There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS operates is a Layer 2 interface bundle. Existing IS-IS advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the Layer 3 interface. If entities external to IS-IS wish to control traffic flows on the individual physical links that comprise the Layer 2 interface bundle, link attribute information about the bundle members is required. This document introduces the ability for IS-IS to advertise the link attributes of Layer 2 (L2) Bundle Members.

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 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668.

Copyright (c) 2019 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 (https://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.

There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which an IS-IS adjacency is established is a Layer 2 interface bundle, for instance, a Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX]. This reduces the number of adjacencies that need to be maintained by the routing protocol in cases where there are parallel links between the neighbors. Entities external to IS-IS such as Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC 4655] may wish to control traffic flows on individual members of the underlying Layer 2 bundle. In order to do so, link attribute information about individual bundle members is required. The protocol extensions defined in this document provide the means to advertise this information. This document introduces a new TLV to advertise link attribute information for each of the L2 Bundle Members that comprise the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS operates. [RFC 8667] introduces a new link attribute, adjacency segment identifier (Adj-SID), which can be used as an instruction to forwarding to send traffic over a specific link. This document introduces additional sub-TLVs to advertise Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members. Note that the new advertisements defined in this document are intended to be provided to external (to IS-IS) entities. The following items are intentionally not defined and/or are outside the scope of this document:

• What link attributes will be advertised. This is determined by the needs of the external entities.
• A minimum or default set of link attributes.
• How these attributes are configured.
• How the advertisements are used.
• What impact the use of these advertisements may have on traffic flow in the network.
• How the advertisements are passed to external entities.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

A new TLV is introduced to advertise L2 Bundle Member attributes. Although much of the information is identical to and uses the same sub-TLVs included in Extended IS Neighbor advertisements (TLVs 22 and 222), a new TLV is used so that changes to the advertisement of the L2 Bundle Member link attributes do not trigger unnecessary action by the [ISO10589] Decision Process. Advertisement of this information implies that the identified link is a member of the L2 Bundle associated with the identified Parent L3 Neighbor and that the member link is operationally up. Therefore, advertisements MUST be withdrawn if the link becomes operationally down or it is no longer a member of the identified L2 Bundle. This new TLV utilizes the sub-TLV space defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223. The following new TLV is introduced:

• L2 Bundle Member Attributes
• Type: 25
• Length: Number of octets to follow

• Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor
• • L3 Neighbor System ID + pseudonode ID (7 octets)

  • Flags:

    1-octet field of the following flags:

  • •  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
      |P|             | 
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    • where:

    • P-Flag:

      When set to 1, one of the sub-TLVsdescribed in Section 3.1 immediately follows the flags field. If the P-Flagis set to 0, then none of the sub-TLVs described in Section 3.1 arepresent.

    • Other bits:

      MUST be zero when originated and ignored when received.

• One or more L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors (as defined below).

• • Length of L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptor (1 octet)
  • • NOTE: This includes all fields described below.
• • Number of L2 Bundle Member Descriptors (1 octet)
• • L2 Bundle Member Link Local Identifiers (4 * Number of L2 Bundle Member Descriptors octets)
• • • NOTE: An L2 Bundle Member Descriptor is a Link Local Identifier as defined in [RFC 4202].
• • Sub-TLV(s)A sub-TLV may define an attribute common to all of the bundlemembers listed, or it may define an attribute unique to each bundle member.Use of these two classes of sub-TLVs is described in the following sections.

• NOTE: Only one Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor is present in a given TLV. Multiple L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors may be present in a single TLV.

When there exist multiple L3 adjacencies to the same neighbor, additional information is required to uniquely identify the L3 Neighbor. One and only one of the following three sub-TLVs is used to uniquely identify the L3 adjacency:

• IPv4 Interface Address (sub-TLV 6 defined in [RFC 5305])
• IPv6 Interface Address (sub-TLV 12 defined in [RFC 6119])
• Link Local/Remote Identifiers (sub-TLV 4 defined in [RFC 5307])

When the P-Flag is set in the flags field in the Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor, one and only one of the above sub-TLVs MUST be present. The chosen sub-TLV MUST immediately follow the flags field described in Section 3. These sub-TLVs MAY be omitted if no parallel adjacencies to the neighbor exist.

These sub-TLVs advertise a single copy of an attribute (e.g., link bandwidth). The attribute applies to all of the L2 Bundle Members in the set advertised under the preceding L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor. No more than one copy of a given sub-TLV in this category may appear in the set of sub-TLVs under the preceding L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor. If multiple copies of a given sub-TLV are present, all copies MUST be ignored. The set of L2 Bundle Member Descriptors that may be advertised under a single L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor is therefore limited to bundle members that share the set of attributes advertised in the shared attribute sub-TLVs. All existing sub-TLVs defined in the IANA registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 are in the category of shared attribute sub-TLVs unless otherwise specified in this document.

