ftp.cc.uoc.gr
rfc5307
This is a purely informative rendering of an RFC that includes verified errata. This rendering may not be used as a reference.

The following 'Verified' errata have been incorporated in this document: EID 1554, EID 4223
Network Working Group                                   K. Kompella, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5307                               Y. Rekhter, Ed.
Obsoletes: 4205                                         Juniper Networks
Updates: 5305                                               October 2008
Category: Standards Track


                    IS-IS Extensions in Support of
           Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)

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 specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing
   protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS).

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in
   support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS).  The set of required enhancements
   to IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].  Support for unnumbered
   interfaces assumes support for the "Point-to-Point Three-Way
   Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [ISIS-3way].

   In this section, we define the enhancements to the Traffic
   Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE links that can be announced
   in IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Units.

   In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS
   reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS.  Specifically,
   we add the following sub-TLVs:

      Sub-TLV Type        Length    Name
                 4             8    Link Local/Remote Identifiers
                20             2    Link Protection Type
                21      variable    Interface Switching Capability
                                    Descriptor

   We further add one new TLV to the TE TLVs:

          TLV Type        Length    Name
               138      variable    GMPLS-SRLG

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.1.  Link Local/Remote Identifiers

   A Link Local Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS
   reachability TLV.  The type of this sub-TLV is 4, and the length is 8
   octets.  The value field of this sub-TLV contains 4 octets of Link
   Local Identifier followed by 4 octets of Link Remote Identifier (see
   Section 2.1, "Support for Unnumbered Links", of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).  If
   the Link Remote Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.

   The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link
   Local/Remote Identifiers 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Link Local Identifier                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Link Remote Identifier                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than
   once within the extended IS reachability TLV.  If the Link
   Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV occurs more than once within the
   extended IS reachability TLV, the receiver SHOULD ignore all these
   sub-TLVs.

1.2.  Link Protection Type

   The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the extended IS
   reachability TLV, with a length of 2 octets.

   The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link
   Protection Type sub-TLV.

       0                   1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Protection Cap |    Reserved   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection capabilities
   of the link (see Section 2.2, "Link Protection Type", of
   [GMPLS-ROUTING]).  They are:

      0x01  Extra Traffic

      0x02  Unprotected

      0x04  Shared

      0x08  Dedicated 1:1

      0x10  Dedicated 1+1

      0x20  Enhanced

      0x40  Reserved

      0x80  Reserved

   The second octet SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and SHOULD be
   ignored by the receiver.

   The Link Protection Type sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than once within
   the extended IS reachability TLV.  If the Link Protection Type sub-
   TLV occurs more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV,
   the receiver SHOULD ignore all these sub-TLVs.

1.3.  Interface Switching Capability Descriptor

   The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type
   21) of the extended IS reachability TLV.  The length is the length of
   the value field in octets.  The following illustrates encoding of the
   Value field of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Switching Cap |   Encoding    |           Reserved            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                  Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Switching Capability-specific information              |
      |                  (variable)                                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
   following values:

            1     Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
            2     Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
            3     Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
            4     Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
            51    Layer-2 Switch Capable  (L2SC)
            100   Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
            150   Lambda-Switch Capable   (LSC)
            200   Fiber-Switch Capable    (FSC)

   The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
   3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].

   Maximum Label Switched Path (LSP) Bandwidth is encoded as a 
list of eight 4-octet fields in the IEEE floating point format
[IEEE], with priority 0 first and priority 7 last.  The units are
EID 4223 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 1.3

Original Text:

Maximum Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) Bandwidth is encoded as a
list of eight 4-octet fields in the IEEE floating point format
[IEEE], with priority 0 first and priority 7 last.

Corrected Text:

Maximum Label Switched Path (LSP) Bandwidth is encoded as a
list of eight 4-octet fields in the IEEE floating point format
[IEEE], with priority 0 first and priority 7 last.
Notes:
Mixed up LSP abbreviation expansion.
bytes (not bits!) per second. The content of the Switching Capability specific information field depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Interface MTU | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4-octet field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2-octet integer, and carries the MTU value in the units of bytes. When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching Capability specific information field present. When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH (Synchronous Optical Network / Synchronous Digital Hierarchy). 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Indication | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4-octet field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. When the Switching Capability field is LSC or FSC, there is no Switching Capability specific information field present.
EID 1554 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 1.3, pg.6

Original Text:

|  When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
   Capability specific information field present.

