IS-IS Path Control and Reservation
RFC 7813
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(June 2016; No errata)
Was draft-ietf-isis-pcr (isis WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | János Farkas , Nigel Bragg , Paul Unbehagen , Glenn Parsons , Peter Ashwood-Smith , Chris Bowers | ||
| Last updated | 2016-06-16 | ||
| Replaces | draft-farkas-isis-pcr | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Hannes Gredler | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2015-11-10) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7813 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alia Atlas | ||
| Send notices to | "Hannes Gredler" <hannes@gredler.at> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Farkas, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7813 Ericsson
Category: Standards Track N. Bragg
ISSN: 2070-1721 Ciena
P. Unbehagen
Avaya
G. Parsons
Ericsson
P. Ashwood-Smith
Huawei Technologies
C. Bowers
Juniper Networks
June 2016
IS-IS Path Control and Reservation
Abstract
IEEE 802.1Qca Path Control and Reservation (PCR) specifies explicit
path control via IS-IS in Layer 2 networks in order to move beyond
the shortest path capabilities provided by IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path
Bridging (SPB). IS-IS PCR provides capabilities for the
establishment and control of explicit forwarding trees in a Layer 2
network domain. This document specifies the sub-TLVs for IS-IS PCR.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7813.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Explicit Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Explicit ECT Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IS-IS PCR Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Topology Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Hop Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. Bandwidth Constraint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. Bandwidth Assignment Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5. Timestamp Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. MRT-FRR Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
1. Introduction
IEEE 802.1Qca Path Control and Reservation (PCR) [IEEE8021Qca]
specifies extensions to IS-IS for the control of Explicit Trees
(ETs). The PCR extensions are compatible with the Shortest Path
Bridging (SPB) extensions to IS-IS specified by [RFC6329] and
[IEEE8021aq] (already rolled into [IEEE8021Q]). Furthermore, IS-IS
with PCR extensions relies on the SPB architecture and terminology,
and some of the IS-IS SPB sub-TLVs are also leveraged. IS-IS PCR
builds upon IS-IS and uses IS-IS in a similar way to SPB. IS-IS PCR
only addresses point-to-point physical links, although IS-IS also
supports shared media LANs.
This document specifies five IS-IS sub-TLVs for the control of
explicit trees by IS-IS PCR in a Layer 2 network as specified by IEEE
Std 802.1Qca. In addition to the sub-TLVs specified here, IS-IS PCR
relies on the following IS-IS SPB sub-TLVs specified by [RFC6329]:
o SPB Link Metric sub-TLV
o SPB Base VLAN-Identifiers sub-TLV
o SPB Instance sub-TLV
o SPBV MAC address sub-TLV
o SPBM Service Identifier and Unicast Address sub-TLV
These sub-TLVs are used to provide the link metric and the
associations among bridges, Media Access Control (MAC) addresses,
VLAN IDs (VIDs), and I-SIDs within an IS-IS domain. The use of these
SPB sub-TLVs for PCR is specified by IEEE Std 802.1Qca. Note that
IS-IS PCR does not require the implementation of the full IS-IS SPB
protocol but only the support of these SPB sub-TLVs. A bridge can
support both IS-IS SPB and IS-IS PCR at the same time; however, when
it supports both, they are implemented by the same IS-IS entity on a
per-instance basis.
The sub-TLVs specified in this document can also be applied for Fast
Reroute using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR) [RFC7812] in a
Layer 2 network. Maximally Redundant Trees (MRTs) are computed as
specified in [RFC7811]. If MRT computation is split such that the
Generalized Almost Directed Acyclic Graph (GADAG) is computed
centrally, then these sub-TLVs can be used to distribute the GADAG,
which is identical for each network node throughout a network domain.
PCR uses IS-IS, the SPB sub-TLVs listed above, and the new sub-TLVs
defined in this document. IS-IS PCR has no impact on IETF protocols.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
3. Terminology and Definitions
This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC7812]. Only the
abbreviations are resolved here for the MRT terms; please refer to
[RFC7812] for the complete definition.
ADAG: Almost Directed Acyclic Graph [RFC7812]
B-VID: Backbone VID [IEEE8021Q]
Base VID: The VID used to identify a VLAN in management operations.
[IEEE8021Q]
BLCE: Bridge Local Computation Engine - A computation engine in a
bridge that performs path and routing computations. The BLCE
implements e.g., SPF, CSPF, or the Maximally Redundant Trees
algorithm. [IEEE8021Qca]
Constrained tree: A tree meeting a certain constraint, e.g.,
providing minimally available bandwidth. [IEEE8021Qca]
CSPF: Constrained Shortest Path First
DAG: Directed Acyclic Graph [RFC7812]
DEI: Drop Eligible Indicator [IEEE8021Q]
ECT Algorithm: Equal-Cost Tree algorithm - The algorithm and
mechanism that is used for the control of the active topology,
i.e., forwarding trees. It can be one of the shortest path
algorithms specified by [IEEE8021Q]. It can be also one of the
explicit path-control algorithms specified by [IEEE8021Qca]. Each
ECT Algorithm has a 32-bit unique ID.
ET: Explicit Tree - An explicitly defined tree, which is specified
by its Edge Bridges and the paths among the Edge Bridges. If only
the Edge Bridges are specified but the paths are not, then it is a
loose explicit tree. If the paths are also specified, then it is
a strict explicit tree. [IEEE8021Qca]
ETDB: Explicit Tree Database - A database storing explicit trees.
[IEEE8021Qca]
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
FDB: Filtering Database [IEEE8021Q]
GADAG: Generalized ADAG [RFC7812]
Hop: A hop is specified by two nodes. A strict hop has no
intermediate nodes, whereas a loose hop can have one or more
intermediate nodes. IS-IS PCR specifies an explicit tree by an
ordered list of hops starting at the root, each successive hop
being defined by the next element of the list. [IEEE8021Qca]
I-SID: Backbone Service Instance Identifier - A 24-bit ID.
[IEEE8021Q]
LSDB: Link State Database
MRT: Maximally Redundant Trees [RFC7812]
MRT-Blue: MRT-Blue is used to describe one of the two MRTs.
[RFC7812]
MRT-Red: MRT-Red is used to describe one of the two MRTs. [RFC7812]
MRT Root: The common root of the two MRTs: MRT-Blue and MRT-Red.
MSRP: Multiple Stream Registration Protocol, standardized as IEEE
Std 802.1Qat, already rolled into [IEEE8021Q].
PCA: Path Control Agent - The agent that is part of the IS-IS domain
and thus can perform IS-IS operations on behalf of a PCE, e.g.,
maintain the LSDB and send LSPs. [IEEE8021Qca]
PCE: Path Computation Element - An entity that is capable of
computing a path through a network based on a representation of
the topology of the network (obtained by undefined means external
to the PCE). [RFC4655]
PCP: Priority Code Point, which identifies a traffic class.
