draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-03.txt   draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04.txt 
Network working group M. Chen Network working group M. Chen
Internet Draft Renhai Zhang Internet Draft Renhai Zhang
Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Created: August 25, 2008 Xiaodong Duan Created: September 4, 2008 Xiaodong Duan
Expires: February 25, 2009 China Mobile Expires: March 4, 2009 China Mobile
ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-03.txt draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is 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 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 becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79. BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 25, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol to This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol to
support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems
(ASes). It defines ISIS-TE extensions for the flooding of TE (ASes). It defines ISIS-TE extensions for the flooding of TE
information about inter-AS links which can be used to perform inter- information about inter-AS links which can be used to perform inter-
AS TE path computation. AS TE path computation.
skipping to change at page 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 16
is proposed or defined in this document. is proposed or defined in this document.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction.................................................2 1. Introduction................................................ 2
2. Problem Statement............................................3 2. Problem Statement .......................................... 3
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives................................4 2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives............................... 4
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4 2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination.......................... 4
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................6 2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.................... 6
3. Extensions to ISIS-TE........................................7 3. Extensions to ISIS-TE....................................... 7
3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV...............................8 3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV.............................. 8
3.2. TE Router ID............................................9 3.2. TE Router ID .......................................... 9
3.3. Sub-TLV Detail.........................................10 3.3. Sub-TLV Detail........................................ 10
3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV..........................10 3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV......................... 10
3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV.......................11 3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV...................... 11
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV.......................11 3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV...................... 11
3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV.........................12 3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV........................ 12
3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV.........................13 3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV........................ 13
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links.............................13 4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links............................ 13
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information.......................15 4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information...................... 15
5. Security Considerations.....................................15 5. Security Considerations.................................... 15
6. IANA Considerations.........................................16 6. IANA Considerations........................................ 16
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV..............................16 6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV............................. 16
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV.............16 6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV............ 16
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV...........17 6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV.......... 17
7. Acknowledgments.............................................17 7. Acknowledgments............................................ 17
8. References..................................................17 8. References................................................. 17
8.1. Normative References...................................17 8.1. Normative References.................................. 17
8.2. Informative References.................................18 8.2. Informative References................................ 18
Authors' Addresses.............................................19 Authors' Addresses............................................ 19
Intellectual Property Statement................................19 Intellectual Property Statement .............................. 19
Disclaimer of Validity.........................................20 Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 20
Copyright Statement............................................20 Copyright Statement........................................... 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[ISIS-TE] defines extensions to the ISIS protocol [ISIS] to support [ISIS-TE] defines extensions to the ISIS protocol [ISIS] to support
intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of
encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
(TE links) and flooding this information within an area. The (TE links) and flooding this information within an area. The
Extended IS Reachability TLV and Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV, Extended IS Reachability TLV and Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV,
which are defined in [ISIS-TE], are used to carry such TE which are defined in [ISIS-TE], are used to carry such TE
information. The Extended IS Reachability TLV has several nested information. The Extended IS Reachability TLV has several nested
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 12
The Router ID field of the Inter-AS Reachability TLV is four octets The Router ID field of the Inter-AS Reachability TLV is four octets
in length, which contains the Router ID of the router who generates in length, which contains the Router ID of the router who generates
the Inter-AS Reachability TLV. The Router ID MUST be unique within the Inter-AS Reachability TLV. The Router ID MUST be unique within
the ISIS area. If the router generates Inter-AS Reachability TLV the ISIS area. If the router generates Inter-AS Reachability TLV
with entire ISIS routing domain flooding scope, then the Router ID with entire ISIS routing domain flooding scope, then the Router ID
MUST also be unique within the entire ISIS routing domain. The MUST also be unique within the entire ISIS routing domain. The
Router ID could be used to indicate the source of the Inter-AS Router ID could be used to indicate the source of the Inter-AS
Reachability TLV. Reachability TLV.
