reachability to the
Originating System. A neighbor to the Originating System MUST be
advertised in Extended LSPs. If multi-topology capability [M-IS-IS]
is supported, an MT IS Neighbor advertisement to the Originating
System IS MUST be included for every topology advertised in the
Extended LSP set. Neighbor advertisement(s) to the Originating System
in an Extended LSP MUST use a non-zero metric and SHOULD use a metric
of MaxLinkMetric-1.
The restrictions defined here apply to all TLVs used to advertise
neighbor reachability. These include the following TLVs:
TLV Name (#)
-----------
IS Neighbors (2)
The extended IS reachability TLV (22)
MT-ISN (222)
McPherson, et al. Section 4.2.3. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
4.2.4. Area Adresses
Fragment #0 of an Extended LSP set MUST include an Area Address TLV.
The set of area addresses advertised MUST be a subset of the set of
Area Addresses advertised in the normal LSP fragment #0 at the
corresponding level. Preferably the advertisement SHOULD be
syntactically identical to that included in the normal LSP fragment
#0 at the corresponding level.
4.2.5. Overload, Attached, Partition Repair Bits
The Overload (OL), Attached (ATT), and Partition Repair (P) bits MUST
be set to 0 in all Extended LSP fragments.
Note that ISs NOT supporting these extensions will interpret these
bits normally in Extended LSPs they receive. If the ATT bit were set
in an Extended LSP this could indicate that the Virtual IS is
attached to other areas when the Originating System is not. This
might cause legacy systems to use the Virtual IS as a default exit
point from the area.
4.3. Originating LSP Requirements
The Original LSP set MUST include a neighbor to the Virtual IS
associated with each Extended LSP set generated. If multi-topology
capability [M-IS-IS] is supported, an MT IS Neighbor advertisement to
the Virtual IS MUST be included for every topology advertised in the
Extended LSP set. The neighbor advertisement(s) in the Original LSP
MUST specify a metric of zero. This guarantees that the two way
connectivity check between Originating System and Virtual IS will
succeed and that the cost of reaching the Virtual IS is the same as
the cost to reach the Originating System.
4.4. IS Alias ID TLV (IS-Alias)
The IS-Alias TLV allows extension-capable ISs to recognize the
Originating System of an Extended LSP set. It identifies the Normal
system-id of the Originating System.
McPherson, et al. Section 4.4. [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
Type 24
Length # of octets in the value field (7 to 255)
Value
No. of octets
+-----------------------+
| Normal System-id | 6
+-----------------------+
| Sub-TLV length | 1
+-----------------------+
| Sub-TLVs (optional) | 0 to 248
+-----------------------+
Normal system-id
The Normal system-id of the Originating System
Sub-TLVs length
Total length of all sub-TLVs.
Sub-TLVs
No subTLVs are defined in this document. Should future extensions
define subTLVs, the subTLVs MUST be formatted as described in RFC
3784.
4.5. New TLVs in Support of IS Neighbor Attributes
One of the major sources of additional information in LSPs is the
subTLV information associated with the extended IS reachability TLV
(22) and MT IS Neighbor TLV (222). This includes (but is not limited
to) information required in support of Traffic Engineering (TE) as
defined in RFC 3784 and RFC 4205. The restrictions defined in this
document prohibit the presence of TLV 22 and/or TLV 222 in Extended
LSPs except to advertise the neighbor relationship to the Originating
System. In the event that there is a need to advertise in Extended
LSPs such information associated with neighbors of the Originating
System, it is necessary to define new TLVs to carry the subTLV
information.
Two new TLVs are therefore defined.
McPherson, et al. Section 4.5. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
1) IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (23). It is identical in format to the
Extended IS Reachability TLV (22).
2) MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLV (223). It is identical in format to
the MT IS Neighbor TLV (222).
These new TLVs MAY be included in Original LSPs or Extended LSPs.
Regardless of the type of LSP in which the TLVs appear, the
information pertains to the neighbor relationship between the
Originating System and the IS identified in the TLV.
These TLVs MUST NOT be used to infer that a neighbor relationship
exists in the absence of TLV 22 or TLV 222 (whichever applies) in the
Originating LSP set for the specified neighbor. This restriction is
necessary in order to maintain compatibility with systems which do
not support these extensions.
5. Comparison with the RFC 3786 Solution
This document utilizes the same basic mechanism (additional system-
ids) as RFC 3786 to allow an originating system to generate more than
256 LSP fragments. It differs from RFC 3786 in that it restricts the
content of Extended LSPs to information which does NOT impact the
building of a Shortest Path Tree (SPT).
Legacy IS-IS implementations which do not support the extensions
defined in this document see the extended LSPs as information
associated with a system which is reachable only via the Originating
System. As no other systems are reachable via the Virtual ISs, the
SPF calculation in legacy ISs is therefore consistent with that
performed by extension capable ISs. There is therefore no need for
the two different operating modes defined in RFC 3786.
There is also no need for the special handling of the original LSP
set and the extended LSP set(s) as a single Logical LSP during the
SPF as specified in Section 5 of RFC 3786.
