[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension

Network work group                                             Mach Chen
Internet Draft                                              Renhai Zhang
Expires: March 2008                          Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Category: Standards Track                                  Xiaodong Duan
                                                            China Mobile
                                                       September 6, 2007


    ISIS Traffic Engineering (ISIS-TE) Extensions in Support of Inter-AS
     Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
                            Traffic Engineering
             draft-chen-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-01.txt


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
   aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
   becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2008.

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to the ISIS Traffic Engineering
   (ISIS-TE) mechanisms to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
   and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple
   Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines ISIS-TE extensions for the
   flooding of TE information about inter-AS links which can be used to
   perform inter-AS TE path computation.




Mach & Renhai           Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction.................................................2
   2. Problem Statement............................................3
      2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives................................3
      2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4
      2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................5
   3. Extensions to ISIS-TE........................................7
      3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV................................7
      3.2. Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV..................................8
      3.3. Inter-AS Reachability TLV...............................9
   4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links..............................9
   5. Security Considerations.....................................11
   6. IANA Considerations.........................................11
      6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV..............................11
      6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV.............11
      6.3. Sub-TLVs for the Extended IS Reachability TLV..........12
   7. Acknowledgments.............................................12
   8. References..................................................12
      8.1. Normative References...................................12
      8.2. Informative References.................................12
   Authors' Addresses.............................................14
   Intellectual Property Statement................................14
   Disclaimer of Validity.........................................15
   Copyright Statement............................................15

1. Introduction

   [ISIS-TE] defines extensions to the ISIS protocol [ISIS] to support
   intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of
   encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
   (TE links) and flooding this information within an area. The Extended
   IS reachability TLV and Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV, which are
   defined in [ISIS-TE], are used to carry such TE information. The
   Extended IS reachability TLV has several nested sub-TLVs which
   describe the TE attributes for a TE link.

   [ISIS-TE-V3] and [GMPLS-TE] define similar extensions to ISIS [ISIS]
   in support of IPv6 and GMPLS traffic engineering respectively.



Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE
   Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous Systems
   (ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As described in [INTER-AS-
   TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a path
   spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation entity that may be the
   head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router (ASBR), or
   a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs to know the TE
   information not only of the links within an AS, but also of the links
   that connect to other ASes.

   In this document, some extensions to ISIS-TE are defined in support
   of carrying inter-AS TE link information for inter-AS Traffic
   Engineering. Two new sub-TLVs are added to the Extended IS
   reachability TLV, and a new TLV, which is referred to as inter-AS
   reachability TLV, is defined. The extensions are equally applicable
   to IPv4 and IPv6 as identical extensions to [ISIS-TE] and [ISIS-TE-
   V3]. The detailed definitions and procedures are discussed in the
   following sections.

2. Problem Statement

   As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an
   inter-AS TE LSP traversing multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209]
   may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)
   in order to describe the path of the LSP:

     - a set of AS numbers as loose hops; and/or

     - a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.

   Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently discussed.
   The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one domain at a
   time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses cooperation between
   PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path. The sections that
   follow examine how inter-AS TE link information could be useful in
   both cases.

2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives

   It is important to note that this document does not make any change
   to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of
   ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant to
   the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].

   The following lists of features are explicit exclusions.




Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


     o  There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
        AS to another AS.

     o  There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
        reachability information for destinations outside the AS.

     o  There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.

     o  TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.

     o  There is no exchange of private information between ASes.

     o  No ISIS adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.



2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination

   In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an MPLS-
   TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a PATH
   message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop that is
   an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the local AS
   are connected to the downstream AS so that it can compute a TE LSP
   segment across the AS to one of those LSRs and forward the PATH
   message to the LSR and hence into the next AS. See the figure below
   for an example:

                R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
                        |     | \    |      / |
                        |     |  \   |  ----  |
                        |     |   \  | /      |
                R2------R4----R6   --R8------R10----R12
                           :              :
                <-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->

                  Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model

   The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1
   through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are
   ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.

   If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
   the AS sequence is limited as: AS1, AS2, AS3.

   Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the
   ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to
   reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and


Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   R8) and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to
   AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
   bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.

   Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
   (say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that
   connects to R9. Since there may be multiple exist ASBRs that are
   connected to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to
   know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select
   the correct exit ASBR.

   Once the path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS
   TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by entry ASBR
   that computed the segment.

   More details can be found in the Section 4.0 of [PD-PATH], which
   clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.

   To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR the following
   information is needed:

     o  List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.

     o  TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.

     o  AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
        link.

     o  Identity (TE Router ID) of the neighboring ASBR connected to by
        each inter-AS TE link.

   In GMPLS networks further information may also be required to select
   the correct TE links as defined in [GMPLS-TE].

   The example above shows how this information is needed at the entry
   point ASBRs for each AS (or the PCEs that provide computation
   services for the ASBRs), but this information is also needed
   throughout the local AS if path computation function is fully
   distributed among LSRs in the local AS, for example to support LSPs
   that have start points (ingress nodes) within the AS.