[IEEE8021Q]
PTP: Precision Time Protocol specified by [IEEE1588].
SPB: Shortest Path Bridging
SPBM: SPB MAC - The SPB mode where a MAC or its shorthand
(SPSourceID: Shortest Path Source ID) is used to identify an SPT.
[IEEE8021Q]
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
SPBV: SPB VID - The SPB mode where a unique VID is assigned to each
SPT Root bridge and is used to identify an SPT. [IEEE8021Q]
SPF: Shortest Path First
SPT: Shortest Path Tree [IEEE8021Q]
SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group - A set of links that share a resource
whose failure affects each link. [RFC5307]
TAI: Temps Atomique International - International Atomic Time
[IEEE1588]
TED: Traffic Engineering Database - A database storing the traffic
engineering information propagated by IS-IS. [RFC5305]
VID: VLAN ID [IEEE8021Q]
VLAN: Virtual Local Area Network [IEEE8021Q]
4. Explicit Trees
Explicit trees may be determined in some fashion. For example, an
explicit tree may be determined by a Path Computation Element (PCE)
[RFC4655]. A PCE is an entity that is capable of computing a
topology for forwarding based on a network topology, its
corresponding attributes, and potential constraints. If a PCE is
used, it MUST explicitly specify an explicit tree as described in
Section 6.1. Either a single PCE or multiple PCEs determine explicit
trees for a domain. Even if there are multiple PCEs in a domain,
each explicit tree MUST only be determined by one PCE, which is
referred to as the owner PCE of the tree. PCEs and IS-IS PCR can be
used in combination with IS-IS SPB shortest path routing. The
remainder of this section, and subsequent sections, are written
assuming PCE use.
The PCE interacts with the active topology control protocol, i.e.,
with IS-IS. The collaboration with IS-IS can be provided by a Path
Control Agent (PCA) on behalf of a PCE. Either the PCE or the
corresponding PCA is part of the IS-IS domain. If the PCE is not
part of the IS-IS domain, then the PCE MUST be associated with a PCA
that is part of the IS-IS domain. The PCE or its PCA MUST establish
IS-IS adjacency in order to receive all the LSPs transmitted by the
bridges in the domain. The PCE, either on its own or via its PCA,
can control the establishment of explicit trees in that domain by
injecting an LSP conveying an explicit tree and thus instruct IS-IS
to set up the explicit tree determined by the PCE. If instructed to
do so by a PCE, IS-IS MAY also record and communicate bandwidth
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
assignments, which MUST NOT be applied if reservation protocol (e.g.,
Multiple Stream Registration Protocol (MSRP)) is used in the domain.
Both MSRP and IS-IS MUST NOT be used to make bandwidth assignments in
the same domain.
The operation details of the PCE are not specified by this document
or by IEEE Std 802.1Qca. If the PCE is part of the IS-IS domain,
then the PCE uses IS-IS PDUs to communicate with the IS-IS domain and
the PCE has a live IS-IS LSDB (i.e., the PCE implements the PCA
functions too). A PCE can instead communicate with the IS-IS domain
via a PCA, e.g., to retrieve the LSDB or instruct the creation of an
explicit tree. However, the means of communication between the PCE
and the PCA is not specified by this document or by IEEE Std
802.1Qca.
An Explicit Tree (ET) is an undirected loop-free topology, whose use
is under the control of the owner PCE by means of associating VIDs
and MAC addresses with it. An ET MUST NOT contain cycles. As it is
undirected, an ET contains no assumptions about the direction of any
flows that use it; it can be used in either direction as specified by
the VIDs and MAC addresses associated with it. It is the
responsibility of the PCE to ensure reverse-path congruency and
multicast-unicast congruency if that is required.
An explicit tree is either strict or loose. A strict explicit tree
specifies all bridges and paths it comprises. A loose tree only
specifies the bridges as a list of hops that have a special role in
the tree, e.g., an Edge Bridge, and no path or path segment is
specified between the bridges, which are therefore loose hops even if
Edge Bridges are adjacent neighbors. The special role of a hop can
be: Edge Bridge, root, leaf, a bridge to be avoided, or a transit hop
in case of a tree with a single leaf. The path for a loose hop is
determined by the Bridge Local Computation Engine (BLCE) of the
bridges. The shortest path is used for a loose hop unless specified
otherwise by the descriptor (Section 6.1) of the tree or by the
corresponding ECT Algorithm (Section 5).
A loose explicit tree is constrained if the tree descriptor includes
one or more constraints, e.g., the administrative group that the
links of the tree have to belong to. The BLCE of the bridges then
applies the Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) algorithm, which
is Shortest Path First (SPF) on the topology that only contains the
links meeting the constraint(s).
An explicit tree is specified by a Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1).
The Topology sub-TLV associates one or more VIDs with an explicit
tree. The Topology sub-TLV includes two or more Hop sub-TLVs
(Section 6.2), and a hop is specified by an IS-IS System ID. A Hop
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
sub-TLV MAY include a delay constraint for a loose hop. A Topology
sub-TLV MAY also include further sub-TLVs to constrain loose hops.
The bridges involved in an explicit tree store the corresponding
Topology sub-TLVs in their Explicit Tree Database (ETDB).
Explicit trees are propagated and set up by IS-IS PCR in a domain.
The PCE or its PCA assembles the Topology sub-TLVs (Section 6.1), and
adds it into an LSP, which is flooded throughout the domain. The
Topology sub-TLV is flooded by the same techniques used for the SPB
LSPs. The bridges then MUST process the Topology sub-TLV upon
reception. If the Topology sub-TLV specifies one or more loose
trees, then the path for the loose hops is determined by the BLCE of
the bridges. The bridges then install the appropriate FDB entries
for frame forwarding along the tree described by the Topology sub-TLV
or the trees computed based on the Topology sub-TLV. Dynamic
Filtering Entries are maintained by IS-IS for the [VID, MAC address]
two-tuples associated with an ET.
Due to the LSP aging of IS-IS, the Topology sub-TLVs (Section 6.1)
have to be refreshed similar to other IS-IS TLVs in order to keep the
integrity of the LSDB. The corresponding Dynamic Filtering Entries
are also refreshed in the FDB when a Topology sub-TLV is refreshed.
Refreshing Topology sub-TLVs is the task of the entity being part of
the IS-IS domain, i.e., either the PCE or the PCA.
The owner PCE can withdraw an explicit tree by sending an updated LSP
that does not include the Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1). If a
Topology sub-TLV is removed from an LSP (or has been changed) so that
(previous) Topology sub-TLV is no longer present (or has been
changed) in the LSDB, then that (previous) Topology sub-TLV is
implicitly withdrawn. IS-IS PCR then removes (or updates) the
explicit tree.
There is no precedence order between explicit trees. Precedence
order among bandwidth assignments recorded by IS-IS PCR is specified
in Section 6.4.
