idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-mi-08.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 17, 2012) is 4201 days in the past. Is this intentional? -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code sections in the document, please surround them with '' and '' lines. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IS-IS' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5306 (Obsoleted by RFC 8706) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5342 (Obsoleted by RFC 7042) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Networking Working Group S. Previdi, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 5 Expires: April 20, 2013 M. Shand 7 A. Roy 8 D. Ward 9 Cisco Systems 10 October 17, 2012 12 IS-IS Multi-Instance 13 draft-ietf-isis-mi-08.txt 15 Abstract 17 This draft describes a mechanism that allows a single router to share 18 one or more circuits among multiple Intermediate System To 19 Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol instances. 21 Multiple instances allow the isolation of resources associated with 22 each instance. Routers will form instance specific adjacencies. 23 Each instance can support multiple topologies. Each topology has a 24 unique Link State Database (LSDB). Each Protocol Data Unit (PDU) 25 will contain a new Type Length Value (TLV) identifying the instance 26 and the topology(ies) to which the PDU belongs. 28 Requirements Language 30 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 31 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 32 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 34 Status of this Memo 36 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 37 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 39 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 40 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 41 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 42 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 44 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 45 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 46 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 47 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2013. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 66 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 67 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 68 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 69 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 70 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 71 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 72 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 73 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 74 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 75 than English. 77 Table of Contents 79 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 2. Elements Of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 2.1. Instance Identifier TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 2.2. Instance Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 83 2.3. Use of Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 84 2.4. Adjacency Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 85 2.4.1. Point-to-Point Adjacencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 86 2.4.2. Multi-Access Adjacencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 87 2.5. Update Process Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 88 2.5.1. Update Process Operation on Point-to-Point Circuits . 8 89 2.5.2. Update Process Operation on Broadcast Circuits . . . . 8 90 2.6. Interoperability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 91 2.6.1. Interoperability Issues on Broadcast Circuits . . . . 8 92 2.6.2. Interoperability using point-to-point circuits . . . . 9 93 3. Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 94 3.1. One-One Mapping Between Topologies and Instances . . . . . 10 95 3.2. Many-to-one Mapping Between Topologies and Instances . . . 10 96 3.3. Considerations for the Number of Instances . . . . . . . . 11 97 4. Relationship to M-ISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 98 5. Graceful Restart Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 99 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 100 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 101 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 102 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 103 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 104 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 105 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 107 1. Introduction 109 An existing limitation of the protocol defined by [IS-IS] is that 110 only one instance of the protocol can operate on a given circuit. 111 This document defines an extension to IS-IS to remove this 112 restriction. The extension is referred to as "Multi-instance IS-IS" 113 (MI-IS-IS). 115 Routers which support this extension are referred to as "Multi- 116 instance capable routers" (MI-RTR). 118 The use of multiple instances enhances the ability to isolate the 119 resources associated with a given instance both within a router and 120 across the network. Instance specific prioritization for processing 121 PDUs and performing routing calculations within a router may be 122 specified. Instance specific flooding parameters may also be defined 123 so as to allow different instances to consume network wide resources 124 at different rates. 