draft-ietf-isis-layer2-09.txt   draft-ietf-isis-layer2-10.txt 
Network Working Group A. Banerjee Network Working Group A. Banerjee
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward
Expires: June 23, 2011 Juniper Networks Expires: July 31, 2011 Juniper Networks
December 20, 2010 January 27, 2011
Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 Systems Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 Systems
draft-ietf-isis-layer2-09 draft-ietf-isis-layer2-10
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the IS-IS extensions necessary to support This document specifies the Intermediate System to Intermediate
link state routing for any protocols running directly over layer 2. System (IS-IS) extensions necessary to support link state routing for
While supporting this concept involves several pieces, this document any protocols running directly over Layer-2. While supporting this
only describes extensions to IS-IS. Furthermore, the TLVs described concept involves several pieces, this document only describes
in this document are generic layer 2 additions and specific ones as extensions to IS-IS. Furthermore, the Type, Length, Value pairs
needed are defined in the IS-IS technology specific extensions. We (TLVs) described in this document are generic Layer-2 additions and
leave it to the systems using these IS-IS extensions to explain how specific ones as needed are defined in the IS-IS technology specific
the information carried in IS-IS is used. extensions. We leave it to the systems using these IS-IS extensions
to explain how the information carried in IS-IS is used.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 31, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The MAC-Reachability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Multi Topology aware Port Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Multi Topology aware Port Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. The MAC-Reachability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Overview 1. Overview
There are a number of systems (for example, [RBRIDGES], [802.1aq], There are a number of systems (for example, [RBRIDGES], [802.1aq],
[OTV]) that use layer 2 addresses carried in a link state routing [OTV]) that use Layer-2 addresses carried in a link state routing
protocol, specifically IS-IS [IS-IS] [RFC1195], to provide true layer protocol, specifically Intermediate System to Intermediate System
2 routing. In almost all the technologies mentioned above, classical (IS-IS) [IS-IS] [RFC 1195], to provide true Layer-2 routing. In
Layer 2 packets are encapsulated with an outer header. The outer almost all the technologies mentioned above, classical Layer-2
header format varies across all these technologies. This outer packets are encapsulated with an outer header. The outer header
header is used to route the encapsulated packets to their format varies across all these technologies. This outer header is
destination. used to route the encapsulated packets to their destination.
In this document we specify a set of TLVs to be added to [IS-IS] Each Intermediate System (IS) advertises one or more IS-IS Link State
level 1 PDUs, to support these proposed systems. The TLVs are Protocol Data Units (PDUs) with routing information. Each Link State
generic layer 2 additions and specific ones as needed are defined in PDU (LSP) is composed of a fixed header and a number of tuples, each
the IS-IS technology specific extensions. This draft does not consisting of a Type, a Length, and a Value. Such tuples are
propose any new forwarding mechanisms using this additional commonly known as TLVs. In this document we specify a set of TLVs to
be added to [IS-IS] level 1 PDUs, to support these proposed systems.
The TLVs are generic Layer-2 additions and specific ones, as needed,
are defined in the IS-IS technology specific extensions. This draft
does not propose any new forwarding mechanisms using this additional
information carried within IS-IS. information carried within IS-IS.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
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. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS 2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS
In this section we specify the enhancements for the TLVs that are This section specifies the enhancements for the TLVs that are needed
needed in common by Layer-2 technologies. in common by Layer-2 technologies.
2.1. The MAC-Reachability TLV 2.1. Multi Topology aware Port Capability TLV
The Multi-Topology aware Port Capability (MT-PORT-CAP) is an IS-IS
TLV type 143, and has the following format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=MTPORTCAP| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R| Topology Identifier | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLVs (variable bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: TLV Type, set to MT-PORT-CAP TLV 143.
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field,
including the length of the sub-TLVs carried in this TLV.
o R: Reserved 4-bits, MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
o Topology Identifier: MT ID is a 12-bit field containing the MT ID
of the topology being announced. This field when set to zero
implies that it is being used to carry base topology information.
o sub-TLVs: The MT-PORT-CAP TLV value contains sub-TLVs formatted as
described in [RFC 5305]. They are defined in the technology
scoped documents.
The MT-PORT-CAP TLV may occur multiple times, and is carried only
within a IS-IS Hello (IIH) PDU.
2.2. The MAC-Reachability TLV
The MAC-Reachability (MAC-RI) TLV is IS-IS TLV type 147 and has the The MAC-Reachability (MAC-RI) TLV is IS-IS TLV type 147 and has the
following format: following format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type= MAC-RI | (1 byte) | Type= MAC-RI | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte) | Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Topology-Id/ Nickname | (2 bytes) | Topology-Id/ Nickname | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Confidence | (1 byte) | Confidence | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESV | VLAN-ID | (2 bytes) | RESV | VLAN-ID | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (1) (6 bytes) | | MAC (1) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ................. | | ................. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (N) (6 bytes) | | MAC (N) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: TLV Type, set to 147 (MAC-RI). o Type: TLV Type, set to 147 (MAC-RI).
