Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS
RFC 5302
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(October 2008; Errata)
Obsoletes RFC 2966
Updates RFC 1195
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Henk Smit , Tony Przygienda , Tony Li | ||
| Last updated | 2020-01-21 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized with errata bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5302 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Ross Callon | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group T. Li
Request for Comments: 5302 Redback Networks, Inc.
Obsoletes: 2966 H. Smit
Updates: 1195
Category: Standards Track T. Przygienda
Z2 Sagl
October 2008
Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support optimal routing
within a two-level domain. The IS-IS protocol is specified in ISO
10589, with extensions for supporting IPv4 (Internet Protocol)
specified in RFC 1195. This document replaces RFC 2966.
This document extends the semantics presented in RFC 1195 so that a
routing domain running with both level 1 and level 2 Intermediate
Systems (IS) (routers) can distribute IP prefixes between level 1 and
level 2, and vice versa. This distribution requires certain
restrictions to ensure that persistent forwarding loops do not form.
The goal of this domain-wide prefix distribution is to increase the
granularity of the routing information within the domain.
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivations for Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution . . . . . 3
1.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Proposed Syntax and Semantics for L2->L1 Inter-Area Routes . . 6
2.1. Clarification of External Route-Type and External
Metric-Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Definition of External IP Prefixes in Level 1 LSPs . . . . 8
3. Types of IP Routes in IS-IS and Their Order of Preference . . 8
3.1. Overview of All Types of IP Prefixes in IS-IS Link
State PDUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Order of Preference for all Types of IP Routes in IS-IS . 11
3.3. Additional Notes on What Prefixes to Accept or
Advertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Inter-Operability with Older Implementations . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Comparisons with Other Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
1. Introduction
This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support optimal routing
within a two-level domain. The IS-IS protocol is specified in
[ISO-10589], with extensions for supporting IPv4 (Internet Protocol)
specified in [RFC1195].
This document replaces [RFC2966], which was an Informational
document. This document is on the standards track. No other
intentional substantive changes have been made.
This document extends the semantics presented in RFC 1195 so that a
routing domain running with both level 1 and level 2 Intermediate
Systems (IS) (routers) can distribute IP prefixes between level 1 and
level 2, and vice versa. This distribution requires certain
restrictions to ensure that persistent forwarding loops do not form.
The goal of this domain-wide prefix distribution is to increase the
granularity of the routing information within the domain.
An IS-IS routing domain (a.k.a. an autonomous system running IS-IS)
can be partitioned into multiple level 1 (L1) areas, and a level 2
(L2) connected subset of the topology that interconnects all of the
L1 areas. Within each L1 area, all routers exchange link state
information. L2 routers also exchange L2 link state information to
compute routes between areas.
RFC 1195 defines the Type, Length, and Value (TLV) tuples that are
used to transport IPv4 routing information in IS-IS. RFC 1195 also
specifies the semantics and procedures for interactions between
levels. Specifically, routers in an L1 area will exchange
information within the L1 area. For IP destinations not found in the
prefixes in the L1 database, the L1 router should forward packets to
the nearest router that is in both L1 and L2 (i.e., an L1L2 router)
with the "attached bit" set in its L1 Link State Protocol Data Unit
(LSP).
Also per RFC 1195, an L1L2 router should be manually configured with
a set of prefixes that summarizes the IP prefixes reachable in that
L1 area. These summaries are injected into L2. RFC 1195 specifies
no further interactions between L1 and L2 for IPv4 prefixes.
1.1. Motivations for Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution
The mechanisms specified in RFC 1195 are appropriate in many
situations and lead to excellent scalability properties. However, in
certain circumstances, the domain administrator may wish to sacrifice
some amount of scalability and distribute more specific information
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
than is described by RFC 1195. This section discusses the various
reasons why the domain administrator may wish to make such a
tradeoff.
One major reason for distributing more prefix information is to
improve the quality of the resulting routes. A well-known property
of prefix summarization or any abstraction mechanism is that it
necessarily results in a loss of information. This loss of
information in turn results in the computation of a route based upon
less information, which will frequently result in routes that are not
optimal.