[RFC 8667] defines sub-TLVs to advertise Adj-SIDs for L3 adjacencies. However, these sub-TLVs only support the advertisement of a single Adj-SID. As it is expected that each L2 Bundle Member will have unique Adj-SIDs in many deployments, it is desirable to define a new sub-TLV that allows more efficient encoding of a set of Adj-SIDs in a single sub-TLV. Two new sub-TLVs are therefore introduced to support advertising Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members. The format of the new sub-TLVs is similar to that used for L3 adjacencies, but it is optimized to allow advertisement of a set of Adj-SIDs (one per L2 Bundle Member) in a single sub-TLV. The two new sub-TLVs defined in the following sections do not fall into the category of shared attribute sub-TLVs.

This sub-TLV is used to advertise Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members associated with a parent L3 adjacency that is point-to-point. The following format is defined for this sub-TLV:

• Type:

  41 (1 octet)

  Length:

  variable (1 octet)

  Flags:

  1-octet field of the following flags:

  •  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |F|*|V|L|S|P|   | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  • where:

    F-Flag:

    Address-Family Flag. If unset, then the Adj-SID refers toan L2 Bundle Member with outgoing IPv4 encapsulation. If set, then theAdj-SID refers to an L2 Bundle Member with outgoing IPv6 encapsulation.

    V-Flag:

    Value Flag. If set, then the Adj-SID carries a value. Bydefault, the flag is SET.

    L-Flag:

    Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by theAdj-SID has local significance. By default, the flag is SET.

    S-Flag:

    Set Flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the Adj-SIDrefers to a set of L2 Bundle Members (and therefore MAY be assigned to otherL2 Bundle Members as well).

    P-Flag:

    Persistent Flag. When set, the P-Flag indicates that theAdj-SID is persistently allocated, i.e., the Adj-SID value remains consistentacross router restart and/or interface flap.

    Other bits:

    MUST be zero when originated and ignored whenreceived.
  • NOTE: The flags are deliberately kept congruent to the flags in the L3 ADJ-SID defined in [RFC 8667]. * indicates a flag used in the L3 Adj-SID sub-TLV, but one that is NOT used in this sub-TLV. These bits SHOULD be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt.

• Weight:

  1 octet. The value represents the weight of the Adj-SID for the purposeof load balancing. The use of the weight is defined in [RFC 8402].
• NOTE: Flags and weight are shared by all L2 Bundle Members listed in the L2Bundle Attribute Descriptor.

• L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Descriptors:

  There MUST be one descriptor for each of the L2 Bundle Members advertisedunder the preceding L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor. Each descriptorconsists of one of the following fields:

• • SID/Index/Label:

    According to the V- and L-Flags, it contains either:
  • • A 3-octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for encoding the label value. In this case, the V- and L-Flags MUST be set.
    • A 4-octet index defining the offset in the SID/Label space advertised by this router. See [RFC 8667]. In this case, V- and L-Flags MUST be unset.

This sub-TLV is used to advertise Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members associated with a parent L3 adjacency that is a LAN adjacency. In LAN subnetworks, the Designated Intermediate System (DIS) is elected and originates the Pseudonode-LSP (PN-LSP) including all neighbors of the DIS. When Segment Routing is used, each router in the LAN MAY advertise the Adj-SID of each of its neighbors on the LAN. Similarly, for each L2 Bundle Member, a router MAY advertise an Adj-SID to each neighbor on the LAN. The following format is defined for this sub-TLV:

• Type:

  42 (1 octet)

  Length:

  variable (1 octet)

  Neighbor System ID:

  6 octets

  Flags:

  1-octet field of the following flags:

  •  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
    |F|*|V|L|S|P|   | 
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

  • where:

    F-Flag:

    Address-Family Flag. If unset, then the Adj-SID refers toan L2 Bundle Member with outgoing IPv4 encapsulation. If set, then theAdj-SID refers to an L2 Bundle Member with outgoing IPv6 encapsulation.

    V-Flag:

    Value Flag. If set, then the Adj-SID carries a value. By default, theflag is SET.

    L-Flag:

    Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by the Adj-SID has localsignificance. By default, the flag is SET.

    S-Flag:

    Set Flag. When set, the S-Flag indicates that the Adj-SID refers to a setof L2 Bundle Members (and therefore MAY be assigned to other L2 Bundle Membersas well).

    P-Flag:

    Persistent Flag. When set, the P-Flag indicates that the Adj-SID ispersistently allocated, i.e., the Adj-SID value remains consistent acrossrouter restart and/or interface flap.