126 Another existing protocol limitation is that a given instance 127 supports a single Update Process operating on a single Link State 128 Database (LSDB). This document defines an extension to IS-IS to 129 allow non-zero instances of the protocol to support multiple Update 130 Processes. Each Update Process is associated with a topology and a 131 unique topology specific LSDB. Non-zero instances of the protocol 132 are only supported by MI-RTRs. Legacy routers support the standard 133 or zero instance of the protocol. The behavior of the standard 134 instance is not changed in any way by the extensions defined in this 135 document. 137 MI-IS-IS might be used to support topology specific routing. When 138 used for this purpose it is an alternative to [RFC5120]. 140 MI-IS-IS might also be used to support advertisement of information 141 on behalf of applications [I-D.ietf-isis-genapp]. The advertisement 142 of information not directly related to the operation of the IS-IS 143 protocol can therefore be done in a manner which minimizes its impact 144 on the operation of routing. 146 The above are examples of how MI-IS-IS might be used. The 147 specification of uses of MI-IS-IS is outside the scope of this 148 document. 150 2. Elements Of Procedure 152 An Instance Identifier (IID) is introduced to uniquely identify an 153 IS-IS instance. The protocol extension includes a new TLV (IID-TLV) 154 in each IS-IS PDU originated by an MI-RTR except as noted in this 155 document. The IID-TLV identifies the unique instance as well as the 156 topology/topologies to which the PDU applies. Each IS-IS PDU is 157 associated with only one IS-IS instance. 159 MI-RTRs form instance specific adjacencies. The IID-TLV included in 160 Intermediate System-Intermediate System Hellos (IIH) includes the IID 161 and the set of Instance Specific Topology Identifiers (ITID) that the 162 sending IS supports. When multiple instances share the same circuit 163 each instance will have a separate set of adjacencies. 165 MI-RTRs support the exchange of topology specific Link State PDUs for 166 the IID/ITID pairs that each neighbor supports. A unique IS-IS 167 Update process [see IS-IS] operates for each IID/ITID pair. This MAY 168 also imply IID/ITID specific routing calculations and IID/ITID 169 specific routing and forwarding tables. However, this aspect is 170 outside the scope of this specification. 172 The mechanisms used to implement support of the separation of IS-IS 173 instances and topology specific Update processes within a router are 174 outside the scope of this specification. 176 2.1. Instance Identifier TLV 178 A new TLV is defined in order to convey the IID and ITIDs supported. 179 The IID-TLV associates PDUs with each IS-IS instance using a unique 180 16-bit number. The IID-TLV is carried in all IS-IS PDUs 181 (Intermediate System to Intermediate System Hellos (IIH), Sequence 182 Number PDUs (SNP) and Link State PDUs (LSP)) which are associated 183 with a non-zero instance. 185 Multiple instances of IS-IS may co-exist on the same circuit and on 186 the same physical router. IIDs MUST be unique within the same 187 routing domain. 189 Instance identifier #0 is reserved for the standard instance 190 supported by legacy systems. IS-IS PDUs associated with the standard 191 instance MUST NOT include an IID-TLV except where noted in this 192 document. 194 The IID-TLV MAY include one or more ITIDs. An ITID is a 16 bit 195 identifier where all values (0 - 65535) are valid. 197 The following format is used for the IID-TLV: 199 Type: 7 200 Length: 2 - 254 201 Value: 202 No. of octets 203 +-------------------------+ 204 | IID (0 - 65535) | 2 205 +-------------------------+ 206 | Supported ITID | 2 207 +-------------------------+ 208 : : 209 +-------------------------+ 210 | Supported ITID | 2 211 +-------------------------+ 213 When the IID = 0, the list of supported ITIDs MUST NOT be present. 215 An IID-TLV with IID = 0 MUST NOT appear in an SNP or LSP. When 216 the TLV appears (with a non-zero IID) in an SNP or LSP, exactly 217 one ITID MUST be present indicating the topology with which the 218 PDU is associated. If no ITIDs or multiple ITIDs are present or 219 the IID is zero then the PDU MUST be ignored. 221 When the IID is non-zero and the TLV appears in an IIH, the set 222 of ITIDs supported on the circuit over which the IIH is sent is 223 included. There MUST BE at least one ITID present. 225 Multiple IID-TLVs MAY appear in IIHs. If multiple IID-TLVs are 226 present and the IID value in all IID-TLVs is not the same then 227 the PDU MUST BE ignored. 229 A single IID-TLV will support advertisement of up to 126 ITIDs. If 230 multiple IID-TLVs are present in an IIH PDU the supported set of 231 ITIDs is the union of all ITIDs present in all IID-TLVs. 233 When an LSP purge is initiated, the IID-TLV MUST be retained but the 234 remainder of the body of the LSP SHOULD be removed. Purge procedure 235 is described in [RFC6233] and [RFC6232]. 237 A PDU without an IID-TLV belongs to the standard instance (#0). 239 2.2. Instance Membership 241 Each MI-RTR is configured to be participating in one or more 242 instances of IS-IS. For each non-zero instance in which it 243 participates, an MI-RTR marks IS-IS PDUs (IIHs, LSPs or SNPs) 244 generated pertaining to that instance by including the IID-TLV with 245 the appropriate instance identifier. 