A simple example can serve to demonstrate this adequately. Suppose
that an L1 area has two L1L2 routers that both advertise a single
summary of all prefixes within the L1 area. To reach a destination
inside the L1 area, any other L2 router is going to compute the
shortest path to one of the two L1L2 routers for that area. Suppose,
for example, that both of the L1L2 routers are equidistant from the
L2 source and that the L2 source arbitrarily selects one L1L2 router.
This router may not be the optimal router when viewed from the L1
topology. In fact, it may be the case that the path from the
selected L1L2 router to the destination router may traverse the L1L2
router that was not selected. If more detailed topological
information or more detailed metric information was available to the
L2 source router, it could make a more optimal route computation.
This situation is symmetric in that an L1 router has no information
about prefixes in L2 or within a different L1 area. In using the
nearest L1L2 router, that L1L2 is effectively injecting a default
route without metric information into the L1 area. The route
computation that the L1 router performs is similarly suboptimal.
Besides the optimality of the routes computed, there are two other
significant drivers for the domain-wide distribution of prefix
information.
When a router learns multiple possible paths to external destinations
via BGP, it will select only one of those routes to be installed in
the forwarding table. One of the factors in the BGP route selection
is the IGP cost to the BGP next hop address. Many ISP networks
depend on this technique, which is known as "shortest exit routing".
If a L1 router does not know the exact IGP metric to all BGP speakers
in other L1 areas, it cannot do effective shortest exit routing.
The third driver is the current practice of using the IGP (IS-IS)
metric as part of the BGP Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED). The value
in the MED is advertised to other domains and is used to inform other
domains of the optimal entry point into the current domain. Current
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
practice is to take the IS-IS metric and insert it as the MED value.
This tends to cause external traffic to enter the domain at the point
closest to the exit router. Note that the receiving domain MAY,
based upon policy, choose to ignore the MED that is advertised.
However, current practice is to distribute the IGP metric in this way
in order to optimize routing wherever possible. This is possible in
current networks that only are a single area, but becomes problematic
if hierarchy is to be installed into the network. This is again
because the loss of end-to-end metric information means that the MED
value will not reflect the true distance across the advertising
domain. Full distribution of prefix information within the domain
would alleviate this problem, as it would allow accurate computation
of the IS-IS metric across the domain, resulting in an accurate value
presented in the MED.
1.2. Scalability
The disadvantage to performing the domain-wide prefix distribution
described above is that it has an impact on the scalability of IS-IS.
Areas within IS-IS help scalability in that LSPs are contained within
a single area. This limits the size of the link state database,
which in turn limits the complexity of the shortest path computation.
Further, the summarization of the prefix information aids scalability
in that the abstraction of the prefix information removes the sheer
number of data items to be transported and the number of routes to be
computed.
It should be noted quite strongly that the distribution of prefixes
on a domain-wide basis impacts the scalability of IS-IS in the second
respect. It will increase the number of prefixes throughout the
domain. This will result in increased memory consumption,
transmission requirements, and computation requirements throughout
the domain.
It must also be noted that the domain-wide distribution of prefixes
has no effect whatsoever on the first aspect of scalability, namely
the existence of areas and the limitation of the distribution of the
link state database.
Thus, the net result is that the introduction of domain-wide prefix
distribution into a formerly flat, single area network is a clear
benefit to the scalability of that network. However, it is a
compromise and does not provide the maximum scalability available
with IS-IS. Domains that choose to make use of this facility should
be aware of the tradeoff that they are making between scalability and
optimality, and provision and monitor their networks accordingly.
Normal provisioning guidelines that would apply to a fully
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
hierarchical deployment of IS-IS will not apply to this type of
configuration.
1.3. 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 [RFC2119].
2. Proposed Syntax and Semantics for L2->L1 Inter-Area Routes
This document defines the syntax of how to advertise level 2 routes
in level 1 LSPs. The encoding is an extension of the encoding in RFC
1195.