2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation

   Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem. [BRPC]
   defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called Backward
   Recursive Path Computation) to compute optimal inter-domain
   constrained MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSPs. In this path computation method, a


Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   specific set of traversed domains (ASes) are assumed to be selected
   before computation starts. Each downstream PCE in domain(i) returns
   to its upstream neighbor PCE in domain(i-1) a multipoint-to-point
   tree of potential paths. Each tree consists of the set of paths from
   all Boundary Nodes located in domain(i) to the destination where each
   path satisfies the set of required constraints for the TE LSP
   (bandwidth, affinities, etc.).

   So a PCE needs to select Boundary Nodes (that is, ASBRs) that provide
   connectivity from the upstream AS. In order that the tree of paths
   provided by one PCE to its neighbor can be correlated, the identities
   of the ASBRs for each path need to be referenced, so the PCE must
   know the identities of the ASBRs in the remote AS reached by any
   inter-AS TE link, and, in order that it provides only suitable paths
   in the tree, the PCE must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE
   links. See the following figure as an example:

                   PCE1<------>PCE2<-------->PCE3
                   /       :             :
                  /        :             :
                R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
                        |     | \    |      / |
                        |     |  \   |  ----  |
                        |     |   \  | /      |
                R2------R4----R6   --R8------R10----R12
                           :              :
                <-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->

            Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model

   The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs(PCE1,
   PCE2, and PCE3) and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs
   in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in
   AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS path
   computation and are responsible for path segment computation within
   their own domains.

   If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
   the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and
   the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation
   request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2
   along the PCE chain to PCE3, then PCE3 begins to compute the path
   segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from
   AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments,
   PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity
   to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number) , and must
   know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way,


Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to
   its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.

   Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation the same
   information as listed in Section 2.2 is required.

3. Extensions to ISIS-TE

   Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
   of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
   form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
   does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
   recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
   information between ASes. See section 2.1.

   In this document, two new sub-TLVs are added to the extended IS
   reachability TLV to carry the information about the neighboring AS
   number and the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS link. A new TLV, which
   is referred to as inter-AS reachability TLV, is defined to flood the
   information about the neighboring AS and the remote ASBR ID within a
   whole AS.

3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV

   As described in [ISIS-TE], the Extended IS reachability TLV describes
   a single link and consists of a set of sub-TLVs. A new sub-TLV, the
   Remote AS Number sub-TLV is added to the extended IS reachability TLV
   when advertising inter-AS links. The Remote AS Number sub-TLV
   specifies the AS number of the neighboring AS to which the advertised
   link connects.

   The Remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 23 (which needs to be
   confirmed by IANA), and is four octets in length. The format is as
   follows:

    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             |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote AS Number                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only two octets are
   used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-
   order) two octets MUST be set to zero. The Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
   MUST be included when a router advertises an inter-AS TE link.


Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


3.2. Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV

   A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV, is
   added to the extended IS reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS
   links. The remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the identifier of the
   remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects, which
   could be any stable and routable address of the remote ASBR (e.g.,
   the Router ID, TE Router ID or interface address). The TE Router ID
   is RECOMMENDED.

   The Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 24 (which needs to be
   confirmed by IANA), and is four or sixteen octets in length. The
   format of the remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is as follows:

   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             |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       or

   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             |             Length            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   If a router implements traffic engineering for IPv4, the length of
   the remote ASBR ID is 4. If a router implements traffic engineering
   for IPv6, the length of the remote ASBR ID is 16. The Remote ASBR ID
   Sub-TLV MUST be included when a router advertises an inter-AS TE
   link .





Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


3.3. Inter-AS Reachability TLV

   The inter-AS reachability TLV has type 141 (which needs to be
   confirmed by IANA). This is an optional TLV, when needed, it is used
   to flood the reachability information of the inter-AS links within a
   whole AS. And such reachability information SHOULD include the
   neighboring AS number and the remote ASBR ID to which an inter-AS
   link connects. The inter-AS reachability TLV contains a data
   structure consisting of:

      6 octets of System ID
      1 octet of Pseudonode Number
      1 octet flags
         1 bit of up/down information
         1 bit indicating the presence of sub-TLVs
         6 bits reserved
      1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
      0-246 octets of sub-TLVs
         where each sub-TLV consists of a sequence of:
           1 octet of sub-type
           1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
           0-244 octets of value


   In this document, two sub-TLVs are defined for the inter-AS
   Reachability TLV, they are:

   Sub-TLV type   Length  Name
   ------------    ------  ---------------------
             23        4   Remote AS number
             24    4or16   Remote ASBR Identifier


   These two sub-TLVs have the same format and semantics as defined in
   Section 3.1 and section 3.2 of this memo.

4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links

   When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR
   SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for ISIS-TE
   [ISIS-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the
   link , the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are
   changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the
   available bandwidth changes) the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link,
   but the ASBR MUST take precautions against excessive re-
   advertisements.



Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged (and consequently, an ISIS adjacency
   MUST NOT be formed) over the inter-AS link.

   The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE
   capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status
   and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS
   number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.

   When the inter-AS reachability information needs to reach all routers
   (including area border routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the AS, the ASBR
   SHOULD carry the Remote AS sub-TLV and Remote ASBR ID sub-TLV in the
   inter-AS reachability TLV. As defined in Section 4.1 of [ISIS-TE],
   the inter-AS reachability TLV also defines an up/down bit to
   facilitate the redistribution of inter-AS reachability information
   freely between level 1 and level 2. The semantics of the up/down bit
   in the new inter-AS reachability TLV are identical to the semantics
   of the up/down bit defined in [ISIS-TE]. That is, the up/down bit
   SHALL be set to 0 when the inter-AS reachability information first
   injected into ISIS [ISIS], and the up/dawn bit SHALL be set to 1 if
   the inter-AS reachability information needs to be advertised from
   high level to low level.

   Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are
   able to ignore it because they do not know the new TLV and sub-TLVs
   that are defined in Section 3 in this document. They will continue to
   flood the LSP, but will not attempt to use the information received
   as if the link were an intra-AS TE link.

   Since there is no ISIS adjacency running on the inter-AS link, the
   local ASBR SHOULD do a "proxy" advertisement for the backward
   direction of an inter-AS TE link, which facilitates a path
   computation entity to do a 2-way check before including the link in a
   path computation. As the objective of such a "proxy" advertisement is
   to avoid using an inter-AS TE link when the backward direction of the
   inter-AS TE link is unavailable or unsuitable, only some mandatory or
   essential TE information needs to be advertised, i.e. the Link ID,
   the Link Type, and the Remote AS number of an inter-AS TE link.

   Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of
   inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that
   exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS
   through another TE link. Such paths would constitute extremely rare
   occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of
   specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the
   path.




Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


5. Security Considerations

   The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor
   and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the
   existing ISIS security mechanisms.

   There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to
   the ISIS security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since
   no ISIS adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
   requirement for ISIS security between the ASes.

   It should be noted, however, that some of the information included in
   these new advertisements(the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID)
   are obtained from a neighboring administration and cannot be verified
   in anyway. Since the means of delivery of this information is likely
   to be part of a commercial relationship, the source of the
   information should be carefully checked before it is entered as
   configuration information at the ASBR responsible for advertising the
   inter-AS TE links.

6. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries
   under its control.

6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV

   This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type that needs to
   be reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry as described in
   Section 3.3:

              Type        Description              IIH   LSP   SNP
              ----        ----------------------   ---   ---   ---
               141        Inter-AS reachability     n     y     n
                                information


6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV

   This document defines the following new sub-TLV types of top-
   level TLV 141 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
   for TLV 141 as described in Sections 3.3 and 6.1:







Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


              Type        Description                        Length
              ----        ------------------------------   --------
                23        Remote AS number                        4
                24        Remote ASBR Identifier            4 or 16


6.3. Sub-TLVs for the Extended IS Reachability TLV

   This document also defines the following new sub-TLV types of top-
   level TLV 22 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
   for TLV 22 as described in Section 3.1:

              Type        Description                        Length
              ----        ------------------------------   --------
                23        Remote AS number                        4
                24        Remote ASBR Identifier            4 or 16


7. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux,
   Christian Hopps, and Les Ginsberg for their review and comments to
   this document.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
             and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
             Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.

   [ISIS]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
             dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.



8.2. Informative References

   [INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang and Vasseur, "MPLS Inter-AS Traffic
             Engineering Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.





Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   [PD-PATH] Ayyangar, A., Vasseur, JP., and Zhang, R., "A Per-domain
             path computation method for establishing Inter-domain",
             draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp, (work in
             progress).

   [BRPC] JP. Vasseur, Ed., R. Zhang, N. Bitar, JL. Le Roux, "A Backward
             Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) procedure to compute
             shortest inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched
             Paths ", draft-ietf-pce-brpc, (work in progress)

   [PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and Ash, J., "A Path Computation
             Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC4655, August 2006.

   [ISIS-TE-V3] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and Bartlett, M., "IPv6
             Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te,
             {work in progress}.

   [ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate
             System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)",
             RFC 3784, June 2004.

   [GMPLS-TE] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support of
             Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC 4205,
             October 2005.
























Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Mach Chen
   Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
   KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
   Hai-Dian District
   Beijing, 100085
   P.R. China

   Email: mach@huawei.com


   Renhai Zhang
   Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
   KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
   Hai-Dian District
   Beijing, 100085
   P.R. China

   Email: zhangrenhai@huawei.com


   Duanxiao Dong
   China Mobile
   53A,Xibianmennei Ave,Xunwu District
   Beijing, China

   Email: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com


Intellectual Property Statement

   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.


Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     ISIS extensions for Inter-AS TE      September 2007


   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.

Disclaimer of Validity

   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.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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.

























Mach, Renhai & Duan     Expires March 6, 2008                [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/