draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-05.txt   rfc6232.txt 
IS-IS Working Group F. Wei Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Wei
Internet-Draft Y. Qin Request for Comments: 6232 Y. Qin
Updates: 5301 5304 5310 Z. Li Updates: 5301, 5304, 5310 Z. Li
(if approved) China Mobile Category: Standards Track China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track T. Li ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Li
Expires: April 27, 2011 Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Dong J. Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
October 24, 2010 May 2011
Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-05
Abstract Abstract
At present an IS-IS purge does not contain any information At present, an IS-IS purge does not contain any information
identifying the Intermediate System (IS) that generates the purge. identifying the Intermediate System (IS) that generates the purge.
This makes it difficult to locate the source IS. This makes it difficult to locate the source IS.
To address this issue, this document defines a TLV to be added to To address this issue, this document defines a TLV to be added to
purges to record the system ID of the IS generating it. Since normal purges to record the system ID of the IS generating it. Since normal
LSP flooding does not change LSP contents, this TLV should propagate Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) flooding does not change LSP
with the purge. contents, this TLV should propagate with the purge.
Status of this Memo This document updates RFC 5301, RFC 5304, and RFC 5310.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
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 April 27, 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/rfc6232.
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Requirements Language ...........................................3
3. The Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV . . . . . . . . . 3 3. The Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV ...................3
4. Using the Dynamic Hostname TLV in Purges . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Using the Dynamic Hostname TLV in Purges ........................3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations .........................................4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations .............................................4
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. Acknowledgments .................................................4
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Normative References ............................................4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IS-IS [ISO 10589] routing protocol has been widely used in large- The IS-IS [ISO-10589] routing protocol has been widely used in large-
scale IP networks because of its strong scalability and fast scale IP networks because of its strong scalability and fast
convergence. convergence.
The IS-IS protocol floods purges throughout an area, regardless of The IS-IS protocol floods purges throughout an area, regardless of
which IS initiated the purge. If a network operator would like to which IS initiated the purge. If a network operator would like to
investigate the cause of the purge, it is difficult to determine the investigate the cause of the purge, it is difficult to determine the
origin of the purge. At present the IS-IS protocol has no mechanism origin of the purge. At present, the IS-IS protocol has no mechanism
to locate the originator of a purge. To address this problem, this to locate the originator of a purge. To address this problem, this
document defines a TLV to be added to purges to record the system ID document defines a TLV to be added to purges to record the system ID
of the IS generating the purge. of the IS generating the purge.
Field experience has observed several circumstances where an IS can Field experience has shown several circumstances where an IS can
improperly generate a purge. These are all due to implementation improperly generate a purge. These are all due to implementation
deficiencies or implementations that predate [ISO TC1] and generate a deficiencies or implementations that predate [ISO-TC1] and generate a
purge when they receive a corrupted LSP. purge when they receive a corrupted Link State Protocol Data Unit
(LSP).
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. The Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV 3. The Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV
This document defines a TLV to be included in purges. If an IS This document defines a TLV to be included in purges. If an IS
generates a purge, it SHOULD include this TLV in the purge with its generates a purge, it SHOULD include this TLV in the purge with its
own system ID. If an IS receives a purge that does not include this own system ID. If an IS receives a purge that does not include this
TLV, then it SHOULD add this TLV with both its own system ID and the TLV, then it SHOULD add this TLV with both its own system ID and the
system ID of the IS that it received the purge from. This allows ISs system ID of the IS from which it received the purge. This allows
receiving purges to log the system ID of the originator, or the ISs receiving purges to log the system ID of the originator, or the
upstream source of the purge. This makes it much easier for the upstream source of the purge. This makes it much easier for the
network administrator to locate the origin of the purge and thus the network administrator to locate the origin of the purge and thus the
cause of the purge. Similarly, this TLV is helpful to developers in cause of the purge. Similarly, this TLV is helpful to developers in
lab situations. lab situations.
The POI TLV is defined as: The POI TLV is defined as:
CODE - 13 CODE - 13
LENGTH - total length of the value field. LENGTH - total length of the value field.
VALUE - VALUE -
Number of system IDs carried in this TLV (1 octet) -- Only the
values 1 and 2 are defined.
System ID of the Intermediate System that inserted this TLV. Number of system IDs carried in this TLV (1 octet) -- only the
values 1 and 2 are defined.
System ID of the Intermediate System that the purge was received System ID of the Intermediate System that inserted this TLV.
from. (optional)
System ID of the Intermediate System from which the purge was
received (optional).