To some extent, in IS-IS the level 2 backbone can be seen as a
separate area itself. RFC 1195 defines that L1L2 routers can
advertise IP routes that were learned via L1 routing into L2. These
routes can be regarded as inter-area routes. RFC 1195 defines that
these L1->L2 inter-area routes must be advertised in L2 LSPs in the
"IP Internal Reachability Information" TLV (TLV 128). Intra-area L2
routes are also advertised in L2 LSPs in an "IP Internal Reachability
Information" TLV. Therefore, L1->L2 inter-area routes are
indistinguishable from L2 intra-area routes.
RFC 1195 does not define L2->L1 inter-area routes. A simple
extension would be to allow an L1L2 router to advertise routes
learned via L2 routing in its L1 LSP. However, to prevent routing-
loops, L1L2 routers MUST NOT advertise L2->L1 inter-area routes that
they learn via L1 routing back into L2. Therefore, there must be a
way to distinguish L2->L1 inter-area routes from L1 intra-area
routes. [RFC5305] defines the "up/down bit" for this purpose in the
extended IP reachability TLV (TLV 135). RFC 1195 defines TLVs 128
and 130 to contain IP routes. TLVs 128 and 130 have a Metric field
that consists of 4 Type of Service (TOS) metrics. The first metric,
the so-called "default metric", has the high-order bit reserved (bit
8). Routers must set this bit to zero on transmission, and ignore it
on receipt.
This document redefines this high-order bit in the default Metric
field in TLVs 128 and 130 to be the up/down bit. L1L2 routers MUST
set this bit to one for prefixes that are derived from L2 routing and
are advertised into L1 LSPs. The bit MUST be set to zero for all
other IP prefixes in L1 or L2 LSPs. Prefixes with the up/down bit
set that are learned via L1 routing MUST NOT be advertised by L1L2
routers back into L2.
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
2.1. Clarification of External Route-Type and External Metric-Type
RFC 1195 defines two TLVs for carrying IP prefixes. TLV 128 is
defined as "IP Internal Reachability Information", and should be used
to carry IP prefixes that are directly connected to IS-IS routers.
TLV 130 is defined as "IP External Reachability Information", and
should be used to carry routes learned from outside the IS-IS domain.
RFC 1195 documents TLV type 130 only for level 2 LSPs.
RFC 1195 also defines two types of metrics. Metrics of the internal
metric-type should be used when the metric is comparable to metrics
used to weigh links inside the IS-IS domain. Metrics of the external
metric-type should be used if the metric of an IP prefix cannot be
directly compared to internal metrics. The external metric-type can
only be used for external IP prefixes. A direct result is that
metrics of the external metric-type should never be seen in TLV 128.
To prevent confusion, this document states again that when a router
computes IP routes, it MUST give the same preference to IP routes
advertised in an "IP Internal Reachability Information" TLV and IP
routes advertised in an "IP External Reachability Information" TLV.
RFC 1195 states this quite clearly in the note in paragraph 3.10.2,
item 2c). This document does not alter this rule of preference.
NOTE: Internal routes (routes to destinations announced in the "IP
Internal Reachability Information" field) and external routes
using internal metrics (routes to destinations announced in the
"IP External Reachability Information" field, with a metric of
type "internal") are treated identically for the purpose of the
order of preference of routes, and the Dijkstra calculation.
However, IP routes advertised in "IP External Reachability
Information" with the external metric-type MUST be given less
preference than the same IP routes advertised with the internal
metric-type, regardless of the value of the metrics.
While IS-IS routers MUST NOT give different preference to IP prefixes
learned via "IP Internal Reachability Information" and "IP External
Reachability Information" when executing the Dijkstra calculation,
routers that implement multiple IGPs are free to use this distinction
between internal and external routes when comparing routes derived
from different IGPs for inclusion in their global Routing Information
Base (RIB).
