draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02.txt   rfc7883.txt 
Networking Working Group L. Ginsberg Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft N. Akiya Request for Comments: 7883 Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Category: Standards Track N. Akiya
Expires: September 3, 2015 M. Chen ISSN: 2070-1721 Big Switch Networks
M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
March 2, 2015 July 2016
Advertising S-BFD Discriminators in IS-IS Advertising Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)
draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02.txt Discriminators in IS-IS
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a means of advertising one or more S-BFD This document defines a means of advertising one or more Seamless
Discriminators using the IS-IS Router Capability TLV. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Discriminators using the
IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
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 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2015. 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/rfc7883.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Encoding Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Encoding Format .................................................3
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. IANA Considerations .............................................4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Security Considerations .........................................4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Normative References ............................................4
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgements ...................................................5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Authors' Addresses .................................................5
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[S-BFD] defines a simplified mechanism to use Bidirectional [RFC7880] defines a simplified mechanism for using Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD)[RFC5880]. This mechanism depends on Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880]. This mechanism depends on
network nodes knowing the BFD discriminators which each node in the network nodes knowing the BFD Discriminators that each node in the
network has reserved for this purpose. Use of the Intermediate network has reserved for this purpose. The use of the Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)[IS-IS] protocol is one possible System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) [IS-IS] protocol is one
means of advertising these discriminators. possible means of advertising these discriminators.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Encoding Format 2. Encoding Format
The IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV as defined in [RFC4971] will be used The IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV as defined in [RFC4971] will be used
to advertise S-BFD discriminators. A new sub-TLV is defined as to advertise Seamless BFD (S-BFD) Discriminators. A new sub-TLV is
described below. S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLVs are formatted as defined as described below. S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLVs are
specified in [RFC5305]. formatted as specified in [RFC5305].
No. of octets No. of octets
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Type (to be assigned by | 1 | Type (20) | 1
| IANA - suggested value 20) |
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Length (multiple of 4) | 1 | Length (multiple of 4) | 1
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
| Discriminator Value(s) | 4/Discriminator | Discriminator Value(s) | 4/Discriminator
: : : :
+-----------------------------+ +-----------------------------+
Inclusion of the S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV in a Router Capability The inclusion of an S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV in a Router
TLV is optional. Multiple S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLVs MAY be CAPABILITY TLV is optional. Multiple S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLVs
advertised by an IS. When multiple S-BFD discriminators are MAY be advertised by an IS. How a given discriminator is mapped to a
advertised how a given discriminator is mapped to a specific use case specific use case when multiple S-BFD Discriminators are advertised
is out of scope for this document. is out of scope for this document.
S-BFD discriminator advertisements MAY be flooded within an area or S-BFD Discriminator advertisements MAY be flooded within an area or
throughout the domain using the procedures specified in [RFC4971]. throughout the domain, using the procedures specified in [RFC4971].
The appropriate flooding scope depends on the intended use of S-BFD. The appropriate flooding scope depends on the intended use of S-BFD.
If S-BFD use will be exclusively within a Level-1 area then area If S-BFD usage will be exclusively within a Level-1 area, then area
scope is appropriate. If S-BFD usage will span different L1 areas scope is appropriate. If S-BFD usage will span different Level-1
then domain scope is appropriate. areas, then domain scope is appropriate.
3. IANA Considerations 3. IANA Considerations
This document requires the definition of a new sub-TLV in the Sub- IANA has added a new sub-TLV in the "Sub-TLVs for TLV 242" registry.
TLVs for TLV 242 registry. The value written below is a suggested The registration is as follows:
value subject to assignment by IANA.
Value Description Value Description
---- --------------------- ----- --------------------
20 S-BFD Discriminators 20 S-BFD Discriminators
4. Security Considerations 4. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [IS-IS], [RFC5304], and Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [IS-IS], [RFC5304], and
[RFC5310]. Introduction of the S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV [RFC5310]. The new S-BFD Discriminators sub-TLV does not introduce
introduces no new security risks for IS-IS. any new security risks for IS-IS.
Advertisement of the S-BFD discriminators does make it possible for
attackers to initiate S-BFD sessions using the advertised
information. The vulnerabilities this poses and how to mitigate them
are discussed in the Security Considerations section of [S-BFD].
5. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Sam Aldrin, Manav Bhatia, and Carlos Advertising the S-BFD Discriminators makes it possible for attackers
Pignataro for input essential to defining the needed functionality. to initiate S-BFD sessions using the advertised information. The
vulnerabilities this poses and how to mitigate them are discussed in
[RFC7880].
6. Normative References 5. Normative References
[IS-IS] "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain [IS-IS] International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)",
10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. ISO Standard 10589, 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Shen, N., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate [RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007. Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4971, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4971>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008. Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304,
October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305,
October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009. Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310,
February 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010. (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[S-BFD] "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD), [RFC7880] Pignataro, C., Ward, D., Akiya, N., Bhatia, M., and S.
draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-04(work in progress)", Pallagatti, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
January 2015. (S-BFD)", RFC 7880, DOI 10.17487/RFC7880, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7880>.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Sam Aldrin, Manav Bhatia, and Carlos
Pignataro for input essential to defining the needed functionality.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd. 510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035 Milpitas, CA 95035
USA United States of America
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Nobo Akiya Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo@cisco.com Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
 End of changes. 33 change blocks. 
90 lines changed or deleted 96 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/