If it is not possible to install an explicit tree, e.g.,
constraint(s) cannot be met or the Topology sub-TLV is ill-formed,
then no tree is installed, but a management report is generated.
The bridges MAY support the following IS-IS features for the
computation of explicit trees. The Extended IS Reachability TLV
(type 22) specified in [RFC5305] provides the following link
attribute IS-IS sub-TLVs:
o Administrative Group (color) (sub-TLV type 3),
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
o Maximum Link Bandwidth (sub-TLV type 9),
o Maximum Reservable Link Bandwidth (sub-TLV type 10),
o Unreserved Bandwidth (sub-TLV type 11),
o TE Default Metric (sub-TLV type 18).
When the Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV is used in a Layer 2 bridge
network, the priority value encoded in the sub-TLV provides the PCP,
i.e., identifies a traffic class (not a setup priority level).
Further attributes are provided by the IS-IS TE Metric Extension link
attribute sub-TLVs specified in [RFC7810]:
o Unidirectional Link Delay (sub-TLV type 33),
o Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay (sub-TLV type 34),
o Unidirectional Delay Variation (sub-TLV type 35),
o Unidirectional Link Loss (sub-TLV type 36),
o Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth (sub-TLV type 37),
o Unidirectional Available Bandwidth (sub-TLV type 38),
o Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth (sub-TLV type 39).
The Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) information provided by the SRLG
TLV (type 138) [RFC5307] MAY also be used. In order to indicate that
the interface is unnumbered in this case, the corresponding flag
takes value 0. The Link Local Identifier is an Extended Local
Circuit Identifier and the Link Remote Identifier is a Neighbor
Extended Local Circuit ID.
5. Explicit ECT Algorithms
The exact IS-IS control mode of operation MUST be selected for a VLAN
by associating its Base VID with the appropriate ECT Algorithm in the
SPB Base VLAN-Identifiers sub-TLV [RFC6329], in addition to
allocating the Base VID to IS-IS control. There are five distinct
ECT Algorithms for the five explicit path control modes. The
operation details of the explicit ECT Algorithms and their
configuration is specified by IEEE Std 802.1Qca; a high-level
overview is given here. An ECT Algorithm value consists of the IEEE
802.1 OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) value 00-80-C2
concatenated with an index [RFC6329].
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
The Strict Tree (ST) ECT Algorithm MUST be used for a strict explicit
tree. A strict ET is static, as no other entity can update it but
the owner PCE. In case of a topology change, it is the task of the
owner PCE to detect the topology change, e.g., based on the changes
in the LSDB and to update the strict trees if needed. That is, the
owner PCE computes the new tree, assembles its descriptor
(Section 6.1), and then instructs IS-IS PCR to install it. The value
for the ST ECT Algorithm is 00-80-C2-17.
The Loose Tree (LT) ECT Algorithm MAY also be supported. It is used
for a single loose explicit tree. The path for loose hops is
determined by the BLCE of the bridges; therefore, the Topology sub-
TLV (Section 6.1) specifying the tree MUST indicate which hop is the
root of the tree. The loose hops are maintained by IS-IS, i.e.,
restored upon a topology change if a loop-free path is available. If
the tree computed by the BLCE visits the same bridge twice (implying
that a loop or hairpin has been created), then that loop or hairpin
MUST be pruned from the tree even if it contains a hop specified by
the Topology sub-TLV. It is a constraint if a bridge is not to be
included, which can be specified by the Exclude flag of a Hop sub-TLV
(Section 6.2) conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV specifying the tree.
The range of values for the LT ECT Algorithms is
00-80-C2-21...00-80-C2-30.
The Loose Tree Set (LTS) ECT Algorithm MAY also be supported. It is
used if connectivity among the Edge Bridges specified by the Topology
sub-TLV (Section 6.1) is to be provided by a set of loose trees such
that one tree is rooted at each Edge Bridge. The BLCE of the bridges
compute the loose trees, which are maintained by IS-IS, i.e.,
restored upon a topology change. One constraint can be to avoid some
bridges in these trees, which can be specified by the Exclude flag
(item c.6. in Section 6.2). Further constraints can be specified by
the Topology sub-TLV. The range of values for the LT ECT Algorithms
is 00-80-C2-31...00-80-C2-40.
The LT and LTS ECT Algorithms use the shortest paths after pruning
the topology according to the constraint(s), if any. The shortest
path tie-breaking specified by Section 12 of [RFC6329] is applied
(see also subclauses 28.5 - 28.8 of [IEEE8021aq]), that's why range
of values are associated with the LT and LTS ECT Algorithms. In case
of the LT ECT Algorithm, the indexes are 0x21...0x30, and
ECT-MASK{index-0x20} is applied to retrieve the ECT-MASK of
Section 12 of [RFC6329]. In case of the LTS ECT Algorithm, the
indexes are 0x31...0x40, and ECT-MASK{index-0x30} is applied to
retrieve the ECT-MASK for shortest path tie-breaking.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
The MRT ECT Algorithm MAY also be supported. It is used for the
establishment and maintenance of MRTs in a distributed fashion. The
MRT Lowpoint algorithm specified by [RFC7811] MUST be used for the
computation of MRTs. The MRT Lowpoint algorithm first computes the
GADAG and then produces two MRTs for each MRT Root: MRT-Blue and MRT-
Red. If the level of redundancy provided by each bridge being an MRT
Root is not required, then the MRT Roots can be specified by a
Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1). Both the GADAG and the MRT
computation steps are performed distributed, i.e., by each bridge.
The value for the MRT ECT Algorithm is 00-80-C2-18.
The MRT GADAG (MRTG) ECT Algorithm MAY also be supported. It splits
the computation into two. As the GADAG is identical for each MRT
within a domain, it is computed by a single entity, which is the
GADAG Computer. The GADAG is then described in a Topology sub-TLV
(Section 6.1), which is flooded in the domain. The bridges then
compute the MRTs for the MRT Roots based on the GADAG received.
Section 7 provides more details on the description of the GADAG. The
value for the MRTG ECT Algorithm is 00-80-C2-19.
MRTs are loose trees as bridges are involved in their computation and
restoration. Thus, both the MRT and the MRTG ECT Algorithms provide
a set of loose trees: two MRTs for each MRT Root.
The SPB Link Metric sub-TLV [RFC6329] specifies the metric of each
link for IS-IS PCR if the LT, the LTS, the MRT, or the MRTG ECT
Algorithm is used. If the SPB Link Metric values advertised by
different ends of an adjacency are different, then the maximum value
MUST be used.
6. IS-IS PCR Sub-TLVs
The following sub-TLVs are specified for IS-IS PCR. The Topology
sub-TLV MUST be carried in an MT-Capability TLV, the rest of the sub-
TLVs are conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV.