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
2.2. Definition of External IP Prefixes in Level 1 LSPs
RFC 1195 does not define the "IP External Reachability Information"
TLV for L1 LSPs. However, there is no reason why an IS-IS
implementation could not allow for redistribution of external routes
into L1. Some IS-IS implementations already allow network
administrators to do this. This document loosens the restrictions in
RFC 1195 and allows for the inclusion of the "IP External
Reachability Information" TLV in L1 LSPs.
RFC 1195 defines that IP routes learned via L1 routing must always be
advertised in L2 LSPs in an "IP Internal Reachability Information"
TLV. Now that this document allows "IP External Reachability
Information" TLVs in L1 LSPs and allows for the advertisement of
routes learned via L2 routing into L1, the above rule needs an
extension.
When an L1L2 router advertises an L1 route into L2, where that L1
route was learned via a prefix advertised in an "IP External
Reachability Information" TLV, that L1L2 router SHOULD advertise that
prefix in its L2 LSP within an "IP External Reachability Information"
TLV. L1 routes learned via an "IP Internal Reachability Information"
TLV SHOULD still be advertised within an "IP Internal Reachability
Information" TLV. These rules should also be applied when
advertising IP routes derived from L2 routing into L1. Of course in
this case, the up/down bit MUST be set also.
RFC 1195 defines that if a router sees the same external prefix
advertised by two or more routers with the same external metric, it
must select the route that is advertised by the router that is
closest to itself. It should be noted that now that external routes
can be advertised from L1 into L2, and vice versa, the router that
advertises an external prefix in its LSP might not be the router that
originally injected this prefix into the IS-IS domain. Therefore, it
is less useful to advertise external routes with external metrics
into other levels.
3. Types of IP Routes in IS-IS and Their Order of Preference
RFC 1195 and this document define several ways of advertising IP
routes in IS-IS. There are four variables involved.
1. The level of the LSP in which the route is advertised. There are
currently two possible values: level 1 and level 2.
2. The route-type, which can be derived from the type of TLV in
which the prefix is advertised. Internal routes are advertised
in IP Internal Reachability Information TLVs (TLV 128), and
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
external routes are advertised in IP External Reachability
Information TLVs (TLV 130).
3. The metric-type: internal or external. The metric-type is
derived from the internal/external metric-type bit in the Metric
field (bit 7).
4. The fact whether this route is leaked down in the hierarchy, and
thus can not be advertised back up. This information can be
derived from the newly defined up/down bit in the default Metric
field.
3.1. Overview of All Types of IP Prefixes in IS-IS Link State PDUs
The combination IP Internal Reachability Information and external
metric-type is not allowed. Also, the up/down bit MUST NOT be set in
L2 LSPs. This leaves us with 8 different types of IP advertisements
in IS-IS. However, there are more than 8 reasons for IP prefixes to
be advertised in IS-IS. The following list describes the types of IP
prefixes and how they are encoded.
L1 intra-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 128.
The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is internal metric.
These IP prefixes are directly connected to the advertising
router.
L1 external routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 130.
The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is internal metric.
These IP prefixes are learned from other IGPs, and are usually not
directly connected to the advertising router.
L2 intra-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 128.
The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is internal metric.
These IP prefixes are directly connected to the advertising
router. These prefixes cannot be distinguished from L1->L2 inter-
area routes.
L2 external routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 130.
The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is internal metric.
These IP prefixes are learned from other IGPs, and are usually not
directly connected to the advertising router. These prefixes
cannot be distinguished from L1->L2 inter-area external routes.
L1->L2 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV
128. The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is internal
metric. These IP prefixes are learned via L1 routing, and were
derived during the L1 Shortest Path First (SPF) computation from
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
prefixes advertised in L1 LSPs in TLV 128. These prefixes cannot
be distinguished from L2 intra-area routes.
L1->L2 inter-area external routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs,
in TLV 130. The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is
internal metric. These IP prefixes are learned via L1 routing,
and were derived during the L1 SPF computation from prefixes
advertised in L1 LSPs in TLV 130. These prefixes cannot be
distinguished from L2 external routes.
L2->L1 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV
128. The up/down bit is set to one, metric-type is internal
metric. These IP prefixes are learned via L2 routing, and were
derived during the L2 SPF computation from prefixes advertised in
TLV 128.
