--- 1/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-03.txt 2008-09-05 03:12:15.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04.txt 2008-09-05 03:12:15.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ Network working group M. Chen Internet Draft Renhai Zhang Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd -Created: August 25, 2008 Xiaodong Duan -Expires: February 25, 2009 China Mobile +Created: September 4, 2008 Xiaodong Duan +Expires: March 4, 2009 China Mobile ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS Multiprotocol Label Switching (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 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 @@ -26,21 +26,21 @@ 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 January 25, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2009. Abstract This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol 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. @@ -48,49 +48,49 @@ is proposed or defined in this document. 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................................4 - 2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination...........................4 - 2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.....................6 - 3. Extensions to ISIS-TE........................................7 - 3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV...............................8 - 3.2. TE Router ID............................................9 - 3.3. Sub-TLV Detail.........................................10 - 3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV..........................10 - 3.3.2. IPv4 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 - 3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV.........................13 - 4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links.............................13 - 4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information.......................15 - 5. Security Considerations.....................................15 - 6. IANA Considerations.........................................16 - 6.1. 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 - 7. Acknowledgments.............................................17 - 8. References..................................................17 - 8.1. Normative References...................................17 - 8.2. Informative References.................................18 - Authors' Addresses.............................................19 - Intellectual Property Statement................................19 - Disclaimer of Validity.........................................20 - Copyright Statement............................................20 + 1. Introduction................................................ 2 + 2. Problem Statement .......................................... 3 + 2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives............................... 4 + 2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination.......................... 4 + 2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation.................... 6 + 3. Extensions to ISIS-TE....................................... 7 + 3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV.............................. 8 + 3.2. TE Router ID .......................................... 9 + 3.3. Sub-TLV Detail........................................ 10 + 3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV......................... 10 + 3.3.2. IPv4 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 + 3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV........................ 13 + 4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links............................ 13 + 4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information...................... 15 + 5. Security Considerations.................................... 15 + 6. IANA Considerations........................................ 16 + 6.1. 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 + 7. Acknowledgments............................................ 17 + 8. References................................................. 17 + 8.1. Normative References.................................. 17 + 8.2. Informative References................................ 18 + Authors' Addresses............................................ 19 + Intellectual Property Statement .............................. 19 + Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 20 + Copyright Statement........................................... 20 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 @@ -359,21 +359,21 @@ 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 the Inter-AS Reachability TLV. The Router ID MUST be unique within the ISIS area. If the router generates Inter-AS Reachability TLV with entire ISIS routing domain flooding scope, then the Router ID MUST also be unique within the entire ISIS routing domain. The Router ID could be used to indicate the source of the Inter-AS Reachability TLV. 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 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 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 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 configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations that supports the advertisement of inter-AS TE links. @@ -702,63 +702,51 @@ Type Description Length ---- ------------------------------ -------- 23 Remote AS number 4 24 IPv4 Remote ASBR Identifier 4 25 IPv6 Remote ASBR Identifier 16 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 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 - adverting inter-AS TE links. So, these sub-TLVs need to be - registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 141. And in order to - simplify the registration, we suggest using the same registry value - as they are registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 22. - - Type Description - ---- ------------------------------ - 3 Administrative group (color) [ISIS-TE] - 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers [GMPLS-TE] - 6 IPv4 interface address [ISIS-TE] - 9 Maximum link bandwidth [ISIS-TE] - 10 Reservable link bandwidth [ISIS-TE] - 11 Unreserved bandwidth [ISIS-TE] - 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. + adverting inter-AS TE links. And it's possible that some sub-TLVs + may be defined for inclusion in both TLV 22 and TLV 141 in the + future. It's better if these sub-TLVs have the same registry value + 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 + 222. So, in order to simplify the registration and reduce the + potential code point conflict, this document suggests that TLV 22, + TLV 141 and TLV 222 share the same sub-TLV registry. The proposal is + that change the current Registry Name from "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22" to + "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22, 141 and 222" and add three columns ("May be + present on TLV 22","May be present on TLV 141" and "May be present + on TLV 222") to the registry for indicating whether a specific sub- + TLV may be present on the TLV. 6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV 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 [ISIS-CAP]) that need to be registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 242: Type Description Length ---- ------------------------------ -------- 11 IPv4 TE Router ID 4 12 IPv6 TE Router ID 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 on - this document. + Christian Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler for their review + and comments on 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 @@ -795,27 +783,20 @@ Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-te, {work in progress}. [GMPLS-TE] K.Kompella and Y.Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC 4205, October 2005. [BGP] Rekhter, Li, Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", 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 Generic Information in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-genapp, (work in progress). Authors' Addresses Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd., Hai-Dian District