draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-09.txt   draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-10.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 15 skipping to change at page 1, line 15
Expiration Date: October 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks) Expiration Date: October 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks)
J. Drake (Calient Networks) J. Drake (Calient Networks)
G. Bernstein (Ciena) G. Bernstein (Ciena)
D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks) D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
E. Mannie (GTS Network) E. Mannie (GTS Network)
D. Saha (Tellium) D. Saha (Tellium)
V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.) V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.)
IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS
draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-09.txt draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-10.txt
1. Status of this Memo 1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
skipping to change at page 2, line 8 skipping to change at page 2, line 8
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.
2. Abstract 2. Abstract
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching.
(GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
ROUTING].
3. Summary for Sub-IP Area 3. Summary for Sub-IP Area
3.1. Summary 3.1. Summary
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
ROUTING]. ROUTING].
skipping to change at page 3, line 5 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
This draft is targeted at either the CCAMP or IS-IS WGs, because this 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 draft specifies the extensions to the IS-IS routing protocols in
support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of CCAMP WG, and 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. because IS-IS is within the scope of the IS-IS WG.
3.4. Justification 3.4. Justification
The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
to the IS-IS routing protocols in support of GMPLS. to the IS-IS routing protocols in support of GMPLS.
4. Introduction 4. 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].
5. Introduction
This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in
support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to
IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
5. IS-IS Routing Enhancements 6. IS-IS Routing Enhancements
In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS TE LSAs. GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS TE LSAs.
In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS
reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically, reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically,
we add the following sub-TLVs: we add the following sub-TLVs:
1. Link Local Identifier
2. Remote Interface Identifier
3. Link Protection Type
4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The following defines the Type and Length of these sub-TLVs:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name Sub-TLV Type Length Name
4 4 Link Local Identifier 4 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers
5 4 Link Remote Identifier
20 2 Link Protection Type 20 2 Link Protection Type
21 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 21 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
We further add one new TLV to the TE LSAs. We further add one new TLV to the TE LSAs.
TLV Type Length Name TLV Type Length Name
138 variable Shared Risk Link Group 138 variable Shared Risk Link Group
5.1. Link Local Identifier 6.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers
A Link Local Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS
reachability TLV with type 4, and length 4.
5.2. Link Remote Identifier 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.
A Link Remote Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS reachability 0 1 2 3
TLV with type 5, and length 4. 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 Idenfiier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Idenfiier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Link Protection Type 6.2. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the The Link Protection Type is is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the
extended IS reachability TLV, with length two octets, the first of extended IS reachability TLV, with length two octets.
which is a bit vector describing the protection capabilities of the
link. They are: 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 0x01 Extra Traffic
0x02 Unprotected 0x02 Unprotected
0x04 Shared 0x04 Shared
0x08 Dedicated 1:1 0x08 Dedicated 1:1
0x10 Dedicated 1+1 0x10 Dedicated 1+1
0x20 Enhanced 0x20 Enhanced
0x40 Reserved 0x40 Reserved
0x80 Reserved 0x80 Reserved
5.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor The second octet SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and SHOULD be
ignored by the receiver.
The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the
extended IS reachability TLV.
6.3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type
21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of
value field in octets. The format of the value field is as shown value field in octets. The format of the value field is as shown
below: below:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 49
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 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 the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7
last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability 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, When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
the specific information includes Interface MTU and Minimum LSP the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum
Bandwidth. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer. The LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU.
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.
When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no specific 0 1 2 3
information. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the
includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, and an indication whether the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per
interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The Minimum LSP second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer.
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 specific When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching
information. Capability specific information field present.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability
than once within the extended IS reachability TLV. specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an
indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
SONET/SDH.
5.5. Shared Risk Link Group 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Indication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The proposed SRLG (of type 138 TBD) contains a new data structure The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE
consisting of: 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.
6.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV
The SRLG TLV (of type 138 TBD) contains a data structure consisting
of:
7 octets of System ID and Pseudonode Number 7 octets of System ID and Pseudonode Number
1 octet Flag 1 octet Flag
4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local
Identifier Identifier
4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote
Identifier Identifier
and a list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4 and a list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4
octets. The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values). octets. The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values).
The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the
interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All other interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All other
bits are reserved and should be set to 0. bits are reserved and should be set to 0.
5.6. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces 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.
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|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see Section
"Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).
6.5. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces
Link Identifies are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field Link Identifies are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field
of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type
[ISIS-3way]. [ISIS-3way].
6. Implications on Graceful Restart 7. Implications on Graceful Restart
The restarting node should follow the ISIS restart procedures [ISIS- The restarting node should follow the ISIS restart procedures [ISIS-
RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
When the restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, these When the restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, these
LSAs should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, and if the LSAs should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, and if the
Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as 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 Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of
unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved
resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already
established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the
node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs. node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs.
In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the
restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs with 0 as unreserved restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs with 0 as unreserved
bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability
then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. 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 Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual
unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.
Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE
topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA
or TE topology changes. or TE topology changes.
7. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The extensions proposed in this document does not raise any new The extensions proposed in this document does not raise any new
security concerns. security concerns.
8. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and
Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.
9. References 10. References
[ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", Engineering",
draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress) draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-SIG] Generalized MPLS Group, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling [GMPLS-SIG] Generalized MPLS Group, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling
Functional Functional
Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work
in progress) in progress)
skipping to change at page 9, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 35
Adjacencies", Adjacencies",
draft-ietf-isis-3way-05.txt (work in progress) draft-ietf-isis-3way-05.txt (work in progress)
[ISIS-RESTART] "Restart signaling for ISIS", draft-ietf-isis- [ISIS-RESTART] "Restart signaling for ISIS", draft-ietf-isis-
restart-00.txt restart-00.txt
(work in progress) (work in progress)
[GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", [GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions",
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress) draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress)
10. Authors' Information [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11. Authors' Information
Kireeti Kompella Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/