Networking Working Group N. Shen
Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: September 3, 2017 S. Thyamagundalu
March 2, 2017
IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology
draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-03
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for routers and switches in a
Spine-Leaf type topology to have non-reciprocal Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing relationships between the
leafs and spines. The leaf nodes do not need to have the topology
information of other nodes and exact prefixes in the network. This
extension also has application in the Internet of Things (IoT).
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Spine-Leaf (SL) Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Topology Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Extension Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Spine-Leaf Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1.1. Leaf-Set Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1.2. Info-Req Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2. Advertising IPv4/IPv6 Reachability . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4.1. Pure CLOS Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Implementation and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.1. CSNP PDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.2. Leaf to Leaf connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5.3. Overload Bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.4. Spine Node Hostname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.5. IS-IS Reverse Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.6. Spine-Leaf Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.7. Other End-to-End Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.8. Address Family and Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.9. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-03.txt . . . . 13
7.2. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-02.txt . . . . 14
7.3. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-01.txt . . . . 14
7.4. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-00.txt . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The IS-IS routing protocol defined by [ISO10589] has been widely
deployed in provider networks, data centers and enterprise campus
environments. In the data center and enterprise switching networks,
a Spine-Leaf topology is commonly used. This document describes a
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
mechanism where IS-IS routing can be optimized for a Spine-Leaf
topology.
In a Spine-Leaf topology, normally a leaf node connects to a number
of spine nodes. Data traffic going from one leaf node to another
leaf node needs to pass through one of the spine nodes. Also, the
decision to choose one of the spine nodes is usually part of equal
cost multi-path (ECMP) load sharing. The spine nodes can be
considered as gateway devices to reach destinations on other leaf
nodes. In this type of topology, the spine nodes have to know the
topology and routing information of the entire network, but the leaf
nodes only need to know how to reach the gateway devices to which are
the spine nodes they are uplinked.
This document describes the IS-IS Spine-Leaf extension that allows
the spine nodes to have all the topology and routing information,
while keeping the leaf nodes free of topology information other than
the default gateway routing information. The leaf nodes do not even
need to run a Shortest Path First (SPF) calculation since they have
no topology information.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
2. Motivations
o The leaf nodes in a Spine-Leaf topology do not require complete
topology and routing information of the entire domain since their
forwarding decision is to use ECMP with spine nodes as default
gateways
o The spine nodes in a Spine-Leaf topology are richly connected to
leaf nodes, which introduces significant flooding duplication if
they flood all Link State PDUs (LSPs) to all the leaf nodes. It
saves both spine and leaf nodes' CPU and link bandwidth resources
if flooding is blocked to leaf nodes. For small Top of the Rack
(ToR) leaf switches in data centers, it is meaningful to prevent
full topology routing information and massive database flooding
through those devices.
o When a spine node advertises a topology change, every leaf node
connected to it will flood the update to all the other spine
nodes, and those spine nodes will further flood them to all the
leaf nodes, causing a O(n^2) flooding storm which is largely
redundant.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
o Similar to some of the overlay technologies which are popular in
data centers, the edge devices (leaf nodes) may not need to
contain all the routing and forwarding information on the device's
control and forwarding planes. "Conversational Learning" can be
utilized to get the specific routing and forwarding information in
the case of pure CLOS topology and in the events of link and node
down.
o Small devices and appliances of Internet of Things (IoT) can be
considered as leafs in the routing topology sense. They have CPU
and memory constrains in design, and those IoT devices do not have
to know the exact network topology and prefixes as long as there
are ways to reach the cloud servers or other devices.
3. Spine-Leaf (SL) Extension
3.1. Topology Examples
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | | | | |
| Spine1 +----+ Spine2 +- ......... -+ SpineN |
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
+------+ | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | |
| | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
| | | | | | +---+ | | | | |
| | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+
| | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ |
| | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | |
| | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | |
| | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | |
| | | +------+ | | | | | | | |
++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+
| Leaf1 +~~~~~~+ Leaf2 | ........ | LeafX | | LeafY |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 1: A Spine-Leaf Topology
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
+---------+ +--------+
| Spine1 | | Spine2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
| | | | | | | |
| | | +-----------------|-|-|-|-+
| | +------------+ | | | | |
+--------+ +-+ | | | | | |
| +----------------------------+ | | | |
| | | +------------------+ | +----+
| | | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ +-+--+--+ +--+--+-+
| Leaf1 | | Leaf2 | | Leaf3 | | Leaf4 |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 2: A Fat Tree Topology
3.2. Applicability Statement
This extension assumes the network is a Spine-Leaf topology, and it
should not be applied in an arbitrary network setup. The spine nodes
can be viewed as the aggregation layer of the network, and the leaf
nodes as the access layer of the network. The leaf nodes use a load
sharing algorithm with spine nodes as nexthops in routing and
forwarding.