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field given o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field given
by 5 + 6*n bytes. by 5 + 6*n bytes.
o Topology-Id/Nickname : Depending on the technology in which it is o Topology-Id/Nickname : Depending on the technology in which it is
used, this carries the topology-id or nickname. When this field used, this carries the topology-id or nickname. When this field
is set to zero this implies that the MAC addresses are reachable is set to zero this implies that the MAC addresses are reachable
across all topologies or across all nicknames of the originating across all topologies or across all nicknames of the originating
IS. IS.
o Confidence: This carries an 8-bit quantity indicating the o Confidence: This carries an 8-bit quantity indicating the
confidence level in the MAC addresses being transported. Whether confidence level in the MAC addresses being transported. Whether
this field is used, and its semantics if used, are further defined this field is used, and its semantics if used, are further defined
by the specific protocol using Layer-2-IS-IS. If not used, it by the specific protocol using Layer-2 IS-IS. If not used, it
MUST be set to zero on transmission and be ignored on receipt. MUST be set to zero on transmission and be ignored on receipt.
o RESV: MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. o RESV: (4-bits) MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
o VLAN-ID: This carries a 12-bit VLAN identifier that is valid for o VLAN-ID: This carries a 12-bit VLAN identifier that is valid for
all subsequent MAC addresses in this TLV, or the value zero if no all subsequent MAC addresses in this TLV, or the value zero if no
VLAN is specified. VLAN is specified.
o MAC(i): This is the 48-bit MAC address reachable from the IS that o MAC(i): This is the 48-bit MAC address reachable from the IS that
is announcing this TLV. is announcing this TLV.
The MAC-RI TLV is carried in a standard Level 1 link state PDU (LSP). The MAC-RI TLV is carried in a standard Level 1 link state PDU (LSP).
This TLV can be carried multiple times in an LSP and in multiple This TLV can be carried multiple times in an LSP and in multiple
LSPs. It MUST contain only unicast addresses. The manner in which LSPs. It MUST contain only unicast addresses. The manner in which
these TLVs are generated by the various Layer 2 routing technologies, these TLVs are generated by the various Layer-2 routing technologies,
and the manner they are consumed are detailed in the technology and the manner they are consumed are detailed in the technology
specific documents. specific documents.
In most of the technologies, these MAC-RI TLVs will translate to In most of the technologies, these MAC-RI TLVs will translate to
populating the hardware with these entries with appropriate next-hop populating the hardware with these entries with appropriate next-hop
information as derived from the advertising IS. information as derived from the advertising IS.
2.2. Multi Topology aware Port Capability TLV
The Multi Topology aware Port Capability (MT-PORT-CAP) is an IS-IS
TLV type 143 [TBD], and has the following format:
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=MT PORTCAP| Length |R|R|R|R| Topology Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLVs |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: TLV Type, set to MT-PORT-CAP TLV 143 [TBD].
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field,
including the length of the sub-TLVs carried in this TLV.
o R: Reserved, MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
o Topology Identifier: MT ID is a 12-bit field containing the MT ID
of the topology being announced. This field when set to zero
implies that it is being used to carry base topology information.
o sub-TLVs: The MT aware Port Capabilities TLV value contains sub-
TLVs formatted as described in [RFC5305]. They are defined in the
technology scoped documents.
The MT-PORT-CAP TLV may occur multiple times, and is carried only
within a IIH PDU.
3. Acknowledgements 3. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Peter Ashwood-Smith, Donald E. The authors would like to thank Peter Ashwood-Smith, Donald E.
Eastlake 3rd, Dino Farinacci, Don Fedyk, Les Ginsberg, Radia Perlman, Eastlake 3rd, Dino Farinacci, Don Fedyk, Les Ginsberg, Radia Perlman,
Mike Shand, and Russ White for their useful comments. Mike Shand, and Russ White for their useful comments.
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
This document adds no additional security risks to IS-IS, nor does it This document adds no additional security risks to IS-IS, nor does it
provide any additional security for IS-IS. provide any additional security for IS-IS.
skipping to change at page 9, line 19 skipping to change at page 10, line 19
[IS-IS] ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Intermediate System [IS-IS] ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Intermediate System
to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Exchange to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Exchange
Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for
Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO
8473)", 2002. 8473)", 2002.
[RFC 1195] [RFC 1195]
Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and
Dual Environments", 1990. Dual Environments", 1990.
[RFC 5305]
Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", 2008.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[IEEE 802.1aq] [IEEE 802.1aq]
"Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / "Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks /
Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 9: Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 9:
Shortest Path Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D1.5", 2008. Shortest Path Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D1.5", 2008.
[OTV] Grover, H., Farinacci, D., and D. Rao, "OTV: Overlay [OTV] Grover, H., Farinacci, D., and D. Rao, "OTV: Overlay
Transport Virtualization", draft-hasmit-otv-00, 2010. Transport Virtualization", draft-hasmit-otv-01, 2010.
[RBRIDGES] [RBRIDGES]
Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A. Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", 2010. Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W Tasman Drive 170 W Tasman Drive
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
78 lines changed or deleted 90 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/