| < draft-martin-isis-admin-tags-00.txt | draft-martin-isis-admin-tags-01.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group Christian Martin | Network Working Group Christian Martin | |||
| INTERNET DRAFT Verizon Global Networks, | INTERNET DRAFT Verzion Global Networks, Inc. | |||
| Inc | ||||
| Expiration Date: October, 2001 April 2001 | ||||
| Administrative Tags in IS-IS | Administrative Tags in IS-IS | |||
| <draft-martin-isis-admin-tags-00.txt> | <draft-martin-isis-admin-tags-01.txt> | |||
| Status | 1. Status of this Memo | |||
| This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with | |||
| all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. | all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| 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." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| 1.0 Abstract | 2. Abstract | |||
| This document describes an extension to the IS-IS protocol to add | This document describes an extension to the IS-IS protocol to add | |||
| operational capabilities that allow for easier management of and | operational capabilities that allow for ease of management and | |||
| control over IP prefix distribution within an IS-IS domain. The | control over IP prefix distribution within an IS-IS domain. The IS- | |||
| IS-IS protocol is specified in [1], with extensions for supporting | IS protocol is specified in [1], with extensions for supporting IPv4 | |||
| IPv4 specified in [2] and further enhancements for Traffic Engineering[4] | specified in [2] and further enhancements for Traffic Engineering [4] | |||
| in [3]. | in [3]. | |||
| This document enhances the IS-IS protocol by extending the | This document enhances the IS-IS protocol by extending the | |||
| information that a Intermediate System (IS) [router] can place in | information that a Intermediate System (IS) [router] can place in | |||
| Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs) as specified in [2]. This | Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs) as specified in [2]. This | |||
| information may be of use to operators who must control the way | extension will provide operators with a mechanism to control IP | |||
| IP prefix information is distributed throughout a multi-level, large | prefix distribution throughout multi-level IS-IS domains. | |||
| scale IS-IS topology. | ||||
| 2. Conventions used in this document | ||||
| 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 [4]. | ||||
| 3.0 Introduction | 3. Introduction | |||
| As defined in [2] and extended in [3], the IS-IS protocol may be used | As defined in [2] and extended in [3], the IS-IS protocol may be used | |||
| to distribute IP prefix reachibility information throughout an IS-IS | to distribute IP prefix reachibility information throughout an IS-IS | |||
| domain. The IP prefix information is encoded as TLV type 130 in [2], | domain. The IP prefix information is encoded as TLV type 130 in [2], | |||
| with additional information carried in TLV 135 as specified in [3]. | with additional information carried in TLV 135 as specified in [3]. | |||
| In particular, the extended IP Reachibilty TLV (135) contains support | In particular, the extended IP Reachibilty TLV (135) contains support | |||
| for a larger metric space, an up/down bit to indicate redistribution | for a larger metric space, an up/down bit to indicate redistribution | |||
| between different levels in the hierarchy, the IP prefix, and one or | between different levels in the hierarchy, an IP prefix, and one or | |||
| more sub-TLVs that can be used to carry specific information about the | more sub-TLVs that can be used to carry specific information about | |||
| prefix. As of this writing no sub-TLVs have been defined; however, this | the prefix. | |||
| draft proposes two new sub-TLVs that may be used to carry administrative | ||||
| As of this writing no sub-TLVs have been defined; however, this draft | ||||
| proposes a new sub-TLV that may be used to carry administrative | ||||
| information about an IP prefix. | information about an IP prefix. | |||
| This document is a publication of the IS-IS Working Group within the | 4. Sub-TLV Additions | |||
| IETF, and is a contribution to ISO IEC JTC1/SC6, for eventual | ||||
| inclusion with ISO 10589. | ||||
| 4.0 Sub-TLV Additions | This draft proposes a new "Administrative Tag" sub-TLV to be added to | |||
| TLV 135. This TLV specifies a 32 bit unsigned integer that may be | ||||
| associated with an IP prefix. Example uses of this tag include | ||||
| controlling redistribution between areas, different routing | ||||
| protocols, or multiple instances of IS-IS running on the same router. | ||||
| This draft proposes a new "Administrative Tag" sub-TLV to be added | The methods for which their use is employed is beyond the scope of | |||