247 2.3. Use of Authentication 249 When authentication is in use, the IID, if present, is first used to 250 select the authentication configuration which is applicable. The 251 authentication check is then performed as normal. When multiple 252 ITIDs are supported, ITID specific authentication MAY be used in SNPs 253 and LSPs. 255 2.4. Adjacency Establishment 257 In order to establish adjacencies, IS-IS routers exchange IIH PDUs. 258 Two types of adjacencies exist in IS-IS: point-to-point and 259 broadcast. The following sub-sections describe the additional rules 260 an MI-RTR MUST follow when establishing adjacencies. 262 2.4.1. Point-to-Point Adjacencies 264 MI-RTRs include the IID-TLV in the point-to-point hello PDUs they 265 originate. Upon reception of an IIH, an MI-RTR inspects the received 266 IID-TLV and if the IID matches any of the IIDs which the router 267 supports on that circuit, normal adjacency establishment procedures 268 are used to establish an instance specific adjacency. Note that the 269 absence of the IID TLV implies instance ID #0. For instances other 270 than IID #0, an adjacency SHOULD NOT be established unless there is 271 at least one ITID in common. 273 This extension allows an MI-RTR to establish multiple adjacencies to 274 the same physical neighbor over a point-to-point circuit. However, 275 as the instances are logically independent, the normal expectation of 276 at most one neighbor on a given point-to-point circuit still applies. 278 2.4.2. Multi-Access Adjacencies 280 Multi-Access (broadcast) circuits behave differently than point-to- 281 point in that PDUs sent by one router are visible to all routers and 282 all routers must agree on the election of a Designated Intermediate 283 System (DIS) independent of the set of ITIDs supported. 285 MI-RTRs will establish adjacencies and elect a DIS per IS-IS 286 instance. Each MI-RTR will form adjacencies only with routers which 287 advertise support for the instances which the local router has been 288 configured to support on that circuit. Since an MI-RTR is not 289 required to support all possible instances on a LAN, it's possible to 290 elect a different DIS for different instances. 292 2.5. Update Process Operation 294 For non-zero instances, a unique Update Process exists for each 295 supported ITID. 297 2.5.1. Update Process Operation on Point-to-Point Circuits 299 On Point-to-Point circuits - including Point-to-Point Operation over 300 LAN [RFC5309] - the ITID specific Update Process only operates on 301 that circuit for those ITIDs which are supported by both ISs 302 operating on the circuit. 304 2.5.2. Update Process Operation on Broadcast Circuits 306 On Broadcast circuits, a single DIS is elected for each supported IID 307 independent of the set of ITIDs advertised in LAN IIHs. This 308 requires that the DIS generate pseudo-node LSPs for all supported 309 ITIDs and that the Update Process for all supported ITIDs operate on 310 the Broadcast Circuit. In cases where the set of supported ITIDs for 311 a given non-zero IID is inconsistent among the MI-RTRs operating on a 312 broadcast circuit, connectivity for the topology(ies) associated with 313 ITIDs not supported by some MI-RTRs operating on the circuit can be 314 compromised. 316 2.6. Interoperability Considerations 318 [IS-IS] requires that any TLV that is not understood is silently 319 ignored without compromising the processing of the whole IS-IS PDU 320 (IIH, LSP, SNP). 322 To a router not implementing this extension, all IS-IS PDUs received 323 will appear to be associated with the standard instance regardless of 324 whether an IID TLV is present in those PDUs. This can cause 325 interoperability issues unless the mechanisms and procedures 326 discussed below are followed. 328 2.6.1. Interoperability Issues on Broadcast Circuits 330 In order for routers to correctly interoperate with routers not 331 implementing this extension and in order not to cause disruption, a 332 specific and dedicated Media Access Control (MAC) address is used for 333 multicasting IS-IS PDUs with any non-zero IID. Each level will use a 334 specific layer 2 multicast address. Such an address allows MI-RTRs 335 to exchange IS-IS PDUs with non-zero IIDs without these PDUs being 336 processed by legacy routers and therefore no disruption is caused. 338 An MI-RTR will use the AllL1IS and AllL2IS ISIS MAC layer addresses 339 (as defined in [IS-IS]) as the destination address when sending ISIS 340 PDUs for the standard instance (IID #0). An MI-RTR will use two new 341 (TBD) dedicated layer 2 multicast addresses (one for each level) as 342 the destination address when sending IS-IS PDUs for any non-zero IID. 343 If operating in point-to-point mode on a broadcast circuit [RFC5309] 344 an MI-RTR MUST use one of the two new multicast addresses as the 345 destination address when sending point-to-point IIHs associated with 346 a non-zero instance. (Either address will do.) 348 MI-RTRs MUST discard IS-IS PDUs received if either of the following 349 is true: 351 o The destination multicast address is AllL1IS or AllL2IS and the 352 PDU contains an IID-TLV 354 o The destination multicast address is one of the two new addresses 355 and the PDU contains an IID-TLV with a zero value for the IID or 356 has no IID-TLV. 358 NOTE: If the multicast addresses AllL1IS and/or AllL2IS are 359 improperly used to send IS-IS PDUs for non-zero IIDs, legacy systems 360 will interpret these PDUs as being associated with IID #0. This will 361 cause inconsistencies in the LSDB in those routers, may incorrectly 362 maintain adjacencies, and may lead to inconsistent DIS election. 