The POI TLV SHOULD be found in all purges and MUST NOT be found in The POI TLV SHOULD be found in all purges and MUST NOT be found in
LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime. LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime.
4. Using the Dynamic Hostname TLV in Purges 4. Using the Dynamic Hostname TLV in Purges
This document also extends the use of the Dynamic hostname TLV (type This document also extends the use of the Dynamic hostname TLV
137) [RFC5301] to further aid in the rapid identification of the (type 137) [RFC5301] to further aid in the rapid identification of
system that generated the purge. This TLV MAY be included in purges. the system that generated the purge. This TLV MAY be included in
Implementations SHOULD include one instance of Dynamic hostname TLV purges. Implementations SHOULD include one instance of the Dynamic
if the POI TLV is included. Only the local hostname should be hostname TLV if the POI TLV is included. Only the local hostname
inserted. should be inserted.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Use of the extensions defined here with authentication as defined in Use of the extensions defined here, with authentication as defined in
[RFC5304] or [RFC5310] will result in the discarding of purges by [RFC5304] or [RFC5310], will result in the discarding of purges by
legacy systems which are in strict conformance with either of those legacy systems that are in strict conformance with either of those
RFCs. This may compromise the correctness/consistency of the routing RFCs. This may compromise the correctness/consistency of the routing
database unless all ISs in the network support these extensions. database unless all ISs in the network support these extensions.
Therefore, all implementations in a domain implementing Therefore, all implementations in a domain implementing
authentication MUST be upgraded to receive the POI TLV before any IS authentication MUST be upgraded to receive the POI TLV before any IS
is allowed to generate a purge with the POI TLV. is allowed to generate a purge with the POI TLV.
More interactions between the POI TLV, the Dynamic hostname TLV, and More interactions between the POI TLV, the Dynamic hostname TLV, and
the Authentication TLV are described in [I-D.ietf-isis-reg-purge]. the Authentication TLV are described in [RFC6233].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA assign code point 13 for the 'Purge IANA has assigned code point 13 for the 'Purge Originator
Originator Identification' TLV from the IS-IS 'TLV Codepoints Identification' TLV from the IS-IS 'TLV Codepoints' registry. The
Registry'. The additional values for this TLV should be: IIH:n, additional values for this TLV should be IIH:n, LSP:y, SNP:n, and
LSP:y, SNP:n, Purge:y. Purge:y.
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Adrian Farrel and Daniel King for your comments to Many thanks to Adrian Farrel and Daniel King for their comments to
improve this document and move it forward. improve this document and move it forward.
The first version of this document was mainly composed by Lianyuan The first version of this document was mainly composed by
Li. Lianyuan Li.
Acknowledgments to the discussion in the mailing list. Some Acknowledgments are given to the discussion in the mailing list.
improvements of this document are based on the discussion. Some improvements to this document are based on the discussion.
8. Normative References 8. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-reg-purge] [ISO-10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system
Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for
Purges", draft-ietf-isis-reg-purge-00 (work in progress), use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the
October 2010. connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)",
ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
[ISO 10589] [ISO-TC1] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system
ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473) --
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002. Technical Corrigendum 1", ISO/IEC 10589:1992/
Cor.1:1993.
[ISO TC1] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473) --
Technical Corrigendum 1", ISO/IEC 10589:1992/ Cor.1:1993.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, October 2008.
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, October 2008. Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008. and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., [RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011.
Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fang Wei Fang Wei
China Mobile China Mobile
No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District
Beijing 100032 Beijing 100032
P.R. China P.R. China
Email: weifang@chinamobile.com EMail: weifang@chinamobile.com
Yue Qin Yue Qin
China Mobile China Mobile
No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District
Beijing 100032 Beijing 100032
P.R. China P.R. China
Email: qinyue@chinamobile.com EMail: qinyue@chinamobile.com
Zhenqiang Li Zhenqiang Li
China Mobile China Mobile
Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xuanwu District
Beijing 100053 Beijing 100053
P.R. China P.R. China
Email: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com EMail: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Tony Li Tony Li
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 W. Tasman Dr. 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134 San Jose, CA 95134
USA USA
Email: tony.li@tony.li EMail: tony.li@tony.li
Jie Dong Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd., Haidian District KuiKe Building, No. 9 Xinxi Rd., Haidian District
Beijing 100085 Beijing 100085
P.R. China P.R. China
Email: dongjie_dj@huawei.com EMail: dongjie_dj@huawei.com
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
96 lines changed or deleted 94 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/