6.1. Topology Sub-TLV
An explicit tree MUST be described by the variable-length Topology
sub-TLV. A Generalized Almost Directed Acyclic Graph (GADAG) MAY be
described by a Topology sub-TLV as explained in Section 7 in detail.
The Topology sub-TLV MUST be carried in an MT-Capability TLV (type
144) [RFC6329] in a Link State PDU. A Topology sub-TLV specifying an
explicit tree conveys one or more Base VIDs, two or more Hop sub-TLVs
(Section 6.2). A Topology sub-TLV describing a loose tree MAY also
convey further sub-TLVs to specify constraints. Figure 1 shows the
format of the Topology sub-TLV.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
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 | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Num Base VIDs | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Base VID 1 (12 bits) | (2 bytes if present)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.................
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Res | Base VID n (12 bits) | (2 bytes if present)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLV 1 (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.................
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLV m (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Topology Sub-TLV
The parameters of explicit trees are encoded by the Topology sub-TLV
as follows:
a. Type (8 bits): The type of the sub-TLV, its value is 21.
b. Length (8 bits): The total number of bytes contained in the Value
field.
c. Number of Base VIDs (8 bits): The number of Base VIDs carried in
the Topology sub-TLV. Its minimum value is 1 if the Topology
sub-TLV specifies one or more explicit trees. Its value can be 0
if the Topology sub-TLV specifies a GADAG.
d. Reserved (Res) (4 bits): The reserved bits MUST be set to 0 on
transmission and the value MUST be ignored on reception.
e. Base VID (12 bits): The Base VID parameter provides the Base VID
of the VLAN that is associated with the explicit tree. Multiple
Base VIDs can be associated with the same explicit tree. In
addition to the Base VID, some of the explicit ECT Algorithms
(Section 5) require further VIDs that are associated with the
VLAN via the SPB Instance sub-TLV [RFC6329]. A Topology sub-TLV
specifying a GADAG can have zero Base VID parameters. In this
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
case, the given GADAG MUST be applied for each VLAN associated
with the MRTG ECT Algorithm (Section 5).
f. sub-TLVs: The rest conveys further sub-TLVs that specify the hops
of the topology and can also specify constraints as described in
the following.
A topology is specified by a list of Hop sub-TLVs (Section 6.2), and
a hop is specified by an IS-IS System ID. An ill-formed Topology
sub-TLV (e.g., specifying an invalid or inconsistent tree) is
ignored; no tree is installed, but a management report is generated.
The Topology sub-TLV specifies a strict tree by decomposing the tree
to branches. Each branch is a point-to-point path specified by an
ordered list of hops where the end of each branch is a leaf. Each
element of a branch is the direct link between adjacent neighbor
bridges whose Hop sub-TLV is next to each other in the Topology sub-
TLV. The first hop of the Topology sub-TLV is the root; hence, the
first branch originates from the root. The rest of the branches fork
from another branch. The first hop of a branch is a bridge that is
already part of a former branch, and the last hop is a leaf bridge.
Therefore, the hop after a leaf hop is the beginning of a new branch,
if any. A hop of a branch is created if and only if the bridge
specified for that hop is directly connected to the preceding bridge
of the same branch. The first branch MUST begin with the root; after
that, the order of the branches does not matter within the Topology
sub-TLV. Figure 2 shows an example strict tree and its description.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
+-----------+
| A |
+-----------+
| I |
+-----------+
| H |
[B]---[A]---[I] +-----------+
| | | G |
| | +-----------+
| | | E |
[C]---[F] [H] +-----------+
| | | A |
| | +-----------+
| | | B |
[D] [E]---[G] +-----------+
| C |
+-----------+
| D |
+-----------+
| C |
+-----------+
| F |
+-----------+
Figure 2: A Strict Tree and Its Description; Root = Node A
The Topology sub-TLV of a loose tree does not provide any path or
path segment other than the hops that are to participate. The root
MUST be the first hop. The leaves of a single loose tree MUST also
be specified. Hop sub-TLVs can be included in a Topology sub-TLV to
specify bridges that have to be avoided. If the Topology sub-TLV
only specifies a single leaf, then one or more transit hops can be
specified by the Topology sub-TLV to direct the path along a sequence
of bridges, specified by the order of hops. If bridges whose
respective Hop sub-TLVs are adjacent to each other in the Topology
sub-TLV are not topology neighbors, then it is a loose hop. If a
Topology sub-TLV conveys one or more loose hops, then that sub-TLV
defines a loose explicit tree and each hop is considered to be a
loose hop. The path of a loose hop MUST be pruned from the tree if
the path would create a loop or hairpin.
If the Base VIDs of the Topology sub-TLV are associated with the LTS
ECT Algorithm or the MRT ECT Algorithm, then the Hop sub-TLVs
conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV belong to Edge Bridges or bridges to
be excluded. The BLCEs compute the loose trees, e.g., MRTs, such
that they span the Edge Bridges and are rooted at an Edge Bridge.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
The Topology sub-TLV specifies a GADAG if the Base VIDs conveyed by
the Topology sub-TLV are associated with the MRTG ECT Algorithm.
Section 7 provides the details on the description of a GADAG by a
Topology sub-TLV.
Each Edge Bridge of an explicit tree MUST always be specified in the
Topology sub-TLV by the inclusion of the Hop sub-TLVs corresponding
to the Edge Bridges. The Edge Bridges of a tree are identified by
setting the Edge Bridge flag (item c.3. in Section 6.2) in the
appropriate Hop sub-TLVs.
If the explicit tree is loose, then the Topology sub-TLV MAY convey
further sub-TLVs to specify constraints, e.g., an Administrative
Group sub-TLV [RFC5305] or a Bandwidth Constraint (Section 6.3). If
it is not possible to meet the constraint(s) specified by the
Topology sub-TLV, then no tree is installed but a management report
is generated.
IS-IS PCR MAY be used for recording bandwidth assignment. In that
case, the Topology sub-TLV conveys Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV
(Section 6.4), and it MAY also convey Timestamp sub-TLV
(Section 6.5). If assignment of the bandwidth indicated by the
Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV of the Topology sub-TLV would result in
overbooking any link of the explicit tree, then bandwidth assignment
MUST NOT be performed and a management report is generated. If the
Topology sub-TLV specifies a new valid explicit tree, then the tree
is installed without bandwidth assignment.