6. Deployment Considerations
There are a number of deployment considerations which limit the
usefulness of extended LSPs unless all systems are extension-capable
ISs.
McPherson, et al. Section 6. [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
6.1. Advertising New TLVs in Extended LSPs
As extended LSPs MAY be utilized to advertise TLVs associated with
other protocol extensions (definition of which is outside the scope
of this document) and/or the extensions defined in Section 4.4 of
this document, it is obvious that the utilization of the information
in extended LSPs by legacy IS-IS implementations will be limited.
The implication of this is that as implementations are revised to
support the protocol extensions which define new TLVs/subTLVs that
MAY be advertised in extended LSPs, the implementation SHOULD also be
revised to support the extensions defined in this document so that it
is capable of processing the new information whether it appears in
normal or extended LSPs.
6.2. Reachability and non-SPF TLV Staleness
In cases where non-SPF information is advertised in LSPs, it is
necessary to determine whether the system which originated the
advertisement is reachable in order to guarantee that a receiving IS
does not use or leak stale information. As long as the OL bit is NOT
set by the Originating System in normal LSPs, reachability to the
Virtual IS will be consistent with reachability to the Originating
System. Therefore, no special rules are required in this case.
6.3. Normal LSP OL State and Use of Extended LSPs
If the Originating System sets the OL bit in a normal LSP, legacy
systems will see the Virtual ISs associated with that Originating
System as unreachable and therefore will not use the information in
the corresponding Extended LSPs. Under these circumstances, Extension
capable ISs MUST also see the Virtual ISs as unreachable. This
avoids potential routing loops in cases where leaf information is
advertised in Extended LSPs.
6.4. Moving Neighbor Attribute INFO LSPs
Section 4.4 defines new TLVs which MAY be used to advertise neighbor
attribute information in extended LSPs. In cases where neighbor
McPherson, et al. Section 6.4. [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
attribute information associated with the same context (e.g. the same
link) appears in both an Original LSP and in one or more Extended LSP
Sets, the following rules apply for each attribute:
o If the attribute information does not conflict, it MUST be
considered additive
o If the attribute information conflicts, then the information in
the Original LSP, if present, MUST be used. If no information is
in the Original LSP, then the information from the Extended LSP
with the lowest system-id SHALL be preferred.
o In cases where information about the same neighbor/link/attribute
appears in both TLV 22 and TLV 23 (or TLV 222 and TLV 223 for the
same MTID) then the information in TLV 22 (or TLV 222) MUST be
used and the information in TLV 23 (or TLV 223) MUST be ignored.
Utilization of the new TLVs for neighbor attribute information would
provide additional benefits which include:
o Elimination of the need for redundant IS neighbor TLVs to be
processed as part of the SPF.
o Easier support for a set of TE information associated with a
single link which exceeds the 255 byte TLV limit by allowing the
interpretation of multiple TLVs to be considered additive rather
than mutually exclusive.
6.5. Advertising Leaf INFO Extended LSPs
The need to advertise leaf information in Extended LSPs may arise
because of extensive leaking of inter-level information or because of
the support of multiple topologies as described in [M-IS-IS]. When
leaf information is advertised in Extended LSPs, these LSPs now
contain information which MUST be processed in order to correctly
update the forwarding plane of an IS. This may increase the frequency
of events which trigger forwarding plane updates by ISs in the
network. It is therefore recommended that, when possible, leaf
information be restricted to the normal LSP set.
McPherson, et al. Section 6.5. [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
7. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.
8. IANA Considerations
This document defines the following new ISIS TLVs that need to be
reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry:
Type Description IIH LSP SNP
---- ----------------------------------- --- --- ---
23 IS Neighbor Attribute n y n
24 IS Alias ID n y n
223 MT IS Neighbor Attribute n y n
McPherson, et al. Section 8. [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
9. References
9.1. 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.
[RFC 3784] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784,
June 2004.
[RFC 3786] Hermelin, A., Previdi, S. and Shand, M., "Extending the
Number of Intermediate to Intermediate (IS-IS) Link State PDU (LSP)
Fragments Beyond the 256 Limit," RFC 3786, May 2004.
[RFC 4205] Kompella, K. and Rehkter, Y., "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4205, October 2005.
[BCP9] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[BCP14] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
[BCP26] Narten, T. and Alvestrand, H., "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26 , RFC 2434, October 1998
[BCP79] Bradner, S. Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF
Technology ", BCP 79 , RFC 3979, March 2005
9.2. Informative References
[M-IS-IS] Pryzgienda, T., Shen, N., and Sheth, N., "Multi Topology
(MT) Routing in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-wg-multi-topology-11.txt
(work in progress), October 2005.
McPherson, et al. Section 9.2. [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
10. Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Mike Shand
Cisco Systems
Email: mshand@cisco.com
Danny McPherson
Arbor Networks, Inc.
Email: danny@arbor.net
Intellectual Property Statement
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
McPherson, et al. Section 10. [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: December 2008 June 2008
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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST
AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
McPherson, et al. Section 10. [Page 16]