| to TLV 135. This TLV specifies a 32 bit unsigned integer that may be | this document and left to the implementer and/or operator. | |||
| associated with an IP prefix. One use for this tag would be for | ||||
| controlling redistribution between areas, different routing protocols, | ||||
| or multiple instances of IS-IS running on the same router. The methods | ||||
| for which their use is implemented is beyond the scope of this document | ||||
| and is left to the operators of IS-IS networks to decide. It is assumed, | ||||
| however, that vendors will provide tools to match and set these tags | ||||
| in routing policy configuration tools. The encoding of this new TLV is | ||||
| as follows: | ||||
| 4.1 Sub-TLV <?>: Administrative Tag | The encoding of the sub-TLV is discussed in the following subsection. | |||
| This sub-TLV shall be used to associate an integer value with an IP | 4.1. Administrative Tag Sub-TLV [TBA] | |||
| prefix such that it may be used in routing policy to control the | ||||
| distribution of routing information within an IS-IS domain. The | This sub-TLV [TBA] shall be used to associate an integer value with | |||
| an IP prefix such that it may be used in routing policy to control | ||||
| the distribution of routing information within an IS-IS domain. The | ||||
| Administrative Tag shall be encoded as a 4 octet unsigned integer. | Administrative Tag shall be encoded as a 4 octet unsigned integer. | |||
| 5.0 Security Considerations | See the "IANA Considerations" section for additional information. | |||
| This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS, as any annotations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| to IP prefixes should not pass outside the administrative control of the | ||||
| network operator of the IS-IS domain. Such an allowance would violate | ||||
| the | ||||
| spirit of Interior Gateway Protocols in general and IS-IS in particular. | ||||
| 6.0 Acknowledgments | This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS, as any | |||
| annotations to IP prefixes should not pass outside the administrative | ||||
| control of the network operator of the IS-IS domain. Such an | ||||
| allowance would violate the spirit of Interior Gateway Protocols in | ||||
| general and IS-IS in particular. | ||||
| The author would like to thank Henk Smit for clarifying the best place to | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
| describe this new information, and Tony Li for useful comments on this | ||||
| draft. | ||||
| 7.0 References | The value of the Administrative Tag sub-TLV [TBA] must be allocated. | |||
| [1] ISO 10589, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra- | 7. Acknowledgments | |||
| Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the | ||||
| Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO | ||||
| 8473)" [Also republished as RFC 1142] | ||||
| [2] RFC 1195, "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual | The author would like to thank Henk Smit for clarifying the best | |||
| environments", R.W. Callon, Dec. 1990 | place to describe this new information, Danny McPherson for his | |||
| comments and assistance with formatting, and Tony Li for useful | ||||
| comments on this draft. | ||||
| [3] draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt, "IS-IS extensions for Traffic | 8. References | |||
| Engineering", T. Li, H. Smit, Sep. 2000 | ||||
| [4] RFC 2702, "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS," D. | [1] "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing | |||
| Awduche, J. Malcolm, J. Agogbua, M. O'Dell, and J. McManus, September | Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for | |||
| 1999. | Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", | |||
| ISO 10589. | ||||
| 9.0 Author's Address | [2] Callon, R., RFC 1195, "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and | |||
| dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. | ||||
| [3] Li, T., and Smit, H., "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering", | ||||
| Internet Draft, "Work in Progress", September 2000. | ||||
| [4] Adwuche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, M., O'Dell, M. and McManus, | ||||
| J., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS," RFC 2702, | ||||
| September 1999. | ||||
| 10. Author's Address | ||||
| Christian Martin | Christian Martin | |||
| Verizon Global Networks, Inc. | Verizon Global Networks, Inc. | |||
| 1880 Campus Commons Dr | 1880 Campus Commons Dr | |||
| Reston, VA 20191 | Reston, VA 20191 | |||
| Email: cmartin@verizongni.com | Email: cmartin@verizongni.com | |||
| Voice: 1 (703) 2954394 | Voice: 1 (703) 2954394 | |||
| Fax: 1 (703) 2954279 | Fax: 1 (703) 2954279 | |||
| Expiration Date: October, 2001 | ||||
| End of changes. 26 change blocks. | ||||
| 69 lines changed or deleted | 65 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||