This extension works when the spine nodes are inter-connected, and it
works with a pure CLOS or Fat Tree topology based network where the
spines are NOT interconnected.
Although the example diagram in Figure 1 shows a fully meshed Spine-
Leaf topology, this extension also works in the case where they are
partially meshed. For instance, leaf1 through leaf10 may be fully
meshed with spine1 through spine5 while leaf11 through leaf20 is
fully meshed with spine4 through spine8, and all the spines are
inter-connected in a redundant fashion.
This extension also works with a topology with more than the typical
two layers of spine and leaf. For instance, in example diagrams
Figure 1 and Figure 2, there can be another Core layer of routers/
switches on top of the aggregation layer. From an IS-IS routing
point of view, the Core nodes are not affected by this extension and
will have the complete topology and routing information just like the
spine nodes. To make the network even more scalable, the Core layer
can operate as a level-2 IS-IS sub-domain while the Spine and Leaf
layers operate as stays at the level-1 IS-IS domain.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
This extension also supports the leaf nodes having local connections
to other leaf nodes, in the example diagram Figure 1 there is a
connection between 'Leaf1' node and 'Leaf2' node, and an external
host can be dual homed into both of the leaf nodes.
This extension assumes the link between the spine and leaf nodes are
point-to-point, or point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309]. The links
connecting among the spine nodes or the links between the leaf nodes
can be any type.
3.3. Extension Encoding
This extension introduces one TLV which may be used in IS-IS Hello
(IIH) PDUs or in Circuit Scoped Link State PDUs (CS-LSP) [RFC7356].
It is used by both spine and leaf nodes in this Spine-Leaf mechanism.
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 | SL Flag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Optional Sub-TLVs
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-....
The fields of this TLV are defined as follows:
Type: 1 octet Suggested value 150 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 1 octet (2 + length of sub-TLVs).
Flags 16 bits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |B|R|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
L bit (0x01): Only leaf node sets this bit. If the L bit is
set in the SL flag, the node indicates it is in 'Leaf-
Mode'.
R bit (0x02): Only Spine node sets this bit. If the R bit is
set, the node indicates to the leaf neighbor that it
can be used as the default route gateway.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
B bit (0x04): Only leaf node sets this bit on Leaf-Leaf link,
in additional to the 'L' bit setting. If the B bit is
set, the node indicates to its leaf neighbor that it
can be used as the backup default route gateway.
Optional Sub-TLV: Not defined in this document, for future
extension
sub-TLVs MAY be included when the TLV is in a CS-LSP.
sub-TLVs MUST NOT be included when the TLV is in an IIH
3.3.1. Spine-Leaf Sub-TLVs
If the data center topology is a pure CLOS or Fat Tree, there are no
link connections among the spine nodes. If we also assume there is
not another Core layer on top of the aggregation layer, then the
traffic from one leaf node to another may have a problem if there is
a link outage between a spine node and a leaf node. For instance, in
the diagram of Figure 2, if Leaf1 sends data traffic to Leaf3 through
Spine1 node, and the Spine1-Leaf3 link is down, the data traffic will
be dropped on the Spine1 node.
To address this issue spine and leaf nodes may send/request specific
reachability information via the sub-TLVs defined below.
Two Spine-Leaf sub-TLVs are defined. The Leaf-Set sub-TLV and the
Info-Req sub-TLV.
3.3.1.1. Leaf-Set Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used by spine nodes to optionally advertise Leaf
neighbors to other Leaf nodes. The fields of this sub-TLV are
defined as follows:
Type: 1 octet Suggested value 1 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 1 octet MUST be a multiple of 6 octets.
Leaf-Set: A list of IS-IS System-ID of the leaf node neighbors of
this spine node.
3.3.1.2. Info-Req Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used by leaf nodes to request more specific prefix
information from a selected spine node, upon detecting one of the
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
spine node has lost the connection to a leaf node. The fields of
this sub-TLV are defined as follows:
Type: 1 octet Suggested value 2 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 1 octet. It MUST be a multiple of 6 octets.
Info-Req: List of IS-IS System-IDs of leaf nodes for which
connectivity information is being requested.