Corrected Text:

|  When the Switching Capability field is LSC or FSC, there is no
   Switching Capability specific information field present.
Notes:
Location is the penultimate paragraph in Section 1.3, on mid-page 6.

Rationale:
In the same section, the list on top of page 5 shows the possible
Switching Capability values, their meaning and short name.
Later on, the RFC says:

The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.

... and then starts to discuss the various cases.

The quoted paragraph is the last one in this discussion, and
it addresses the penultimate case in the list; the last case,
FSC, is not dealt with in any way.

Hence, the 'Switching Capability-specific information' in the
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is underspecified.

The above correction tries to fix this deficiency to the best
knowledge of the submitter of what has been intended.
To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (see Section 2.4, "Interface Switching Capability Descriptor", of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV MAY occur more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV. 1.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV The Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) TLV (of type 138) contains a data structure consisting of: 6 octets of System ID 1 octet of Pseudonode Number 1 octet Flag 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local Identifier 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote Identifier (variable) list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4 octets. The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the SRLG 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | System ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | System ID (cont.) | Pseudonode num| Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 neighbor address/Link Remote Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Shared Risk Link Group Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ............ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Shared Risk Link Group Value | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The neighbor is identified by its System ID (6 octets), plus one octet to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN interface. The least significant bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the interface is numbered (set to 1) or unnumbered (set to 0). All other bits are reserved and should be set to 0. The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values). This TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see Section 2.3, "Shared Risk Link Group Information", of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). The SRLG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Units. 1.5. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces Link Identifiers are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [ISIS- 3way]. 2. Implications on Graceful Restart The restarting node SHOULD follow the IS-IS restart procedures [ISIS-RESTART] and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. When the restarting node is going to originate its IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Units for TE links, these Link State Protocol Data Units SHOULD be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, Traffic Engineering Default metric set to 0xffffff. Also, if the link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability, then they SHOULD be originated with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the node SHOULD advertise these resources in its Link State Protocol data units. In addition, in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the restarting node SHOULD originate the IS-IS Link State Protocol data units for TE links with 0 as unreserved bandwidth. Also, if the link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability, then they SHOULD be originated with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router. Neighbors of the restarting node SHOULD continue to advertise the actual unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. 3. Security Considerations This document specifies the contents of GMPLS TE TLVs in IS-IS. As these TLVs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS TE TLVs may have an effect on the underlying transport (optical and/or SONET/SDH) network. Mechanisms to secure IS-IS Link State PDUs and/or the TE TLVs [ISIS-HMAC] can be used to secure the GMPLS TE TLVs as well. For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS, see [ISIS-HMAC]. 4. IANA Considerations This document defines the following new IS-IS TLV type that has been reflected in the IS-IS TLV codepoint registry: Type Description IIH LSP SNP ---- ---------------------- --- --- --- 138 Shared Risk Link Group n y n This document also defines the following new sub-TLV types of top- level TLV 22 that have been reflected in the IS-IS sub-TLV registry for TLV 22: Type Description Length ---- ------------------------------ -------- 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 8 20 Link Protection Type 2 21 Interface Switching Capability variable Descriptor 5. References 5.1. Normative References [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005. [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003. [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003 [IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8). [ISIS-3way] Katz, D. and R. Saluja, "Three-Way Handshake for IS- IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 5303, October 2008. [ISIS-HMAC] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008. [ISIS-RESTART] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS", RFC 5306, October 2008. [ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 6. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jim Gibson, Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang, and Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the document. 7. Contributors Ayan Banerjee Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972 3645 EMail: abanerjee@calient.net John Drake Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: +1 408 972 3720 EMail: jdrake@calient.net Greg Bernstein Grotto Networking EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com Don Fedyk Nortel Networks Corp. 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 Phone: +1 978 288 4506 EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com Eric Mannie Independent Consultant EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com Debanjan Saha Tellium Optical Systems 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 Phone: +1 732 923 4264 EMail: dsaha@tellium.com Vishal Sharma EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org Authors' Addresses Kireeti Kompella (editor) Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089 EMail: kireeti@juniper.net Yakov Rekhter (editor) Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089 EMail: yakov@juniper.net 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.