L2->L1 inter-area external routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs,
in TLV 130. The up/down bit is set to one, metric-type is
internal metric. These IP prefixes are learned via L2 routing,
and were derived during the L2 SPF computation from prefixes
advertised in L2 LSPs in TLV 130.
L1 external routes with external metric: These are advertised in L1
LSPs, in TLV 130. The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is
external metric. These IP prefixes are learned from other IGPs,
and are usually not directly connected to the advertising router.
L2 external routes with external metric: These are advertised in L2
LSPs, in TLV 130. The up/down bit is set to zero, metric-type is
external metric. These IP prefixes are learned from other IGPs,
and are usually not directly connected to the advertising router.
These prefixes cannot be distinguished from L1->L2 inter-area
external routes with external metric.
L1->L2 inter-area external routes with external metric: These are
advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 130. The up/down bit is set to
zero, metric-type is external metric. These IP prefixes are
learned via L1 routing, and were derived during the L1 SPF
computation from prefixes advertised in L1 LSPs in TLV 130 with
external metrics. These prefixes can not be distinguished from L2
external routes with external metric.
L2->L1 inter-area external routes with external metric: These are
advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 130. The up/down bit is set to one,
metric-type is external metric. These IP prefixes are learned via
L2 routing, and were derived during the L1 SPF computation from
prefixes advertised in L2 LSPs in TLV 130 with external metrics.
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
3.2. Order of Preference for all Types of IP Routes in IS-IS
Unfortunately, IS-IS cannot depend on metrics alone for route
selection. Some types of routes must always be preferred over
others, regardless of the costs that were computed in the Dijkstra
calculation. One of the reasons for this is that inter-area routes
can only be advertised with a maximum metric of 63. Another reason
is that this maximum value of 63 does not mean infinity (e.g., like a
hop count of 16 in RIP denotes unreachable). Introducing a value for
infinity cost in IS-IS inter-area routes would introduce counting-
to-infinity behavior via two or more L1L2 routers, which would have a
bad impact on network stability.
The order of preference of IP routes in IS-IS is based on a few
assumptions.
o RFC 1195 defines that routes derived from L1 routing are preferred
over routes derived from L2 routing.
o The note in RFC 1195, paragraph 3.10.2, item 2c) defines that
internal routes with internal metric-type and external prefixes
with internal metric-type have the same preference.
o RFC 1195 defines that external routes with internal metric-type
are preferred over external routes with external metric-type.
o Routes derived from L2 routing are preferred over L2->L1 routes
derived from L1 routing.
Based on these assumptions, this document defines the following route
preferences.
1. L1 intra-area routes with internal metric; L1 external routes
with internal metric
2. L2 intra-area routes with internal metric; L2 external routes
with internal metric; L1->L2 inter-area routes with internal
metric; L1->L2 inter-area external routes with internal metric
3. L2->L1 inter-area routes with internal metric; L2->L1 inter-area
external routes with internal metric
4. L1 external routes with external metric
5. L2 external routes with external metric; L1->L2 inter-area
external routes with external metric
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
6. L2->L1 inter-area external routes with external metric
3.3. Additional Notes on What Prefixes to Accept or Advertise
Section 3.1 enumerates all used IP route-types in IS-IS. Besides
these defined route-types, the encoding used would allow for a few
more potential combinations. One of them is the combination of "IP
Internal Reachability Information" and external metric-type. This
combination SHOULD NOT be used when building an LSP. Upon receipt of
an IP prefix with this combination, routers MUST ignore this prefix.
Another issue would be the usage of the up/down bit in L2 LSPs.
Because IS-IS is currently defined with two levels of hierarchy,
there should never be a need to set the up/down bit in L2 LSPs.
However, if IS-IS would ever be extended with more than two levels of
hierarchy, L2-only (or L1L2) routers will need to be able to accept
L2 IP routes with the up/down bit set. Therefore, it is RECOMMENDED
that implementations ignore the up/down bit in L2 LSPs, and accept
the prefixes in L2 LSPs regardless of whether the up/down bit is set.