    Other bits:

    MUST be zero when originated and ignored whenreceived.
  • NOTE: The flags are deliberately kept congruent to the flags in the L3 LAN Adjacency SID defined in [RFC 8667]. * indicates a flag used in the L3 Adj-SID sub-TLV, but one that is NOT used in this sub-TLV. These bits SHOULD be sent as 0 and MUST be ignored on receipt.

• Weight:

  1 octet. The value represents the weight of the Adj-SID for the purposeof load balancing. The use of the weight is defined in [RFC 8402].
• NOTE: Flags and weight are shared by all L2 Bundle Members listed in the L2Bundle Attribute Descriptor.

• L2 Bundle Member LAN Adjacency SID Descriptors:

  There MUST be one descriptor for each of the L2 Bundle Members advertisedunder the preceding L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor. Each descriptorconsists of one of the following fields:

• • SID/Index/Label:

    According to the V- and L-Flags, it contains either:
  • • A 3-octet local label where the 20 rightmost bits are used for encoding the label value. In this case, the V- and L-Flags MUST be set.
    • A 4-octet index defining the offset in the SID/Label space advertised by this router. See [RFC 8667]. In this case, V- and L-Flags MUST be unset.

This document adds the following new TLV to the IS-IS "TLV Codepoints Registry".

Value:

25

Name:

L2 Bundle Member Attributes

The name of the IANA registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 has been changed to include sub-TLV 25. An additional column has been added to the registry to indicate which sub-TLVs may appear in the new L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV. The column for TLV 25 has one of the following three values:

y

sub-TLV may appear in TLV 25 but MUST NOT be shared by multiple L2 Bundle Members

y(s)

sub-TLV may appear in TLV 25 and MAYbe shared by multiple L2 Bundle Members

n

sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in TLV 25

The following table indicates the appropriate settings for all currently defined sub-TLVs with regard to their use in the new L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV. Table 1 This document adds the following new sub-TLVs to the above registry. Table 2

The IS-IS protocol has supported the advertisement of link attribute information, including link identifiers, for many years. The advertisements defined in this document are identical to existing advertisements defined in [RFC 4202], [RFC 5305], [RFC 8570], and [RFC 8667], but are associated with L2 links that are part of a bundle interface on which the IS-IS protocol operates. There are therefore no new security issues introduced by the extensions in this document. As always, if the protocol is used in an environment where unauthorized access to the physical links on which IS-IS Protocol Data Units (PDUs) are sent occurs, then attacks are possible. The use of authentication as defined in [RFC 5304] and [RFC 5310] is recommended to prevent such attacks.

[IEEE802.1AX]

IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE 802.1AX,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7055197>.

[ISO10589]

International Organization for Standardization, "Information technology -- Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -- Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, November 2002.

[RFC2119]

S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC4202]

K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.

[RFC5304]

T. Li, and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

[RFC5305]

T. Li, and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

[RFC5307]

K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.

[RFC5310]

M. Bhatia, V. Manral, T. Li, R. Atkinson, R. White, and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

[RFC6119]

J. Harrison, J. Berger, and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.

[RFC8174]

B. Leiba, "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

[RFC8570]

L. Ginsberg, S. Previdi, S. Giacalone, D. Ward, J. Drake, and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8570>.

[RFC8667]

S Previdi, L Ginsburg, C Filsfils, A Bashandy, H Gredler, and B Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.

[RFC4655]

A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur, and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.

[RFC8402]

C. Filsfils, S. Previdi, L. Ginsberg, B. Decraene, S. Litkowski, and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Below is an example encoding of L2 Bundle advertisements in a case where we have two parallel adjacencies to the same neighbor whose system-id is 1234.1234.1234.00. The two L2 bundles have the following sets of attributes: L3 Adjacency #1 L3 IPv4 local link address: 192.0.2.1 Four bundle members with the following attributes: Table 3 L3 Adjacency #2 L3 IPv4 local link address: 192.0.2.2 Three bundle members with the following attributes: Table 4 This requires two TLVs, one for each L3 adjacency. TLV for Adjacency #1: Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor IPv4 Interface Address Sub-TLV L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors Maximum Link Bandwidth Sub-TLV L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Sub-TLV L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors Maximum Link Bandwidth Sub-TLV L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Sub-TLV TLV for Adjacency #2: Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor IPv4 Interface Address Sub-TLV L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors Maximum Link Bandwidth Sub-TLV L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Sub-TLV

The authors would like to thank Jon Mitchell for his careful review.

The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content of this document and should be considered coauthors:

Les Ginsberg

Ahmed Bashandy

Clarence Filsfils

Mohan Nanduri

Ebben Aries