wdiff draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-06.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force Christian E. Hopps
INTERNET-DRAFT Allegro Networks
Expires June 2003 8 January 2003

Routing IPv6 with IS-IS
<draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt>

Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-isis-ipv6-05.txt, has expired, and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of has been deleted
from the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list of directory. An Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Draft Routing IPv6 with IS-IS January 2003

Abstract

This draft specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 routing information
using the IS-IS routing protocol. The described method utilizes 2
new TLVs, a reachability TLV and an interface address TLV to
distribute the necessary IPv6 information throughout a routing
domain. Using this method one can route IPv6 along with IPv4 and OSI
using a single intra-domain routing protocol.

1. Terms

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.

2. Overview

IS-IS [0] is an extendible intra-domain routing protocol. Each
router in expires 185 days from
the routing domain issues an LSP date that contains information
pertaining to that router. The LSP contains typed variable length
data often referred to as TLVs (type-length-values). We extend the
protocol with 2 new TLVs to carry information required to perform
IPv6 routing.

In [1] a method it is described to route both OSI and IPv4. We utilize
this same method with some minor changes to allow for IPv6. To do so
we must define 2 new TLVs, namely "IPv6 Reachability" and "IPv6
Interface Address" and a new IPv6 protocol identifier. In our new
TLVs we utilize the extended metrics and up/down semantics of [2].

3. IPv6 Reachability TLV

The "IPv6 Reachability" TLV posted unless it is TLV type 236 (0xEC).

[1] defines 2 Reachability TLVs, "IP Internal Reachability
Information" and "IP External Reachability Information". We provide
the equivalent IPv6 data with the "IPv6 Reachability" TLV and replaced by an
"external" bit.

The "IPv6 Reachability" TLV describes network reachability through
the specification of a routing prefix, metric information, a bit to
indicate if the prefix is being advertised down from a higher level,

Draft Routing IPv6 with IS-IS January 2003

a bit to indicate if the prefix is being distributed from another
routing protocol and OPTIONALLY the existence of sub-TLVs to allow
for later extension. This data updated version or is represented
under official review by the following
structure:

U - up/down bit
X - external original bit
S - subtlv present bit

This structure MAY appear any number of times (including none) within
the TLV.

As is described in [2], "the up/down bit is set to 0 when a prefix is
first injected into IS-IS. If a prefix is redistributed from a
higher level to a lower level (e.g., level two to level one), the bit
SHALL be set to 1 to indicate that the prefix has travelled down the
hierarchy. If a prefix is redistributed from IESG for publication as an area to another area
at the same level then the up/down bit SHALL be set to 1."

If the prefix was distributed into IS-IS from another routing
protocol the external bit SHALL be set to 1. This information is
useful when distributing prefixes from IS-IS to other protocols.

If the sub-TLV bit is set to 0 then the octets of sub-TLVs are not
present. Otherwise the bit is 1 and the octet following the prefix
will contain the length of the sub-TLV portion of the structure.

The prefix is "packed" in the data structure. That is, only the
required number of octets of prefix are present. RFC. This number can be
computed from the prefix length octet as follows:

prefix octets = integer of ((prefix length + 7) / 8)

Draft Routing IPv6 with IS-IS January 2003

Just as in [2], if a prefix is advertised with a metric larger than
MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC (0xFE000000), this prefix MUST Internet-Draft
was not be considered
during the normal SPF computation. This will allow advertisement of
a prefix for purposes other than building the normal IPv6 routing
table.

If sub-TLVs are present they have the same form as normal TLVs published as
shown below.

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value(*) ..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* - if present

Length indicates how many octets of value an RFC.

Internet-Drafts are present and can be 0.

4. IPv6 Interface Address TLV

The "IPv6 Interface Address" TLV is TLV type 232 (0xE8).

This TLV maps directly to [1]'s "IP Interface Address" TLV. We
necessarily modify the contents to be 0-15 16 octet IPv6 interface
addresses instead of 0-63 4 octet IPv4 interface address.

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 232 | Length | Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Address 1(*) .. | Interface Address 2(*) ..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* - if present

We further restrict the semantics of this TLV depending on where it
is advertised. For Hello PDUs the "Interfaces Address" TLV MUST
contain only the link-local IPv6 addresses assigned to the interface

Draft Routing IPv6 with IS-IS January 2003

which is sending the Hello. For LSPs the "Interfaces Address" TLVs
MUST contain only the non-link-local IPv6 addresses assigned to the
IS.

5. IPv6 NLPID

The value of the IPv6 NLPID is 142 (0x8E).

As with [1] not archival documents, and IPv4, if the IS supports IPv6 routing using IS-IS, it
MUST advertise this in the "NLPID" TLV by adding the IPv6 NLPID.

6. Operation

We utilize the same changes to [1] as made in [2] for the processing copies of prefix information. These changes are both related to the SPF
calculation.

Since the metric space has Internet-Drafts that have
been extended we need to redefine the
MAX_PATH_METRIC (1023) deleted from the original specification in [1]. This
new value MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC is the same as in [2] (0xFE000000). If
during the SPF a path metric would exceed MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC it SHALL
be considered to be MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC.

The order of preference between paths for a given prefix MUST be
modified to consider the up/down bit. directory are not available. The new order of preference is
as follows (from best to worst).

1. Level 1 up prefix
2. Level 2 up prefix
3. Level 2 down prefix
4. Level 1 down prefix

If multiple paths Secretariat does not have the same best preference then selection occurs
based on metric. Any remaining multiple paths SHOULD be considered
for equal-cost multi-path routing if the router supports this, otherwise
the router can select
any one information regarding the future plans of the multiple paths.

7. Security Considerations

This document raises no new security considerations.

Draft Routing IPv6 with IS-IS January 2003

8. References

[0] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing
Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction author(s) or working group, if
applicable, with the Protocol for
Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO
10589, 1992.

[1] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual
Environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

[2] Smit, H., and T. Li, "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering",
Work in Progress, August 2001.

9. Author's Address

Christian E. Hopps
Allagro Networks
6399 San Ignacio Ave.
San Jose, CA 95119
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 408 281 5500
Email: chopps@allegronetworks.com

10. Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished respect to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice deleted Internet-Draft. For more information, or references
to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose request a copy of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by document, please contact the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. author(s) directly.

Draft Routing IPv6 with IS-IS January 2003

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Author(s):
Chris Hopps <chopps@rawdofmt.org>