idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-08.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 9 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 61 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section. ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 3 characters in excess of 72. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([GMPLS-ROUTING]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 264 has weird spacing: '...ndwidth until...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-isis-traffic (ref. 'ISIS-TE') == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04 -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing is -00, but you're referring to -01. -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'GMPLS-ROUTING' == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-isis-restart-00 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-isis-restart (ref. 'ISIS-RESTART') == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06 Summary: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 7 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks) 3 Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks) 4 Expiration Date: August 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks) 5 J. Drake (Calient Networks) 6 G. Bernstein (Ciena) 7 D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks) 8 E. Mannie (GTS Network) 9 D. Saha (Tellium) 10 V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.) 12 IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS 14 draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-08.txt 16 1. Status of this Memo 18 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 19 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 24 Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 34 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 35 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 37 2. Abstract 39 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing 40 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 41 (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- 42 ROUTING]. 44 3. Summary for Sub-IP Area 46 3.1. Summary 48 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing 49 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 50 (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- 51 ROUTING]. 53 3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work 55 This work fits squarely in either CCAMP or IS-IS boxes. 57 3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG 59 This draft is targeted at either the CCAMP or IS-IS WGs, because this 60 draft specifies the extensions to the IS-IS routing protocols in 61 support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of CCAMP WG, and 62 because IS-IS is within the scope of the IS-IS WG. 64 3.4. Justification 66 The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions 67 to the IS-IS routing protocols in support of GMPLS. 69 4. Introduction 71 This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in 72 support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- 73 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to 74 IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. 76 5. IS-IS Routing Enhancements 78 In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of 79 GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS TE LSAs. 81 In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS 82 reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically, 83 we add the following sub-TLVs: 85 1. Link Local Identifier 86 2. Remote Interface Identifier 87 3. Link Protection Type 88 4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 90 This brings the list of sub-TLVs of the extended IS reachability TLV 91 to: 93 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 94 3 4 Administrative group (color) 95 4 4 Link Local Identifier 96 5 4 Link Remote Identifier 97 6 variable IPv4 interface address 98 8 variable IPv4 neighbor address 99 9 4 Maximum link bandwidth 100 10 4 Reservable link bandwidth 101 11 32 Unreserved bandwidth 102 18 3 TE Default metric 103 20 2 Link Protection Type 104 21 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 105 250-254 - Reserved for cisco specific extensions 106 255 - Reserved for future expansion 108 We further add one new TLV to the TE LSAs. 110 TLV Type Length Name 111 138 (TBD) variable Shared Risk Link Group 113 Finally, we add one more TLV to the Hello PDUs. 115 TLV Type Length Name 116 (TBD) 4 Link Identifier 118 5.1. Link Local Identifier 120 A Link Local Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS 121 reachability TLV with type 4, and length 4. 123 5.2. Link Remote Identifier 125 A Link Remote Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS reachability 126 TLV with type 5, and length 4. 128 5.3. Link Protection Type 130 The Link Protection Type is is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the 131 extended IS reachability TLV, with length two octets, the first of 132 which is a bit vector describing the protection capabilities of the 133 link. They are: 135 0x01 Extra Traffic 137 0x02 Unprotected 139 0x04 Shared 141 0x08 Dedicated 1:1 143 0x10 Dedicated 1+1 145 0x20 Enhanced 147 0x40 Reserved 149 0x80 Reserved 151 5.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 153 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 154 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of 155 value field in octets. The format of the value field is as shown 156 below: 158 0 1 2 3 159 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 1 160 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 161 | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | 162 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 163 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 179 | Switching Capability-specific information | 180 | (variable) | 181 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the 184 following values: 186 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 187 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 188 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 189 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 190 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 191 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 192 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 193 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 195 The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 196 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 198 Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 199 the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7 200 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 202 The content of the Switching Capability specific information field 203 depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. 