3.3.2. Advertising IPv4/IPv6 Reachability
In cases where connectivity between a leaf node and a spine node is
down, the leaf node MAY request reachability information from a spine
node as described in Section 3.3.1.2. The spine node utilizes TLVs
135 [RFC5305] and TLVs 236 [RFC5308] to advertise this information.
These TLVs MAY be included either in IIHs or CS-LSPs sent from the
spine to the requesting leaf node. Sending such information in IIHs
has limited scale - all reachability information MUST fit within a
single IIH. It is therefore recommended that CS-LSPs be used.
3.4. Mechanism
Each leaf node is provisioned by network operators as an IS-IS 'Leaf-
Node'. A spine node does not need explicit configuration. A leaf
node inserts the Spine-Leaf TLV in IIHs it originates. The TLV has
the 'L' bit set in the flags field.
When a spine node receives an IIH with the SL TLV and 'L' bit set, it
labels the point-to-point interface and adjacency to be a 'Leaf-
Peer'. IIHs sent by the spine node on a link to a Leaf-Peer includes
the Spine-Leaf TLV with the 'R' bit set in the flags field. The 'R'
bit indicates to the 'Leaf-Peer' neighbor that the spine node can be
used as a default routing nexthop.
There is no change to the IS-IS adjacency bring-up mechanism for
Spine-Leaf peers.
For the spine node with 'Leaf-Peer' adjacencies, the IS-IS LSP
flooding is blocked to the 'Leaf-Peer' interface, except for the LSP
PDUs in which the IS-IS System-ID matches the System-ID of the 'Leaf-
Peer' adjacency. This exception is needed since when the leaf node
reboots, the spine node needs to forward to the leaf node its
previous generation of LSP. No other LSP PDU needs to be flooded
over this 'Leaf-Peer' interface.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
The leaf node will perform IS-IS LSP flooding as normal over all of
its IS-IS adjacencies, this means the leaf node will flood its own
LSPs over to spine nodes since those are all the LSPs in its LSP
database.
The spine node will receive all the LSP PDUs in the network,
including all the spine nodes and leaf nodes. It will perform
Shortest Path First (SPF) as normal IS-IS node does. There is no
change to the route calculation and forwarding on the spine nodes.
But the leaf node does not have any LSP in the network except for its
own, and there is no need to perform SPF algorithm on the system. It
only needs to download the default route with the nexthops of those
'Spine-Peer' which has the 'R' bit set in the Spine-Leaf TLV in IIH
PDUs. IS-IS can perform equal cost or unequal cost load sharing
while using the spine nodes as nexthops. The aggregated metric of
the outbound interface and the 'Reverse Metric' [REVERSE-METRIC] can
be used for this purpose.
In summary, this extension requires leaf node to insert Spine-Leaf
TLV in IIH, and set the 'L' bit in the SL flag, and download IS-IS
default route using the spine nodes as nexthops where the 'Spine-
Peer' set the 'R' bit in its IIH PDU; It requires spine node to
respond from 'Leaf-Peer' by inserting Spine-Leaf TLV in its IIH,
setting the 'R' bit in the SL flag, and blocking the LSP flooding
with the exception that it will set SRMflag on the LSPs that belong
to the 'Leaf-Peer' over that interface.
3.4.1. Pure CLOS Topology
In a data center where the topology is pure CLOS or Fat Tree, there
is no interconnection among the spine nodes, and there is not another
Core layer above the aggregation layer, when the link between a spine
and a leaf goes down, there is a possibility of black holing the data
traffic in the network.
As in the diagram Figure 2, if the link Spine1-Leaf3 goes down, there
needs to be a way for Leaf1, Leaf2 and Leaf4 to avoid the Spine1 if
the destination of data traffic is to Leaf3 node.
In the above example, the Spine1 and Spine2 are provisioned to
advertise the Spine-Leaf sub-TLV of Leaf-Set. Originally both Spines
will advertise Leaf1 through Leaf4 as their Leaf-Set. When the
Spine1-Leaf3 link is down, Spine1 will only have Leaf1, Leaf2 and
Leaf4 in its Leaf-Set. This allows the other leaf nodes to know that
Spine1 has lost the leaf node of Leaf3.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
Each leaf node can select another spine node to request for some
prefix information associated with the lost leaf node. In this
diagram of Figure 2, there are only two spine nodes (Spine-Leaf
topology can have more than two spine nodes in general). Each leaf
node can independently select a spine node for the leaf information.
