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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 RFC 4205

Network Working Group                               K. Kompella (Editor)
Internet Draft                                      Y. Rekhter  (Editor)
Category: Informational                                 Juniper Networks
Expires: June 2003                                         December 2002


            IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS

                draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-16.txt


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.















Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 1]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


Abstract

   This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing
   protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.


Summary for Sub-IP Area

   (To be removed before publication)

0.1. Summary

   This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing
   protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (GMPLS).  The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
   ROUTING].

0.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work

   This work fits squarely in either CCAMP or IS-IS boxes.

0.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG

   This draft is targeted at either the CCAMP or IS-IS WGs, because this
   draft specifies the extensions to the IS-IS routing protocols in
   support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of CCAMP WG, and
   because IS-IS is within the scope of the IS-IS WG.

0.4. Justification

   The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
   to the IS-IS routing protocols in support of GMPLS.


1. Specification of Requirements

   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].












Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 2]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


2. 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].


3. IS-IS Routing Enhancements

   In this section we define the enhancements to the 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    Shared Risk Link Group

3.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers

   A Link Local Interface Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the extended IS
   reachability TLV.  The type of this sub-TLV is 4, and length is eight
   octets.  The value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link
   Local Identifier followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see
   Section "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.










Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 3]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


       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 Idenfitiers sub-TLV occurs more than once within the
   extended IS reachability TLV, the receiver SHOULD ignore all these
   sub-TLVs.

3.2. Link Protection Type

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




Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 4]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


   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.

3.3. 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
   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)



Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 5]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


           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 LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
   the IEEE floating point format, 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 is encoded in a 4 octets field in the
   IEEE floating point format.  The units are bytes (not bits!) per
   second.  The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets 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.

       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  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 6]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


   The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets 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 "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.


3.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV

   The SRLG TLV (of type 138 TBD) 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.

















Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 7]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


       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 neighbors 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
   "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.

3.5. 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].












Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 8]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


4. Implications on Graceful Restart

   The restarting node SHOULD follow the ISIS 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, and if the link has LSC
   or FSC as its Switching Capability then also 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, and if the link
   has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max
   LSP Bandwidth.  This would discourage new LSP establishment through
   the restarting router.

   Neighbors of the restarting node SHOULD continue advertise the actual
   unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.


5. Normative References

   [GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., and Rekhter, Y. (Editors), "Routing
       Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", (work in progress)

   [GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L. (Editors), "Generalized MPLS Signaling -
       RSVP-TE Extensions", (work in progress)

   [GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
       Functional Description", (work in progress)

   [ISIS-3way] Katz, D., and Saluja, R., "Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS
       Point-to-Point Adjacencies", (work in progress)

   [ISIS-RESTART] Shand, M., "Restart signaling for ISIS", (work in
       progress)

   [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic



Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                     [Page 9]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


       Engineering", (work in progress)

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


6. Security Considerations

   The extensions proposed in this document do not raise any new
   security concerns.


7. Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Jim Gibson, Suresh Katukam, Jonathan
   Lang and Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.


8. 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: (408) 972-3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net


Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: (408) 366-4713
Email: greg@ciena.com









Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                    [Page 10]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002



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
E-mail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com


Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: (732) 923-4264
Email: dsaha@tellium.com


Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1 408-943-1794
Email: v.sharma@ieee.org


9. Authors' Information


Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net


Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: yakov@juniper.net





Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                    [Page 11]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


10. Intellectual Property Rights Notices

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied, published and
   distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
   provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the  purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                    [Page 12]


Internet Draft         IS-IS Extensions for GMPLS          December 2002


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

















































Kompella, Rekhter, Editors    Informational                    [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/