205 When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, 206 the specific information includes Interface MTU and Minimum LSP 207 Bandwidth. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer. The 208 Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 209 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 211 When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no specific 212 information. 214 When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information 215 includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, and an indication whether the 216 interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The Minimum LSP 217 Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE floating point 218 format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The indication 219 whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH is 220 encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the interface 221 supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface supports 222 Arbitrary SONET/SDH. 224 When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific 225 information. 227 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more 228 than once within the extended IS reachability TLV (this is needed to 229 handle interfaces that support multiple switching capabilities). 231 5.5. Shared Risk Link Group TLV 233 The proposed SRLG (of type 138 TBD) contains a new data structure 234 consisting of: 236 7 octets of System ID and Pseudonode Number 237 1 octet Flag 238 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local 239 Identifier 240 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote 241 Identifier 243 and a list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4 244 octets. The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values). 245 The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the 246 interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All other 247 bits are reserved and should be set to 0. 249 5.6. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces 251 The Link Identifier TLV is carried as part of the Point-to-point ISIS 252 Hello PDUs. The Type field of this TLV is TBD. The Length field of 253 this TLV is set to 4. The Value field of this TLV contains 4 octets 254 that encode the Identifier assigned to the link over which this PDU 255 is to be transmitted by the LSR that transmits the PDU. 257 6. Implications on Graceful Restart 259 The restarting node should follow the ISIS restart procedures [ISIS- 260 RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. 262 Once the restarting node re-establishes at least one ISIS adjacency, 263 the node should originate its TE LSAs. These LSAs should be 264 originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth until the node is able to 265 determine the amount of unreserved resources taking into account the 266 resources reserved by the already established LSPs that have been 267 preserved across the restart. Once the restarting node determines the 268 amount of unreserved resources, taking into account the resources 269 reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved 270 across the restart, the node should advertise these resources in its 271 TE LSAs. 273 Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual 274 unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. 276 Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE 277 topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA 278 or TE topology changes. 280 7. Security Considerations 282 The extensions proposed in this document does not raise any new 283 security concerns. 285 8. Acknowledgements 287 The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and 288 Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. 290 9. References 292 [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 293 Engineering", 294 draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress) 296 [GMPLS-SIG] Generalized MPLS Group, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling 297 Functional 298 Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work 299 in progress) 301 [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", 302 draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress) 304 [ISIS-RESTART] "Restart signaling for ISIS", draft-ietf-isis- 305 restart-00.txt 306 (work in progress) 308 [GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", 309 draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress) 311 10. Authors' Information 313 Kireeti Kompella 314 Juniper Networks, Inc. 315 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 316 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 317 Email: kireeti@juniper.net 319 Yakov Rekhter 320 Juniper Networks, Inc. 321 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 322 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 323 Email: yakov@juniper.net 324 Ayan Banerjee 325 Calient Networks 326 5853 Rue Ferrari 327 San Jose, CA 95138 328 Phone: +1.408.972.3645 329 Email: abanerjee@calient.net 331 John Drake 332 Calient Networks 333 5853 Rue Ferrari 334 San Jose, CA 95138 335 Phone: (408) 972-3720 336 Email: jdrake@calient.net 338 Greg Bernstein 339 Ciena Corporation 340 10480 Ridgeview Court 341 Cupertino, CA 94014 342 Phone: (408) 366-4713 343 Email: greg@ciena.com 345 Don Fedyk 346 Nortel Networks Corp. 347 600 Technology Park Drive 348 Billerica, MA 01821 349 Phone: +1-978-288-4506 350 Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 352 Eric Mannie 353 GTS Network Services 354 RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group 355 Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A 356 1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium 357 Phone: +32-2-658.56.52 358 E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com 359 Debanjan Saha 360 Tellium Optical Systems 361 2 Crescent Place 362 P.O. Box 901 363 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 364 Phone: (732) 923-4264 365 Email: dsaha@tellium.com 367 Vishal Sharma 368 Metanoia, Inc. 369 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 370 San Jose, CA 95134-2539 371 Phone: +1 408-943-1794 372 Email: v.sharma@ieee.org