364 2.6.2. Interoperability using point-to-point circuits 366 In order for an MI-RTR to interoperate over a point-to-point circuit 367 with a router which does NOT support this extension, the MI-RTR MUST 368 NOT send IS-IS PDUs for instances other than IID #0 over the point- 369 to-point circuit as these PDUs may affect the state of IID #0 in the 370 neighbor. 372 The presence/absence of the IID-TLV in an IIH indicates that the 373 neighbor does/does not support this extension. Therefore, all IIHs 374 sent on a point-to-point circuit by an MI-RTR MUST include an IID- 375 TLV. This includes IIHs associated with IID #0. Once it is 376 determined that the neighbor does not support this extension, an MI- 377 RTR MUST NOT send PDUs (including IIHs) for instances other than IID 378 #0. 380 Until an IIH is received from a neighbor, an MI-RTR MAY send IIHs for 381 a non-zero instance. However, once an IIH with no IID TLV has been 382 received - indicating that the neighbor is not an MI-RTR - the MI-RTR 383 MUST NOT send IIHs for a non-zero instance. The temporary relaxation 384 of the restriction on sending IIHs for non-zero instances allows a 385 non-zero instance adjacency to be established on an interface on 386 which an MI-RTR does NOT support instance #0. 388 Point-to-point adjacency setup MUST be done through the use of three- 389 way handshaking procedure as defined in [RFC5303] in order to prevent 390 a non-MI capable neighbor from bringing up an adjacency prematurely 391 based on reception of an IIH w an IID-TLV for a non-zero instance. 393 3. Usage Guidelines 395 As discussed above, MI-IS-IS extends IS-IS to support multiple 396 instances on a given circuit. Each instance is uniquely identified 397 by the IID and forms instance specific adjacencies. Each instance 398 supports one or more topologies as represented by the ITIDs. All 399 topologies associated with a given instance share the instance 400 specific adjacencies. The set of topologies supported by a given IID 401 MAY differ from circuit to circuit. Each topology has its own set of 402 LSPs and runs a topology specific Update process. Flooding of 403 topology specific LSPs is only performed on circuits on which both 404 the local router and the neighbor(s) support a given topology (i.e. 405 advertise the same ITID in the set of supported ITIDs sent in the 406 IID-TLV included in IIHs). 408 The following sub-sections provide some guidelines for usage of 409 instances and topologies within each instance. While this represents 410 examples based on the intent of the authors, implementors are not 411 constrained by the examples. 413 3.1. One-One Mapping Between Topologies and Instances 415 When the set of information to be flooded in LSPs is intended to be 416 flooded to all MI-RTRs supporting a given IID a single topology MAY 417 be used. The information contained in the single LSDB MAY still 418 contain information associated with multiple applications as the 419 GENINFO TLV for each application has an application specific ID which 420 identifies the application to which the TLV applies [I-D.ietf-isis- 421 genapp]. 423 3.2. Many-to-one Mapping Between Topologies and Instances 425 When the set of information to be flooded in LSPs includes subsets 426 which are of interest to a subset of the MI-RTRs supporting a given 427 IID, support of multiple ITIDs allows each subset to be flooded only 428 to those MI-RTRs which are interested in that subset. In the 429 simplest case, a one-one mapping between a given application and an 430 ITID allows the information associated with that application to be 431 flooded only to MI-RTRs which support that application - but a many- 432 to-one mapping between applications and a given ITID is also 433 possible. When the set of application specific information is large, 434 the use of multiple ITIDs provides significantly greater efficiencies 435 as MI-RTRs only need to maintain the LSDB for applications of 436 interest and that information only needs to be flooded over a 437 topology defined by the MI-RTRs who support a given ITID. 439 The use of multiple ITIDs also allows the dedication of a full LSP 440 set (256 LSPs at each level) for the use of a given (set of) 441 applications, thereby minimizing the possibility of exceeding the 442 carrying capacity of an LSP set which might arise if information for 443 all applications were to be included in a single LSP set. 445 Note that the topology associated with each ITID MUST be fully 446 connected in order for ITID specific LSPs to be successfully flooded 447 to all MI-RTRs who support that ITID. 449 3.3. Considerations for the Number of Instances 451 The support of multiple topologies within the context of a single 452 instance provides better scalability in support of multiple 453 applications both in terms of the number of adjacencies which are 454 required and in the flooding of topology specific LSDB. In many 455 cases the use of a single non-zero instance would be sufficient and 456 optimal. However, in cases where the set of topologies desired in 457 support of a set of applications is largely disjoint from the set of 458 topologies desired in support of a second set of applications, it 459 could make sense to use multiple instances. 