6.2. Hop Sub-TLV
The Hop sub-TLV MUST be used to specify a hop of a topology. Each
Hop sub-TLV conveys an IS-IS System ID, which specifies a hop. A Hop
sub-TLV is conveyed by a Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1). A strict
explicit tree is decomposed to branches where each branch is a point-
to-point path specified by an ordered list of Hop sub-TLVs as
specified in Section 6.1. A hop of a branch is created if and only
if the bridge specified for that hop is directly connected to the
preceding bridge in the path. That is, a point-to-point LAN is
identified by the two bridges it interconnects; and the LAN is part
of the strict tree if and only if the Hop sub-TLVs of the two bridges
are next to each other in the Topology sub-TLV. A Hop sub-TLV can
convey a Circuit ID in order to distinguish multiple links between
adjacent neighbor bridges. A Hop sub-TLV also specifies the role of
a bridge, e.g., if it is the root or an Edge Bridge. The Topology
sub-TLV of a loose tree only comprises the Hop sub-TLV of the bridges
that have a special role in the tree. The Hop sub-TLV MAY also
specify a delay budget for a loose hop.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
By default, the Edge Bridges both transmit and receive with respect
to each VID associated with an explicit tree, except for an LTS
(Section 5) associated with a learning VLAN, which uses a
unidirectional VID per bridge. The Hop sub-TLV allows different
configuration by means of the Transmit (T) and Receive (R) flags
conveyed in the sub-TLV. The VID and its T/R flags are only present
in the Hop sub-TLV if the behavior of the Edge Bridges differs from
the default.
Figure 3 shows the format of the variable length Hop sub-TLV, which
MUST be conveyed by a Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1).
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 | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C|V|B|R|L|E|Res| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID | (6 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended Local Circuit ID (4 bytes if present) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Num of VIDs | (1 byte if present)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|T|R|Res| VID 1 (12 bits) | (2 bytes if present)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.................
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|T|R|Res| VID n (12 bits) | (2 bytes if present)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Delay Constraint |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Delay Constraint | (6 bytes if present)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Hop Sub-TLV
The parameters of a hop are encoded as follows:
a. Type (8 bits): The type of the sub-TLV, its value is 22.
b. Length (8 bits): The total number of bytes contained in the Value
field.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
c. Hop Flags (8 bits): The Hop sub-TLV conveys six one-bit flags.
The Circuit and the VID flags influence the length of the Hop
sub-TLV. Two bits are reserved for future use, transmitted as 0
and ignored on receipt.
1. Circuit (C) flag (1 bit): The Circuit flag is a one-bit flag
to indicate whether or not the Extended Local Circuit ID
parameter is present. If the flag is set, then an Extended
Local Circuit ID is also included in the Hop sub-TLV.
2. VID (V) flag (1 bit): The VID flag is a one-bit flag to
indicate whether or not one or more VIDs are conveyed by the
Hop sub-TLV. If the flag is set, then the Number of VIDs
parameter is present and indicates how many VIDs are conveyed
by the Hop sub-TLV. If the VID flag is reset, then neither
the Number of VIDs parameter nor VIDs are present in the Hop
sub-TLV.
3. Edge Bridge (B) flag (1 bit): The Edge Bridge flag is a one-
bit flag to indicate whether or not the given System is an
Edge Bridge, i.e., transmitter and/or receiver. If the
System is an Edge Bridge, then the Edge Bridge flag MUST be
set. The Edge Bridge flag indicates that FDB entries have to
be installed for the given hop as specified by the SPBV MAC
address sub-TLV or SPBM Service Identifier and Unicast
Address sub-TLV of the hop.
4. Root (R) flag (1 bit): The Root flag is a one-bit flag to
indicate whether or not the given System is a root of the
explicit tree specified by the Topology sub-TLV. If the
System is a root of a tree, then the Root flag MUST be set.
If the Topology sub-TLV specifies a single tree, i.e., the
Base VIDs conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV are associated
with either the ST ECT Algorithm or the LT ECT Algorithm
(Section 5), then the Root flag is only set for one of the
Systems conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV. Furthermore, the
first Hop sub-TLV of the Topology sub-TLV conveys the System
that is the root of the tree.
If the Topology sub-TLV specifies a Loose Tree Set, i.e., the
Base VIDs conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV are associated
with the LTS ECT Algorithm (Section 5), then the Root flag is
set for each Edge Bridge as each of them roots a tree.
If the Topology sub-TLV is used for MRT operations, i.e., the
Base VIDs conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV are associated
with either the MRT ECT Algorithm or the MRTG ECT algorithm
(Section 5), then the Root flag is set for each MRT Root. If
no MRT Root is specified by a Topology sub-TLV specifying a
GADAG, then each SPT Root is an MRT Root as well.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
If the Base VIDs conveyed by the Topology sub-TLV are
associated with the MRTG ECT algorithm (Section 5), then the
Topology sub-TLV specifies a GADAG and the very first Hop
sub-TLV specifies the GADAG Root. There is no flag for
indicating the GADAG Root.
5. Leaf (L) flag (1 bit): The Leaf flag is a one-bit flag to
indicate whether or not the given System is a leaf of the
explicit tree specified by the Topology sub-TLV. If the
System is a leaf, then the Leaf flag MUST be set. The Leaf
flag is only used to mark a leaf of a tree if the Topology
sub-TLV specifies a single tree. The Leaf flag MUST be used
to indicate the end of a topology block if the Topology sub-
TLV specifies a GADAG, see Section 7.
6. Exclude (E) flag (1 bit): The Exclude flag is a one-bit flag
to indicate if the given System MUST be excluded from the
topology. The Exclude flag and the Root flag cannot be set
for a given hop at the same time.
7. Reserved (Res) (2 bits): The reserved bits MUST be set to 0
on transmission, and the value MUST be ignored on reception.
d. System ID (48 bits): The six-byte IS-IS System Identifier of the
bridge to which the Hop sub-TLV refers.
e. Extended Local Circuit ID (32 bits): The Extended Local Circuit
ID [RFC5303] parameter is not necessarily present in the Hop sub-
TLV. Its presence is indicated by the Circuit flag. Parallel
links corresponding to different IS-IS adjacencies between a pair
of neighbor bridges can be distinguished by means of the Extended
Local Circuit ID. The Extended Local Circuit ID is conveyed by
the Hop sub-TLV specifying the bridge nearer to the root of the
tree, and identifies a circuit that attaches the given bridge to
its neighbor cited by the next Hop sub-TLV of the Topology sub-
TLV. The Extended Local Circuit ID can only be used in strict
trees.
f. Number of VIDs (8 bits): The Number of VIDs parameter is not
present if the Hop sub-TLV does not convey VIDs, which is
indicated by the VID flag.
g. VID and its T/R flags (14 bits): The VID and its T/R flags are
only present in the Hop sub-TLV if the given bridge is an Edge
Bridge and it behaves differently from the default with respect
to that particular VID.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
1. T flag (1 bit): This is the Transmit allowed flag for the VID
following the flag.
2. R flag (1 bit): This is the Receive allowed flag for the VID
following the flag.
3. Reserved (Res) (2 bits): The reserved bits MUST be set to 0
on transmission, and the value MUST be ignored on reception.