The leaf nodes will include the Info-Req sub-TLV in the Spine-Leaf
TLV towards that spine node, Spine2 in this case.
The spine node, upon receiving the request from one or more leaf
nodes, it will find the associated IPv6/IPv6 prefixes for this
requested client node, and the spine node will include the IPv6/IPv4
Info-Advertise sub-TLV when sending message towards the leaf nodes.
For instance, it will include the IPv4 loopback prefix of the leaf3
based on the policy configured or administrative tag attached to the
prefixes. When the leaf nodes receive the more specific prefixes,
they will install the advertised prefixes towards the other spine
nodes (Spine2 in this example).
For instance in the data center overlay scenario, when any IP
destination or MAC destination uses the leaf3's loopback as the
tunnel nexthop, the overlay tunnel from leaf nodes will only select
Spine2 as the gateway to reach leaf3 as long as the Spine1-Leaf3 link
is still down.
3.5. Implementation and Operation
3.5.1. CSNP PDU
In Spine-Leaf extension, Complete Sequence Number PDU (CSNP) does not
need to be transmitted over the Spine-Leaf link. Some IS-IS
implementation sends CSNPs after the initial adjacency bring-up over
point-to-point interface. There is no need for this optimization
here since the Leaf does not need to receive any other LSPs from the
network, and the only LSPs transmitted across the Spine-Leaf link is
the leaf node LSP.
Also in the graceful restart case[RFC5306], for the same reason,
there is no need to send the CSNPs over the Spine-Leaf interface. It
only needs to set the SRMflag on the LSPs belonging to the 'Leaf-
Peer' on the spine node, and set the SRMflag on its own LSPs on the
leaf node.
3.5.2. Leaf to Leaf connection
Leaf to leaf node links are useful in host redundancy cases in
switching networks, and normally there is no special requirement of
mechanism is needed for this case. Each leaf node will set the 'L'
bit in its IIH of the Spine-Leaf flag. LSP will be exchanged over
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
this link. In the example diagram Figure 1, the Leaf1 will get
Leaf2's LSP and Leaf2 will get Leaf1's LSP. They will install more
specific routes towards each other using this local Leaf-Leaf link.
SPF will be performed in this case just like when the entire network
only involves with those two IS-IS nodes. This does not affect the
normal Spine-Leaf mechanism they perform toward the spine nodes.
Besides the local leaf-to-leaf traffic, the leaf node can serve as a
backup gateway for its leaf neighbor. It needs to remove the
'Overload-Bit' setting in its LSP, and it sets both the 'L' bit and
the 'B' bit in the SL-flag with a high 'Reverse Metric' value.
3.5.3. Overload Bit
The leaf node SHOULD set the 'overload' bit on its LSP PDU, since if
the spine nodes were to forward traffic not meant for the local node,
the leaf node does not have the topology information to prevent a
routing/forwarding loop.
3.5.4. Spine Node Hostname
This extension creates a non-reciprocal relationship between the
spine node and leaf node. The spine node will receive leaf's LSP and
will know the leaf's hostname, but the leaf does not have spine's
LSP. This extension allows the Dynamic Hostname TLV [RFC5301] to be
optionally included in spine's IIH PDU when sending to a 'Leaf-Peer'.
This is useful in troubleshooting cases.
3.5.5. IS-IS Reverse Metric
This metric is part of the aggregated metric for leaf's default route
installation with load sharing among the spine nodes. When a spine
node is in 'overload' condition, it should use the IS-IS Reverse
Metric TLV in IIH [REVERSE-METRIC] to set this metric to maximum to
discourage the leaf using it as part of the loadsharing.
In some cases, certain spine nodes may have less bandwidth in link
provisioning or in real-time condition, and it can use this metric to
signal to the leaf nodes dynamically.
In other cases, such as when the spine node loses a link to a
particular leaf node, although it can redirect the traffic to other
spine nodes to reach that destination leaf node, but it MAY want to
increase this metric value if the inter-spine connection becomes over
utilized, or the latency becomes an issue.
In the leaf-leaf link as a backup gateway use case, the 'Reverse
Metric' SHOULD always be set to very high value.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
3.5.6. Spine-Leaf Traffic Engineering
Besides using the IS-IS Reverse Metric by the spine nodes to affect
the traffic pattern for leaf default gateway towards multiple spine
nodes, the IPv6/IPv4 Info-Advertise sub-TLVs can be selectively used
by traffic engineering controllers to move data traffic around the
data center fabric to alleviate congestion and to reduce the latency
of a certain class of traffic pairs. By injecting more specific leaf
node prefixes, it will allow the spine nodes to attract more traffic
on some underutilized links.