This will allow for simpler migration once more than two levels of
hierarchy are defined.
Another detail that implementors should be aware of is the fact that
L1L2 routers SHOULD only advertise in their L2 LSP those L1 routes
that they use for forwarding themselves. They SHOULD NOT
unconditionally advertise into L2 all prefixes from LSPs in the L1
database.
Not all prefixes need to be advertised up or down the hierarchy.
Implementations might allow for additional manual filtering or
summarization to further bring down the number of inter-area prefixes
they advertise in their LSPs. It is also RECOMMENDED that the
default configuration of L1L2 routers not advertise any L2 routes
into L1 (see also Section 4).
4. Inter-Operability with Older Implementations
The solution in this document is not fully compatible with RFC 1195.
It is an extension to RFC 1195. If routers do not use the new
functionality of external L1 routes or L2->L1 inter-area routes,
older implementations that strictly follow RFC 1195 will be
compatible with newer implementations that follow this document.
Implementations that do not accept the "IP External Reachability
Information" TLV in L1 LSPs will not be able to compute external L1
routes. This could cause routing loops between L1-only routers that
do understand external L1 routes for a particular destination, and
L1-only routers that use the default route pointing to the closest
attached L1L2 router for that destination.
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
Implementations that follow RFC 1195 SHOULD ignore bit 8 in the
default Metric field when computing routes. Therefore, even older
implementations that do not know of the up/down bit should be able to
accept the new L2->L1 inter-area routes. These older implementations
will install the new L2->L1 inter-area routes as L1 intra-area
routes, but that in itself does not cause routing loops among L1-only
routers.
However, it is vital that the up/down bit is recognized by L1L2
routers. As has been stated before, L1L2 routers MUST NOT advertise
L2->L1 inter-area routes back into L2. Therefore, if L2 routes are
advertised down into an L1 area, it is required that all L1L2 routers
in that area run software that understands the new up/down bit.
Older implementations that follow RFC 1195 and do not understand the
new up/down bit will treat the L2->L1 inter-area routes as L1 intra-
area routes, and they will advertise these routes back into L2. This
can cause routing loops, sub-optimal routing, or extra routing
instability. For this reason, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations
by default not advertise any L2 routes into L1. Implementations
SHOULD force the network administrator to manually configure L1L2
routers to advertise any L2 routes into L1.
5. Comparisons with Other Proposals
In [RFC5305], a new TLV is defined to transport IP prefix
information. This TLV format also defines an up/down bit to allow
for L2->L1 inter-area routes. RFC 5305 also defines a new TLV to
describe links. Both TLVs have wider metric space and have the
possibility to define sub-TLVs to advertise extra information
belonging to the link or prefix. The wider metric space in IP prefix
TLVs allows for more granular metric information about inter-area
path costs. To make full use of the wider metric space, network
administrators must deploy both new TLVs at the same time.
Deployment of RFC 5305 requires an upgrade of all routers in the
network and a transition to the new TLVs. Such a network-wide
upgrade and transition might not be an easy task. In this case, the
solution defined in this document, which requires only an upgrade of
L1L2 routers in selected areas, might be a good alternative to the
solution defined in 5305.
6. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS; for general
security considerations for IS-IS see [RFC5304].
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ISO-10589] ISO, "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)",
International Standard 10589:2002, Second Edition, 2002.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2966] Li, T., Przygienda, T., and H. Smit, "Domain-wide Prefix
Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 2966,
October 2000.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 2008
Authors' Addresses
Tony Li
Redback Networks, Inc.
300 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Phone: +1 408 750 5160
EMail: tony.li@tony.li
Henk Smit
EMail: hhw.smit@xs4all.nl
Tony Przygienda
Z2 Sagl
Via Tersaggio 20
CH-6949 Comano
Switzerland
EMail: prz@net4u.ch
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5302 Domain-wide Prefix Distribution October 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
"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.
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
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.
Li, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]