Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
9190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 5307

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

Pages: 12
Proposed Standard
Errata
Obsoletes:  4205
Updates:  5305
Updated by:  600160027074

ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 1
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).
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 2

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.
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 3
       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
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 4
   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) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 5
   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 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.  The units are
   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).
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 6
       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, there is no Switching
   Capability specific information field present.

   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.
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 7
       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
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 8
   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:
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 9
         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.
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 10

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
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 11
   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
ToP   noToC   RFC5307 - Page 12
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.