4. VID (12 bits): A VID.
h. Delay Constraint (48 bits): A Hop sub-TLV MAY specify a delay
constraint. The Length of the Hop sub-TLV indicates whether or
not a delay constraint is present because the Length of a Hop
sub-TLV conveying a delay constraint is six bytes greater than it
would be without the delay constraint. The last six bytes then
specify a delay constraint if they convey a Unidirectional Link
Delay sub-TLV [RFC7810]. The delay constraint MAY be used in a
Topology sub-TLV that specifies a single loose tree, i.e., the
Base VIDs are associated with the LT ECT Algorithm (Section 5).
If the delay constraint is applied, then the loose hop MUST fit
in the delay budget specified by the Delay parameter of the
Unidirectional Link Delay sub-TLV conveyed by the Hop sub-TLV.
If the Topology sub-TLV specifies a single leaf, then the path
between the preceding Hop sub-TLV and the current Hop sub-TLV
MUST meet the delay budget. If the Topology sub-TLV specifies
multiple leaves, then the path between the root and the current
Hop sub-TLV MUST to meet the delay budget. If the tree is used
as a reverse congruent tree, then the delay constraint applies in
both directions. If the tree is used as a directed tree, then
the delay constraint applies in the direction of the tree. If it
is not possible to meet the delay constraint specified by the
Topology sub-TLV, then no tree is installed but a management
report is generated.
6.3. Bandwidth Constraint Sub-TLV
The Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV MAY be included in a Topology sub-
TLV (Section 6.1) in order to specify how much available bandwidth is
to be provided by the constrained tree. Each loose hop MUST meet the
bandwidth constraint. The bandwidth value of the constraint is a
total value or it only refers to a single PCP as specified by the
sub-TLV. Figure 4 shows the format of the Bandwidth Constraint sub-
TLV.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
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 | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCP |D|P| Res | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Available Bandwidth (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Bandwidth Constraint Sub-TLV
The parameters of the bandwidth constraint are encoded as follows:
a. Type (8 bits): The type of the sub-TLV, its value is 23.
b. Length (8 bits): The total number of bytes contained in the Value
field. The value of the Length field is 5 bytes.
c. PCP (4 bits): The Priority Code Point (PCP) parameter identifies
the traffic class the Available Bandwidth parameter refers to, if
any.
d. DEI (D) (1 bit): This is the Drop Eligible Indicator (DEI)
parameter. If the DEI parameter is clear, then the bandwidth
constraint refers to committed information rate. If the DEI
parameter is set, then the bandwidth constraint refers to the
peak information rate.
e. PCP (P) flag (1 bit): If this flag is set, then the PCP parameter
is taken into account.
f. Reserved (Res) (3 bits): The reserved bits MUST be set to 0 on
transmission, and the value MUST be ignored on reception.
g. Available Bandwidth (32 bits): The Available Bandwidth is
specific to the traffic class identified by the PCP parameter if
the PCP flag is set; otherwise, it is total bandwidth. In line
with the bandwidth parameters specified in [RFC5305], the
Available Bandwidth is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE floating-point
number [IEEE754], and the units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
When the Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV (sub-TLV type 11 specified
by [RFC5305]) is used in a Layer 2 bridge network, the priority
value encoded in the Unreserved Bandwidth sub-TLV provides the
PCP, i.e., identifies a traffic class (not a setup priority
level). Thus, the Available Bandwidth of a traffic class is
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
easily comparable with the Unreserved Bandwidth stored in the TED
for the given traffic class. The bandwidth constraint applies
for both directions in case of symmetric explicit trees.
Nevertheless, a VID associated with an explicit tree can be made
unidirectional by means of the T/R flags belonging to the VID in
the Hop sub-TLV (item g. in Section 6.2) of the Edge Bridges. If
all the VIDs of the Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1) are
unidirectional and all belong to the traffic class identified by
the PCP parameter of the Bandwidth Constraint sub-TLV, then it is
enough to meet the bandwidth constraint in the direction applied
for those VIDs.
6.4. Bandwidth Assignment Sub-TLV
IS-IS PCR MAY be used for recording bandwidth assignment for
explicitly placed data traffic in a domain if MSRP is not used within
the domain. If MSRP is used in a domain, then only MSRP performs
reservations and IS-IS does not. Both MSRP and IS-IS MUST NOT be
used to make bandwidth assignments in the same domain.
The Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV can be used to define the amount of
bandwidth whose assignment is to be recorded by IS-IS PCR at each hop
of the explicit tree described by the corresponding Topology sub-TLV
(Section 6.1). The Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV is used by IS-IS PCR
for the recording of bandwidth assignment for a traffic class
identified by the PCP parameter of a VLAN tag. If precedence order
has to be determined among bandwidth assignments in a domain with
multiple PCEs, then IS-IS PCR does it as described below. If the
bandwidth assignment specified by the Topology sub-TLV is not
possible, e.g., due to overbooking, then bandwidth recording MUST NOT
be performed and a management report is generated. If the Topology
sub-TLV specifies a new valid explicit tree, then the tree is
installed without bandwidth assignment. The Bandwidth Assignment
sub-TLV is conveyed by a Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1). Figure 5
shows the format of the Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
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 | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PCP |D| Imp |R| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Bandwidth (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: Bandwidth Assignment Sub-TLV
The parameters of the bandwidth assignment are encoded as follows:
a. Type (8 bits): The type of the sub-TLV, its value is 24.
b. Length (8 bits): The total number of bytes contained in the Value
field. The value of the Length field is 5 bytes.
c. PCP (3 bits): The PCP parameter identifies the traffic class for
which the bandwidth is to be assigned.
d. DEI (D) (1 bit): This is the Drop Eligible Indicator (DEI)
parameter. If the DEI parameter is clear, then the bandwidth
assignment is performed for providing the committed information
rate. If the DEI parameter is set, then the bandwidth assignment
is performed for providing the peak information rate.
e. Importance (Imp) (3 bits): This is the Importance parameter for
determining precedence order among bandwidth assignments within a
PCP as described below. A lower numerical value indicates more
important bandwidth assignment within a PCP. The default value
of the Importance parameter is 7.
f. Reserved (R) (1 bit): The reserved bit MUST be set to 0 on
transmission, and the value MUST be ignored on reception.
g. Bandwidth (32 bits): This is the amount of bandwidth to be
assigned for the traffic class identified by the PCP parameter.
In line with the bandwidth values specified in [RFC5305], the
Bandwidth parameter is encoded as a 32-bit IEEE floating-point
number [IEEE754], and the units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The bandwidth assignment applies for both directions in case of
symmetric explicit trees.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
The PCEs are collectively responsible for making a consistent set of
bandwidth assignments when IS-IS PCR is used for recording bandwidth
allocations. If, despite that, precedence ordering is required among
bandwidth assignments, then ordering based on the following
parameters MUST be applied:
1. PCP parameter of Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV,
2. Importance parameter of Bandwidth Assignment sub-TLV,
3. Timestamp sub-TLV (if present in the Topology sub-TLV).
A bandwidth assignment takes precedence if it has a higher PCP, or a
higher Importance within a PCP, or an earlier timestamp in case of
equal Importance within a PCP. A bandwidth assignment associated
with a timestamp takes precedence over a bandwidth assignment without
a timestamp when PCP and Importance of different bandwidth
assignments are both equal. If resolution is not possible based on
the above parameters or they are not available, e.g., each bandwidth
assignment lacks a timestamp or the precedence order has to be
determined for the use of a VID, then the item is granted to the PCE
whose LSP has the numerically lowest LSP ID.