The flooding procedures for Inter-AS Reachability TLV are identical The flooding procedures for Inter-AS Reachability TLV are identical
to the flooding procedures for the GNINFO TLV which are defined in to the flooding procedures for the GENINFO TLV which are defined in
the Section 4 of [GENINFO]. These procedures have been previously the Section 4 of [GENINFO]. These procedures have been previously
discussed in [ISIS-CAP]. The flooding-scope bit (S bit) SHOULD be discussed in [ISIS-CAP]. The flooding-scope bit (S bit) SHOULD be
set to 0 if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single set to 0 if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single
IGP area to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be set to 1 if the IGP area to which the ASBR belongs, or MAY be set to 1 if the
information is intended to reach all routers (including area border information is intended to reach all routers (including area border
routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the entire ISIS routing domain. The routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the entire ISIS routing domain. The
choice between the use of 0 or 1 is an AS-wide policy choice, and choice between the use of 0 or 1 is an AS-wide policy choice, and
configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations
that supports the advertisement of inter-AS TE links. that supports the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
skipping to change at page 16, line 43 skipping to change at page 16, line 43
Type Description Length Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ -------- ---- ------------------------------ --------
23 Remote AS number 4 23 Remote AS number 4
24 IPv4 Remote ASBR Identifier 4 24 IPv4 Remote ASBR Identifier 4
25 IPv6 Remote ASBR Identifier 16 25 IPv6 Remote ASBR Identifier 16
As described above in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs which are defined in As described above in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs which are defined in
[ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3] and other documents for describing the TE [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3] and other documents for describing the TE
properties of an TE link are applicable to describe an inter-AS TE properties of an TE link are applicable to describe an inter-AS TE
link and MAY be included in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV when link and MAY be included in the Inter-AS Reachability TLV when
adverting inter-AS TE links. So, these sub-TLVs need to be adverting inter-AS TE links. And it's possible that some sub-TLVs
registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 141. And in order to may be defined for inclusion in both TLV 22 and TLV 141 in the
simplify the registration, we suggest using the same registry value future. It's better if these sub-TLVs have the same registry value
as they are registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 22. no matter where they are included in TLV 22 or TLV 141. The same
condition will occur when these sub-TLVs need to be included in TLV
Type Description 222. So, in order to simplify the registration and reduce the
---- ------------------------------ potential code point conflict, this document suggests that TLV 22,
3 Administrative group (color) [ISIS-TE] TLV 141 and TLV 222 share the same sub-TLV registry. The proposal is
4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers [GMPLS-TE] that change the current Registry Name from "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22" to
6 IPv4 interface address [ISIS-TE] "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141 and 222" and add three columns ("May be
9 Maximum link bandwidth [ISIS-TE] present on TLV 22","May be present on TLV 141" and "May be present
10 Reservable link bandwidth [ISIS-TE] on TLV 222") to the registry for indicating whether a specific sub-
11 Unreserved bandwidth [ISIS-TE] TLV may be present on the TLV.
12 IPv6 Interface Address [ISIS-TE-V3]
18 TE Default metric [ISIS-TE]
19 Link-attributes [RFC5029]
20 Link Protection Type [GMPLS-TE]
21 Interface Switching Capability Descriptor [GMPLS-TE]
22 Bandwidth Constraints [RFC4124]
Because sub-TLVs defined for TLV 22 can be advertised in the Inter-
AS Reachability TLV, the new sub-TLVs defined in this document
SHOULD NOT conflict with existing and/or future sub-TLV definitions
for TLV 22. Therefore the new sub-TLVs MUST be defined from a sub-
TLV registry which is shared by these two TLVs.
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV 6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in
Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, of top-level TLV 242 (which is defined in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, of top-level TLV 242 (which is defined in
[ISIS-CAP]) that need to be registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry [ISIS-CAP]) that need to be registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
for TLV 242: for TLV 242:
Type Description Length Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ -------- ---- ------------------------------ --------
11 IPv4 TE Router ID 4 11 IPv4 TE Router ID 4
12 IPv6 TE Router ID 16 12 IPv6 TE Router ID 16
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux, The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux,
Christian Hopps, and Les Ginsberg for their review and comments on Christian Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler for their review
this document. and comments on this document.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
skipping to change at page 18, line 47 skipping to change at page 18, line 37
Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te, Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te,
{work in progress}. {work in progress}.
[GMPLS-TE] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support of [GMPLS-TE] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC 4205, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC 4205,
October 2005. October 2005.
[BGP] Rekhter, Li, Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", [BGP] Rekhter, Li, Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
RFC4271, January 2006. RFC4271, January 2006.
[RFC5029] Vasseur, JP., and Previdi, S., "Definition of an IS-IS
Link Attribute Sub-TLV", RFC5029, September 2007.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F. "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June
2005.
[GENINFO] L. Ginsberg., S. Previdi., and M. Shand., "Advertising [GENINFO] L. Ginsberg., S. Previdi., and M. Shand., "Advertising
Generic Information in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-genapp, Generic Information in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-genapp,
(work in progress). (work in progress).
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd., KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
Hai-Dian District Hai-Dian District
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 49 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/