idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-09.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. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 256: '... restarting node SHOULD originate the ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-isis-3way (ref. 'ISIS-3way') == 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: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 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: October 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-09.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 The following defines the Type and Length of these sub-TLVs: 92 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 93 4 4 Link Local Identifier 94 5 4 Link Remote Identifier 95 20 2 Link Protection Type 96 21 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 98 We further add one new TLV to the TE LSAs. 100 TLV Type Length Name 101 138 variable Shared Risk Link Group 103 5.1. Link Local Identifier 105 A Link Local Interface Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS 106 reachability TLV with type 4, and length 4. 108 5.2. Link Remote Identifier 110 A Link Remote Identifier is a sub-TLV of the extended IS reachability 111 TLV with type 5, and length 4. 113 5.3. Link Protection Type 115 The Link Protection Type is is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the 116 extended IS reachability TLV, with length two octets, the first of 117 which is a bit vector describing the protection capabilities of the 118 link. They are: 120 0x01 Extra Traffic 122 0x02 Unprotected 124 0x04 Shared 126 0x08 Dedicated 1:1 128 0x10 Dedicated 1+1 130 0x20 Enhanced 132 0x40 Reserved 134 0x80 Reserved 136 5.4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 138 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 139 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of 140 value field in octets. The format of the value field is as shown 141 below: 143 0 1 2 3 144 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 1 145 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 146 | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | 147 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 148 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 156 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | 157 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 158 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | 159 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 160 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | 161 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 162 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | Switching Capability-specific information | 165 | (variable) | 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the 169 following values: 171 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 172 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 173 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 174 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 175 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 176 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 177 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 178 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 180 The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 181 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 183 Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 184 the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7 185 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 187 The content of the Switching Capability specific information field 188 depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. 190 When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, 191 the specific information includes Interface MTU and Minimum LSP 192 Bandwidth. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer. The 193 Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 194 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 196 When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no specific 197 information. 199 When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information 200 includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, and an indication whether the 201 interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The Minimum LSP 202 Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE floating point 203 format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The indication 204 whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH is 205 encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the interface 206 supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface supports 207 Arbitrary SONET/SDH. 209 When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific 210 information. 212 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more 213 than once within the extended IS reachability TLV. 215 5.5. Shared Risk Link Group TLV 217 The proposed SRLG (of type 138 TBD) contains a new data structure 218 consisting of: 220 7 octets of System ID and Pseudonode Number 221 1 octet Flag 222 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local 223 Identifier 224 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote 225 Identifier 227 and a list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4 228 octets. The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values). 229 The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the 230 interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All other 231 bits are reserved and should be set to 0. 233 5.6. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces 235 Link Identifies are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field 236 of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type 237 [ISIS-3way]. 239 6. Implications on Graceful Restart 241 The restarting node should follow the ISIS restart procedures [ISIS- 242 RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. 244 When the restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, these 245 LSAs should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, and if the 246 Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as 247 Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of 248 unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by 249 the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the 250 restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved 251 resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already 252 established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the 253 node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs. 255 In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the 256 restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs with 0 as unreserved 257 bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability 258 then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. 260 Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual 261 unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. 263 Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE 264 topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA 265 or TE topology changes. 267 7. Security Considerations 269 The extensions proposed in this document does not raise any new 270 security concerns. 272 8. Acknowledgements 274 The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and 275 Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. 277 9. References 279 [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 280 Engineering", 281 draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress) 283 [GMPLS-SIG] Generalized MPLS Group, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling 284 Functional 285 Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work 286 in progress) 288 [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", 289 draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress) 291 [ISIS-3way] "Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point 292 Adjacencies", 293 draft-ietf-isis-3way-05.txt (work in progress) 295 [ISIS-RESTART] "Restart signaling for ISIS", draft-ietf-isis- 296 restart-00.txt 297 (work in progress) 299 [GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", 300 draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress) 301 10. Authors' Information 303 Kireeti Kompella 304 Juniper Networks, Inc. 305 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 306 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 307 Email: kireeti@juniper.net 309 Yakov Rekhter 310 Juniper Networks, Inc. 311 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 312 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 313 Email: yakov@juniper.net 315 Ayan Banerjee 316 Calient Networks 317 5853 Rue Ferrari 318 San Jose, CA 95138 319 Phone: +1.408.972.3645 320 Email: abanerjee@calient.net 322 John Drake 323 Calient Networks 324 5853 Rue Ferrari 325 San Jose, CA 95138 326 Phone: (408) 972-3720 327 Email: jdrake@calient.net 329 Greg Bernstein 330 Ciena Corporation 331 10480 Ridgeview Court 332 Cupertino, CA 94014 333 Phone: (408) 366-4713 334 Email: greg@ciena.com 335 Don Fedyk 336 Nortel Networks Corp. 337 600 Technology Park Drive 338 Billerica, MA 01821 339 Phone: +1-978-288-4506 340 Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 342 Eric Mannie 343 GTS Network Services 344 RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group 345 Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A 346 1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium 347 Phone: +32-2-658.56.52 348 E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com 350 Debanjan Saha 351 Tellium Optical Systems 352 2 Crescent Place 353 P.O. Box 901 354 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 355 Phone: (732) 923-4264 356 Email: dsaha@tellium.com 358 Vishal Sharma 359 Metanoia, Inc. 360 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 361 San Jose, CA 95134-2539 362 Phone: +1 408-943-1794 363 Email: v.sharma@ieee.org