6.5. Timestamp Sub-TLV
The Timestamp sub-TLV MAY be included in a Topology sub-TLV
(Section 6.1) in order to provide precedence order among equally
important bandwidth assignments within a PCP as described in
Section 6.4. Figure 6 shows the format of the Timestamp sub-TLV.
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 | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Timestamp Sub-TLV
The timestamp represents a positive time with respect to the
Precision Time Protocol (PTP) epoch, and it is encoded as follows:
a. Type (8 bits): The type of the sub-TLV; its value is 25.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
b. Length (8 bits): The total number of bytes contained in the Value
field. The value of the Length field is 4 bytes.
c. Time (32 bits): This is the time in units of seconds with respect
to the PTP epoch.
The Timestamp sub-TLV carries the seconds portion of PTP as specified
by [IEEE1588]. The epoch is 1970-01-01 00:00:00 TAI (i.e., the PTP
time does not include leap seconds).
7. MRT-FRR Application
The application of MRT by [IEEE8021Qca] is discussed in detail in
[MRT-IEEE8021qca]. This section describes some special
considerations for the use of the MRT Lowpoint algorithm [RFC7811],
which are applicable both to the MRT ECT Algorithm and the MRTG ECT
Algorithm. This section also explains details related to the MRTG
ECT Algorithm and the application of the Topology sub-TLV in
particular.
IS-IS PCR does not use the MRT Profile specified in [RFC7812]. IS-IS
PCR only relies on the algorithm specification in [RFC7811]. Both
the MRT ECT Algorithm and the MRTG ECT Algorithm use the MRT Lowpoint
algorithm specified in [RFC7811].
The SPB Link Metric sub-TLV [RFC6329] specifies the metric of each
link for IS-IS PCR including the MRT algorithms. If the SPB Link
Metric values advertised by different ends of an adjacency are
different, then the maximum value MUST be used. If equal cost
(sub-)paths are found during the MRT computation, then the default
tie-breaking specified by Section 11 of [RFC6329] MUST be used, which
is based on the lower BridgeID. (The BridgeID is an 8-byte quantity
whose upper 2 bytes are the node's BridgePriority and lower 6 bytes
are the node's System ID.) Note that if MRTs are used for source-
specific multicast (see [IEEE8021Qca] for details), then the bridges
have to compute the MRTs of the other bridges in addition to their
own in order to be able to install the appropriated FDB entries.
(This is similar to the need for all pairs shortest path computation
instead of Dijkstra for source-specific shortest path multicast
trees.)
The GADAG is identical for all the MRTs within a network domain, as a
consequence of the use of the MRT Lowpoint algorithm [RFC7811].
Therefore, it is beneficial to compute the GADAG by a single entity,
which is referred to as the GADAG Computer and is either a PCE or the
GADAG Root. If the MRTG ECT Algorithm is applied, then the GADAG
MUST be computed only by the GADAG Computer, which then MUST flood
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
the descriptor Topology sub-TLV of the GADAG. The bridges then
compute the MRTs based on the received GADAG.
The GADAG computation requires the selection of the GADAG Root. The
bridge with the best BridgeID MUST be selected as the GADAG Root,
where the numerically lower value indicates the better identifier.
The Bridge Priority component of the BridgeID allows the
configuration of the GADAG Root by management action. The Bridge
Priority is conveyed by the SPB Instance sub-TLV [RFC6329].
The GADAG Computer MUST perform the GADAG computation as specified by
the MRT Lowpoint algorithm [RFC7811]. The GADAG Computer then MUST
encode the GADAG in a Topology sub-TLV (Section 6.1), which is then
flooded throughout the domain. A GADAG is encoded in a Topology sub-
TLV by means of directed ear decomposition as follows. A directed
ear is a directed point-to-point path whose end points can coincide
but no other element of the path is repeated in the ear. Each ear is
specified by an ordered list of hops such that the order of hops is
according to the direction of the arcs in the GADAG. There are no
leaves in a GADAG; hence, the Leaf flag (item c.5. in Section 6.2) is
used to mark the end of a topology block. (A GADAG with multiple
blocks is illustrated in Figure 8.) The sequence of ears in the
Topology sub-TLV is such that the end points of an ear belong to
preceding ears. The GADAG Root is not marked by any flag, but the
GADAG Root is the first hop in the Topology sub-TLV; correspondingly,
the first ear starts and ends with the GADAG Root. MRT Roots MUST be
marked by the Root flag (item c.4. in Section 6.2) and all other Edge
Bridges are leaves of the given MRTs. If no MRT Root is specified,
then each SPT Root is also an MRT Root.
Figure 7 shows an example GADAG. The figure also illustrates the
description of the GADAG; it shows the System ID parameter of the Hop
sub-TLV (Section 6.2) and the order of hops in the Topology sub-TLV
(Section 6.1).
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
Leaf
Hop flag
+-----------+---+
| A | |
+-----------+---+
| B | |
+-----------+---+
| C | |
+-----------+---+
| F | |
[B]<---[A]<---[I] +-----------+---+
| ^ ^ | A | |
| | | +-----------+---+
V | | | C | |
[C]--->[F]--->[H] +-----------+---+
| ^ | D | |
| | +-----------+---+
V | | E | |
[D]--->[E]--->[G] +-----------+---+
| G | |
+-----------+---+
| H | |
+-----------+---+
| I | |
+-----------+---+
| A | |
+-----------+---+
| F | |
+-----------+---+
| H | X |
+-----------+---+
Figure 7: A GADAG and Its Description; GADAG Root = Node A
A topology can comprise multiple blocks, like the one illustrated in
Figure 8(a). This example topology comprises four blocks as each
cut-link is a block. A-B-C-D-E-F is a block, D-G is another block,
G-H, and H-J-K are further blocks. A GADAG for this topology is
shown in Figure 8(b). Note that two arcs with opposite directions
represent a cut-link in a GADAG; see, for example, the cut-link
between D and G. The encoding starts with the block (ADAG) involving
the GADAG Root as illustrated in Figure 8. The first hop in the
Topology sub-TLV is the GADAG Root (node A in this example). The
ADAG of the first block is then described using the ear
decomposition, as described above. In this example, the first block
has been completely traversed at the second occurrence of node A in
the GADAG descriptor. The end of a block is indicated by setting the
Leaf flag for the last hop of the block, e.g., for the second
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
occurrence of node A in the example GADAG descriptor. The next node
that appears in the GADAG descriptor (D in this case) is the
localroot for the nodes in the next block. Continuing this process,
the Leaf flag is set for the third occurrence of D, the third
occurrence of G, and the third occurrence of H, each indicating the
end of a block. The first hop of the first block is the GADAG Root,
the fist hop in the rest of the blocks is the localroot. The
position of the set Leaf flags helps to determine the localroot,
which is the next hop. In the example GADAG descriptor, one can
determine that A is the localroot for B, C, D, E, F (and A is the
GADAG Root). D is the localroot for G. G is the localroot for H.
