draft-ietf-isis-layer2-11.txt   rfc6165.txt 
Network Working Group A. Banerjee Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Banerjee
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Request for Comments: 6165 Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track D. Ward Category: Standards Track D. Ward
Expires: August 13, 2011 Juniper Networks ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
February 9, 2011 April 2011
Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 Systems Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 Systems
draft-ietf-isis-layer2-11
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the Intermediate System to Intermediate This document specifies the Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) extensions necessary to support link state routing for System (IS-IS) extensions necessary to support link state routing for
any protocols running directly over Layer-2. While supporting this any protocols running directly over Layer-2. While supporting this
concept involves several pieces, this document only describes concept involves several pieces, this document only describes
extensions to IS-IS. Furthermore, the Type, Length, Value pairs extensions to IS-IS. Furthermore, the Type, Length, Value pairs
(TLVs) described in this document are generic Layer-2 additions and (TLVs) described in this document are generic Layer-2 additions, and
specific ones as needed are defined in the IS-IS technology specific specific ones as needed are defined in the IS-IS technology-specific
extensions. We leave it to the systems using these IS-IS extensions extensions. We leave it to the systems using these IS-IS extensions
to explain how the information carried in IS-IS is used. 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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 13, 2011. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6165.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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 ........................................................2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology ................................................3
2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS .......................................3
2.1. Multi Topology aware Port Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Multi-Topology-Aware Port Capability TLV ...................3
2.2. The MAC-Reachability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. The MAC-Reachability TLV ...................................4
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Acknowledgements ................................................5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Security Considerations .........................................5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. IANA Considerations .............................................5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. References ......................................................6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Normative References .......................................6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. Informative References .....................................6
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 and [OTV]) that use Layer-2 addresses carried in a link state routing
protocol, specifically Intermediate System to Intermediate System protocol, specifically Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) [IS-IS] [RFC 1195], to provide true Layer-2 routing. In [IS-IS] [RFC1195], to provide true Layer-2 routing. In almost all
almost all the technologies mentioned above, classical Layer-2 the technologies mentioned above, classical Layer-2 packets are
packets are encapsulated with an outer header. The outer header encapsulated with an outer header. The outer header format varies
format varies across all these technologies. This outer header is across all these technologies. This outer header is used to route
used to route the encapsulated packets to their destination. the encapsulated packets to their destination.
Each Intermediate System (IS) advertises one or more IS-IS Link State Each Intermediate System (IS) advertises one or more IS-IS Link State
Protocol Data Units (PDUs) with routing information. Each Link State Protocol Data Units (PDUs) with routing information. Each Link State
PDU (LSP) is composed of a fixed header and a number of tuples, each PDU (LSP) is composed of a fixed header and a number of tuples, each
consisting of a Type, a Length, and a Value. Such tuples are consisting of a Type, a Length, and a Value. Such tuples are
commonly known as TLVs. In this document we specify a set of TLVs to commonly known as TLVs. In this document, we specify a set of TLVs
be added to [IS-IS] PDUs, to support these proposed systems. The to be added to [IS-IS] PDUs, to support these proposed systems. The
TLVs are generic Layer-2 additions and specific ones, as needed, are TLVs are generic Layer-2 additions, and specific ones, as needed, are
defined in the IS-IS technology specific extensions. This draft does defined in the IS-IS technology-specific extensions. This document
not propose any new forwarding mechanisms using this additional 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 [RFC2119].
2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS 2. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS
This section specifies the enhancements for the TLVs that are needed This section specifies the enhancements for the TLVs that are needed
in common by Layer-2 technologies. in common by Layer-2 technologies.
2.1. Multi Topology aware Port Capability TLV 2.1. Multi-Topology-Aware Port Capability TLV
The Multi-Topology aware Port Capability (MT-PORT-CAP) is an IS-IS The Multi-Topology-aware Port Capability (MT-PORT-CAP) is IS-IS TLV
TLV type 143, and has the following format: type 143 and has the following format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=MTPORTCAP| (1 byte) | Type=MTPORTCAP| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte) | Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R| Topology Identifier | (2 bytes) |R|R|R|R| Topology Identifier | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLVs (variable bytes) | | sub-TLVs (variable bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: TLV Type, set to MT-PORT-CAP TLV 143. o Type: TLV Type, set to MT-PORT-CAP TLV 143.
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field, o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field,
including the length of the sub-TLVs carried in this TLV. 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 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 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 of the topology being announced. This field when set to zero
implies that it is being used to carry base topology information. 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 o Sub-TLVs: The MT-PORT-CAP TLV value contains sub-TLVs formatted as
described in [RFC 5305]. They are defined in the technology described in [RFC5305]. They are defined in the technology-
scoped documents. specific documents.
The MT-PORT-CAP TLV may occur multiple times, and is carried within a The MT-PORT-CAP TLV may occur multiple times and is carried within an
IS-IS Hello (IIH) PDU. IS-IS Hello (IIH) PDU.
2.2. The MAC-Reachability TLV 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 Media Access Control (MAC)
across all topologies or across all nicknames of the originating addresses are reachable across all topologies or across all
IS. nicknames of the originating 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: (4-bits) 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 Link State PDU (LSP). This The MAC-RI TLV is carried in a standard Link State PDU (LSP). This
TLV can be carried multiple times in an LSP and in multiple LSPs. It TLV can be carried multiple times in an LSP and in multiple LSPs. It
MUST contain only unicast addresses. The manner in which these TLVs MUST contain only unicast addresses. The manner in which these TLVs
are generated by the various Layer-2 routing technologies, and the are generated by the various Layer-2 routing technologies and the
manner they are consumed are detailed in the technology specific manner in which they are consumed are detailed in the technology-
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 and with appropriate next-
information as derived from the advertising IS. hop information as derived from the advertising IS.
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.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document specifies the definition of a set of new IS-IS TLVs, This document specifies the definition of a set of new IS-IS TLVs --
the Port-Capability TLV (type 143), and the MAC-Reachability TLV the Port-Capability TLV (type 143) and the MAC-Reachability TLV
(type 147) that needs to be reflected in the IS-IS TLV code-point (type 147). They are listed in the IS-IS TLV codepoint registry.
registry.
IIH LSP SNP IIH LSP SNP
MT-Port-Cap-TLV (143) X - - MT-Port-Cap-TLV (143) X - -
MAC-RI TLV (147) - X - MAC-RI TLV (147) - X -
6. References 6. References
6.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[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 Information
Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol
Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
8473)", 2002. (ISO 8473)", 2002.
[RFC 1195] [RFC1195] 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", RFC 1195, December 1990.
Dual Environments", 1990.
[RFC 5305] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Engineering", 2008.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
6.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[IEEE 802.1aq] [802.1aq] "Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks /
"Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 8:
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., Rao, D., and D. Farinacci, "Overlay Transport
Transport Virtualization", draft-hasmit-otv-01, 2010. Virtualization", Work in Progress, October 2010.
[RBRIDGES] [RBRIDGES]
Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A. Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", 2010. Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", Work
in Progress, March 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ayan Banerjee Ayan Banerjee
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W Tasman Drive 170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95138 San Jose, CA 95138
US USA
Email: ayabaner@cisco.com EMail: ayabaner@cisco.com
David Ward David Ward
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206 Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
USA USA
Phone: +1-408-745-2000 Phone: +1-408-745-2000
Email: dward@juniper.net EMail: dward@juniper.net
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 83 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/