3.5.7. Other End-to-End Services
Losing the topology information will have an impact on some of the
end-to-end network services, for instance, MPLS TE or end-to-end
segment routing. Some other mechanisms such as those described in
PCE [RFC4655] based solution may be used. In this Spine-Leaf
extension, the role of the leaf node is not too much different from
the multi-level IS-IS routing while the level-1 IS-IS nodes only have
the default route information towards the node which has the Attach
Bit (ATT) set, and the level-2 backbone does not have any topology
information of the level-1 areas. The exact mechanism to enable
certain end-to-end network services in Spine-Leaf network is outside
the scope of this document.
3.5.8. Address Family and Topology
IPv6 Address families[RFC5308], Multi-Topology (MT)[RFC5120] and
Multi-Instance (MI)[RFC6822] information is carried over the IIH PDU.
Since the goal is to simplify the operation of IS-IS network, for the
simplicity of this extension, the Spine-Leaf mechanism is applied the
same way to all the address families, MTs and MIs.
3.5.9. Migration
For this extension to be deployed in existing networks, a simple
migration scheme is needed. To support any leaf node in the network,
all the involved spine nodes have to be upgraded first. So the first
step is to migrate all the involved spine nodes to support this
extension, then the leaf nodes can be enabled with 'Leaf-Mode' one by
one. No flag day is needed for the extension migration.
4. IANA Considerations
A new TLV codepoint is defined in this document and needs to be
assigned by IANA from the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. It is
referred to as the Spine-Leaf TLV and the suggested value is 150.
This TLV is only to be optionally inserted either in the IIH PDU or
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
in the Circuit Flooding Scoped LSP PDU. IANA is also requested to
maintain the SL-flag bit values in this TLV, and 0x01, 0x02 and 0x04
bits are defined in this document.
Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge CS-LSP
----- --------------------- --- --- --- ----- -------
150 Spine-Leaf y n n n y
This extension also proposes to have the Dynamic Hostname TLV,
already assigned as code 137, to be allowed in IIH PDU.
Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge
----- --------------------- --- --- --- -----
137 Dynamic Name y y n y
Two new sub-TLVs are defined in this document and needs to be added
assigned by IANA from the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints". They are referred
to in this document as the Leaf-Set sub-TLV and the Info-Req sub-TLV.
It is suggested to have the values 1 and 2 respectively.
5. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [ISO10589], [RFC5304],
[RFC5310], and [RFC7602]. This extension does not raise additional
security issues.
6. Acknowledgments
TBD.
7. Document Change Log
7.1. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-03.txt
o Submitted March 2017.
o Added the Spine-Leaf sub-TLVs to handle the case of data center
pure CLOS topology and mechanism.
o Added the Spine-Leaf TLV and sub-TLVs can be optionally inserted
in either IIH PDU or CS-LSP PDU.
o Allow use of prefix Reachability TLVs 135 and 236 in IIHs/CS-LSPs
sent from spine to leaf.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
7.2. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-02.txt
o Submitted October 2016.
o Removed the 'Default Route Metric' field in the Spine-Leaf TLV and
changed to using the IS-IS Reverse Metric in IIH.
7.3. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-01.txt
o Submitted April 2016.
o No change. Refresh the draft version.
7.4. Changes to draft-shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext-00.txt
o Initial version of the draft is published in November 2015.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ISO10589]
ISO "International Organization for Standardization",
"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.
[REVERSE-METRIC]
Shen, N., Amante, S., and M. Abrahamsson, "IS-IS Routing
with Reverse Metric", draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-04
(work in progress), 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301,
October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5301>.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5306] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS",
RFC 5306, DOI 10.17487/RFC5306, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5306>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC6822] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Shand, M., Roy, A., and D.
Ward, "IS-IS Multi-Instance", RFC 6822,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6822, December 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6822>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[RFC7602] Chunduri, U., Lu, W., Tian, A., and N. Shen, "IS-IS
Extended Sequence Number TLV", RFC 7602,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7602, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7602>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5309] Shen, N., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Point-to-Point Operation
over LAN in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5309>.
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension March 2017
Authors' Addresses
Naiming Shen
Cisco Systems
560 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
US
Email: naiming@cisco.com
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
US
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Sanjay Thyamagundalu
Email: tsanjay@gmail.com
Shen, et al. Expires September 3, 2017 [Page 16]