461 4. Relationship to M-ISIS 463 [RFC5120] defines support for Multi-Topology Routing. In that 464 document 12 bit Multi-topology IDs are defined to identify the 465 topologies which an IS-IS instance (a "standard instance" as defined 466 by this document) supports. There is no relationship between the 467 Multi-topology IDs defined in [RFC5120] and the ITIDs defined in this 468 document. 470 If an MI-RTR uses the extensions in support of the BFD Enabled TLV 471 [RFC6213] , the ITID SHOULD be used in place of the MTID in which 472 case all 16 bits of the identifier field are useable. 474 An MI-RTR MAY use the extensions defined in this document to support 475 multiple topologies in the context of an instance with a non-zero 476 IID. Each MI topology is associated with a unique LSDB identified by 477 an ITID. An ITID specific IS-IS Update Process operates on each 478 topology. This differs from [RFC5120] where a single LSDB/single 479 IS-IS Update Process is used in support of all topologies. 481 An MI-RTR MUST NOT support [RFC5120] multi-topology within a non-zero 482 instance. The following TLVs MUST NOT be sent in an LSP associated 483 with a non-zero instance and MUST be ignored when received: 485 TLV 222 - MT IS Neighbors 486 TLV 235 - MT IP Reachability 487 TLV 237 - MT IPv6 Reachability 489 5. Graceful Restart Interactions 491 [RFC5306] defines protocol extensions in support of graceful restart 492 of a routing instance. The extensions defined there apply to MI-RTRs 493 with the notable addition that as there are topology specific LSP 494 databases each of these must be synchronized following restart in 495 order for database synchronization to be complete. This involves the 496 use of additional T2 timers. See [RFC5306] for further details. 498 6. IANA Considerations 500 This document requires the definition of a new ISIS TLV that needs to 501 be reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry: 503 Type Description IIH LSP SNP Purge 504 ---- --------------------- --- --- --- ----- 505 7 Instance Identifier y y y y 507 This document requires that two EUI-48 multicast addresses from the 508 IANA managed EUI address space be allocated as specified in 509 [RFC5342]. Requested block size is 2. 511 The two addresses will be identified as AllL1MI-ISs and AllL2MI-ISs 512 destination addresses. 514 7. Security Considerations 516 Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [IS-IS], [RFC5304], and 517 [RFC5310]. 519 8. Acknowledgements 521 The authors would like to acknowledge contributions made by Dino 522 Farinacci and Tony Li. 524 9. References 526 9.1. Normative References 528 [I-D.ietf-isis-genapp] 529 Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising 530 Generic Information in IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-genapp-04 531 (work in progress), November 2010. 533 [IS-IS] "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain 534 routeing information exchange protocol for use in 535 conjunction with the protocol for providing the 536 connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 537 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 539 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 540 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 542 [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi 543 Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to 544 Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, February 2008. 546 [RFC5303] Katz, D., Saluja, R., and D. Eastlake, "Three-Way 547 Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 5303, 548 October 2008. 550 [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic 551 Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008. 553 [RFC5306] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS", 554 RFC 5306, October 2008. 556 [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., 557 and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic 558 Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009. 560 [RFC6213] Hopps, C. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS BFD-Enabled TLV", 561 RFC 6213, April 2011. 563 [RFC6232] Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge 564 Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232, 565 May 2011. 567 [RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for 568 Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011. 570 9.2. Informative References 572 [RFC5309] Shen, N. and A. Zinin, "Point-to-Point Operation over LAN 573 in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309, October 2008. 575 [RFC5342] Eastlake, D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol Usage 576 for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, 577 September 2008. 579 Authors' Addresses 581 Stefano Previdi (editor) 582 Cisco Systems 583 Via Del Serafico 200 584 Rome 0144 585 Italy 587 Email: sprevidi@cisco.com 589 Les Ginsberg 590 Cisco Systems 591 510 McCarthy Blvd. 592 Milpitas, CA 95035 593 USA 595 Email: ginsberg@cisco.com 597 Mike Shand 599 Email: imc.shand@googlemail.com 601 Abhay Roy 602 Cisco Systems 603 170 W. Tasman Dr. 604 San Jose, CA 95134 605 USA 607 Email: akr@cisco.com 608 Dave Ward 609 Cisco Systems 610 3700 Cisco Way 611 San Jose, CA 95134 612 USA 614 Email: wardd@cisco.com