draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt   draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft S. Previdi Internet-Draft S. Previdi
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: August 1, 2016 M. Chen Expires: October 15, 2016 M. Chen
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
January 29, 2016 April 13, 2016
IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Info IS-IS Extensions for Advertising Router Info
draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-00.txt draft-ietf-isis-rfc4971bis-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new optional Intermediate System to This document defines a new optional Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) TLV named CAPABILITY, formed of multiple Intermediate System (IS-IS) TLV named CAPABILITY, formed of multiple
sub-TLVs, which allows a router to announce its capabilities within sub-TLVs, which allows a router to announce its capabilities within
an IS-IS level or the entire routing domain. an IS-IS level or the entire routing domain.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
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 August 1, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 15, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 25 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
2. IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Interoperability with Routers Not Supporting the Capability 4. Interoperability with Routers Not Supporting the Capability
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Changes to RFC 4971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are several situations where it is useful for the IS-IS There are several situations where it is useful for the IS-IS
[ISO10589] [RFC1195] routers to learn the capabilities of the other [ISO10589] [RFC1195] routers to learn the capabilities of the other
routers of their IS-IS level, area, or routing domain. For the sake routers of their IS-IS level, area, or routing domain. For the sake
of illustration, three examples related to MPLS Traffic Engineering of illustration, three examples related to MPLS Traffic Engineering
(TE) are described here: (TE) are described here:
skipping to change at page 8, line 26 skipping to change at page 8, line 26
DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4875, May 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4875>.
[RFC4972] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Leroux, JL., Ed., Yasukawa, S., [RFC4972] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Leroux, JL., Ed., Yasukawa, S.,
Previdi, S., Psenak, P., and P. Mabbey, "Routing Previdi, S., Psenak, P., and P. Mabbey, "Routing
Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label
Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh
Membership", RFC 4972, DOI 10.17487/RFC4972, July 2007, Membership", RFC 4972, DOI 10.17487/RFC4972, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4972>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4972>.
Authors' Addresses Appendix A. Changes to RFC 4971
This document makes the following changes to RFC 4971.
RFC 4971 only allowed a 32 bit Router ID in the fixed header of TLV
242. This is problematic in an IPv6-only deployment where an IPv4
address may not be available. This document specifies:
1. The Router ID SHOULD be identical to the value advertised in the
Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV (134) if available.
2. If no Traffic Engineering Router ID is assigned the Router ID
SHOULD be identical to an IP Interface Address [RFC1195]
advertised by the originating IS.
3. If the originating node does not support IPv4, then the reserved
value 0.0.0.0 MUST be used in the Router ID field and the IPv6 TE
Router ID sub-TLV [RFC5316] MUST be present in the TLV.
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd. 510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035 Milpitas, CA 95035
USA USA
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 24 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/