draft-ietf-isis-reg-purge-01.txt   rfc6233.txt 
IS-IS Working Group T. Li Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Li
Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg Request for Comments: 6233 L. Ginsberg
Updates: 3563 5304 5310 Cisco Systems, Inc. Updates: 3563, 5304, 5310 Cisco Systems, Inc.
(if approved) March 1, 2011 Category: Standards Track May 2011
Intended status: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721
Expires: September 2, 2011
IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges
draft-ietf-isis-reg-purge-01
Abstract Abstract
IANA maintains the IS-IS TLV Codepoint Registry. This registry IANA maintains the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. This registry
documents which TLVs can appear in different types of IS-IS Protocol documents which TLVs can appear in different types of IS-IS Protocol
Data Units (PDUs), but does not document which TLVs can be found in Data Units (PDUs), but does not document which TLVs can be found in
zero Remaining Lifetime Link State PDUs (LSPs, a.k.a., purges). This zero Remaining Lifetime Link State PDUs (LSPs), a.k.a. purges. This
document extends the existing registry to record the set of TLVs that document extends the existing registry to record the set of TLVs that
are permissible in purges, and updates the rules for generating and are permissible in purges and updates the rules for generating and
processing purges in the presence of authentication. processing purges in the presence of authentication. This document
updates RFC 3563, RFC 5304, and RFC 5310.
Status of this Memo
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 September 2, 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/rfc6233.
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language ......................................2
2. Registry Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Registry Changes ................................................2
3. Purges and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Purges and Authentication .......................................3
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations .........................................3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Normative References ............................................4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IS-IS [ISO 10589] routing protocol maintains a link state The IS-IS [ISO-10589] routing protocol maintains a link state
database of the topology of its routing domain by flooding a set of database of the topology of its routing domain by flooding a set of
Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs). When the protocol no longer Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs). When the protocol no longer
needs the information stored in an LSP, it uses the purge mechanism needs the information stored in an LSP, it uses the purge mechanism
to cause the Intermediate Systems (ISs) in its domain to discard the to cause the Intermediate Systems (ISs) in its domain to discard the
information contained in the LSP. The process for generating purges information contained in the LSP. The process for generating purges
can be found in Section 7.3.16.4 of [ISO 10589]. This process can be found in Section 7.3.16.4 of [ISO-10589]. This process
retains only the LSP header, discarding any TLVs that had been retains only the LSP header, discarding any TLVs that had been
carried within the LSP. carried within the LSP.
Subsequent enhancements to IS-IS, such as [RFC5304] [RFC5310], amend Subsequent enhancements to IS-IS, such as [RFC5304] [RFC5310], amend
the process of generating a purge and allow the inclusion of certain the process of generating a purge and allow the inclusion of certain
TLVs in purges. TLVs in purges.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. 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].
2. Registry Changes 2. Registry Changes
This document extends the current IS-IS TLV Codepoint Registry, This document extends the current "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry,
defined in [RFC3563], to record the set of TLVs that MAY be found in defined in [RFC3563], to record the set of TLVs that MAY be found in
purges. All other TLVs MUST NOT appear in purges. This will serve purges. All other TLVs MUST NOT appear in purges. This will serve
as an aid to subsequent documents, which can then refer to the as an aid to subsequent documents, which can then refer to the
registry as the definitive list of the TLVs allowed in purges. This registry as the definitive list of the TLVs allowed in purges. This
will also act as an aid to implementers, providing them with an will also act as an aid to implementers, providing them with an
easily accessible compendium of allowable TLVs. easily accessible compendium of allowable TLVs.
The purge status defined for a given TLV applies to all sub-TLVs The purge status defined for a given TLV applies to all sub-TLVs
defined for that TLV. defined for that TLV.
3. Purges and Authentication 3. Purges and Authentication
Previous documents on Authentication [RFC5304] [RFC5310] required Previous documents on authentication [RFC5304] [RFC5310] required
that an IS only accept a purge if it only contained the that an IS only accept a purge if it only contained the
Authentication TLV. Authentication TLV.
This document updates and generalizes that behavior as follows: an This document updates and generalizes that behavior as follows: an
implementation that implements Authentication MUST NOT accept a purge implementation that implements authentication MUST NOT accept a purge
that contains any TLV listed in the registry that is not acceptable that contains any TLV listed in the registry that is not acceptable
in a purge. An implementation MUST NOT accept a purge that contains in a purge. An implementation MUST NOT accept a purge that contains
a TLV not listed in the registry unless the purge also contains the a TLV not listed in the registry unless the purge also contains the
Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV [I-D.ietf-isis-purge-tlv]. Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV [RFC6232]. Purges that are
Purges that are accepted MUST be propagated without removal of TLVs. accepted MUST be propagated without removal of TLVs. If multiple
If multiple purges are received for the same LSP, then the purges are received for the same LSP, then the implementation MAY
implementation MAY propagate any one of the purges. propagate any one of the purges.
If an implementation that implements Authentication accepts a purge If an implementation that implements authentication accepts a purge
that does not include the POI TLV and it chooses to insert the POI that does not include the POI TLV and it chooses to insert the POI
TLV, it MUST also recompute Authentication. TLV, it MUST also recompute authentication.
ISs MUST NOT accept LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime that ISs MUST NOT accept LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime that
contain the POI TLV. contain the POI TLV.
Purge generation is updated as follows: an implementation that Purge generation is updated as follows: an implementation that
implements Authentication generates a purge by first removing any implements authentication generates a purge by first removing any
TLVs that are not listed in the registry as being acceptable in TLVs that are not listed in the registry as being acceptable in
purges. The POI TLV MUST be added. Then any other TLVs that MAY be purges. The POI TLV MUST be added. Then any other TLVs that MAY be
in purges, as shown by the registry, MAY be added. Finally, in purges, as shown by the registry, MAY be added. Finally,
Authentication, if any, is added. authentication, if any, is added.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA modify the IS-IS 'TLV Codepoints IANA has modified the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry by adding a
Registry' by adding a column in the registry for 'Purge'. A 'y' in column in the registry for 'Purge'. A 'y' in this column indicates
this column indicates that the TLV for this row MAY be found in a that the TLV for this row MAY be found in a purge. An 'n' in this
purge. A 'n' in this column indicates that the TLV for this row MUST column indicates that the TLV for this row MUST NOT be found in a
NOT be found in a purge. purge.
The 'Purge' column should initially contain a 'y' for TLV type 10 The 'Purge' column should initially contain a 'y' for TLV type 10
(Authentication) and for TLV type 137 (Dynamic hostname). All other (Authentication) and for TLV type 137 (Dynamic hostname). All other
entries in this column should have an 'n'. Other additions to this entries in this column should have an 'n'. Other additions to this
registry should explicitly specify their value for this column. registry should explicitly specify their value for this column.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document introduces no new security issues. This document introduces no new security issues.
6. Normative References 6. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-purge-tlv] [ISO-10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system
Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for
Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the
draft-ietf-isis-purge-tlv-05 (work in progress), connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)",
October 2010. ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
[ISO 10589] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
(JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
RFC 3563, July 2003.
[RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6 Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
(JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
RFC 3563, July 2003.
[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., [RFC6232] Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232,
Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009. May 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
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
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
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: ginsberg@cisco.com EMail: ginsberg@cisco.com
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
72 lines changed or deleted 65 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/