And H is the localroot for J and K. The GADAG Root is assigned a
localroot of None.
Block IDs are reconstructed while parsing a Topology sub-TLV
specifying a GADAG. The current Block ID starts at 0 and is assigned
to the GADAG Root. A node appearing in the GADAG descriptor without
a previously assigned Block ID value is assigned the current Block
ID. And the current Block ID is incremented by 1 after processing
the localroot of a block. Note that the localroot of a block will
keep the Block ID of the first block in which it is assigned a Block
ID. In the example in Figure 8, A has Block ID=0. B, C, D, E, and F
have Block ID=1. G has Block ID=2. H has Block ID=3. J and K have
Block ID=4.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
Leaf
Hop flag
[F]--[E] +--[K] +-----------+---+
| | | | | A | |
| | | | +-----------+---+
[A] [D]--[G]--[H] | | B | |
| | | | +-----------+---+
| | | | | C | |
[B]--[C] +--[J] +-----------+---+
| D | |
(a) Topology +-----------+---+
| E | |
+-----------+---+
| F | |
+-----------+---+
| A | X |
+-----------+---+
+-+ +-+ +-+ | D | |
|F|<-|E| +--|K| +-----------+---+
+-+ +-+ | +-+ | G | |
| ^ | ^ +-----------+---+
| | V | | D | X |
V +-+ +-+ +-+ | +-----------+---+
+-+ | |->| |->| | | | G | |
|A| |D| |G| |H| | +-----------+---+
+-+ | |<-| |<-| | | | H | |
| +-+ +-+ +-+ | +-----------+---+
| ^ | | | G | X |
V | | | +-----------+---+
+-+ +-+ | +-+ | H | |
|B|->|C| +->|J| +-----------+---+
+-+ +-+ +-+ | J | |
+-----------+---+
(b) GADAG | K | |
+-----------+---+
| H | X |
+-----------+---+
(c) GADAG Descriptor
Figure 8: A GADAG with Cut-Links and Its Description; GADAG Root =
Node A
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
8. Summary
This document specifies IS-IS sub-TLVs for the control of explicit
trees in Layer 2 networks. These sub-TLVs can be also used for the
distribution of a centrally computed GADAG or MRTs if MFT-FRR is
used.
9. IANA Considerations
This document defines the following IS-IS sub-TLVs within the
MT-Capability TLV (type 144). They are listed in the "IS-IS TLV
Codepoints" registry.
Type Description Length
---- ---------------------------- --------
21 Topology variable
22 Hop variable
23 Bandwidth Constraint 5
24 Bandwidth Assignment 5
25 Timestamp 4
10. Security Considerations
This document adds no additional security risks to IS-IS, nor does it
provide any additional security for IS-IS when used in a configured
environment or a single-operator domain such as a data center. IS-IS
PCR is not for zero-configuration environments.
Any mechanism that chooses forwarding paths, and allocates resources
to those paths, is potentially vulnerable to attack. The security
considerations section of [RFC4655] describes the risks associated
with the use of PCE for this purpose and should be referred to. Use
of any other means to determine paths should only be used after
considering similar concerns.
Because the mechanism assumed for distributing tree information
relies on IS-IS routing, IS-IS routing security considerations
(Section 6, [RFC1195]) and mechanisms (e.g., [RFC5310]) used to
authenticate peer advertisements apply.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[IEEE8021Qca]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - Bridges and Bridged Networks - Amendment 24:
Path Control and Reservation", IEEE 802.1Qca-2015,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7434544, 2016,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1Qca-2015.html>.
[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>.
[RFC5303] Katz, D., Saluja, R., and D. Eastlake 3rd, "Three-Way
Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 5303,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5303, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5303>.
[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>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC6329] Fedyk, D., Ed., Ashwood-Smith, P., Ed., Allan, D., Bragg,
A., and P. Unbehagen, "IS-IS Extensions Supporting IEEE
802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging", RFC 6329,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6329, April 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6329>.
[RFC7810] Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and
Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions",
RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7810>.
[RFC7811] Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.
Gopalan, "An Algorithm for Computing IP/LDP Fast Reroute
Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)", RFC 7811,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7811, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7811>.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
11.2. Informative References
[IEEE1588] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE 1588-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4579760, 2008,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/1588-2008.html>.
[IEEE754] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic",
IEEE 754-2008, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2008.4610935, 2008,
<http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/754-2008.html>.
[IEEE8021aq]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks -- Amendment 20: Shortest Path
Bridging", IEEE 802.1aq-2012,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2012.6231597, 2012,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1aq-2012.html>.
[IEEE8021Q]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks--Bridges and Bridged Networks", IEEE 802.1Q-2014,
DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6991462, 2014,
<https://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1Q-2014.html>.
[MRT-IEEE8021qca]
Bowers, C. and J. Farkas, "Applicability of Maximally
Redundant Trees to IEEE 802.1Qca Path Control and
Reservation", Work in Progress, draft-bowers-rtgwg-mrt-
applicability-to-8021qca-01, July 2015.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[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>.
[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>.
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
[RFC7812] Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and G. Enyedi, "An Architecture for
IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-
FRR)", RFC 7812, DOI 10.17487/RFC7812, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7812>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Don Fedyk and Eric Gray for their
comments and suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Janos Farkas (editor)
Ericsson
Konyves Kalman krt. 11/B
Budapest 1097
Hungary
Email: janos.farkas@ericsson.com
Nigel Bragg
Ciena
43-51 Worship Street
London EC2A 2DX
United Kingdom
Email: nbragg@ciena.com
Paul Unbehagen Jr
Avaya
1300 W. 120th Avenue
Westminster, CO 80234
United States
Email: unbehagen@avaya.com
Glenn Parsons
Ericsson
349 Terry Fox Drive
Ottawa ON, K2K 2V6
Canada
Email: glenn.parsons@ericsson.com
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 7813 IS-IS PCR June 2016
Peter Ashwood-Smith
Huawei Technologies
303 Terry Fox Drive, Suite 400
Ottawa ON, K2K 3J1
Canada
Email: Peter.AshwoodSmith@huawei.com
Chris Bowers
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States
Email: cbowers@juniper.net
Farkas, et al. Standards Track [Page 33]