idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-10.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 10 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. 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: 11 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-10.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. 42 3. Summary for Sub-IP Area 44 3.1. Summary 46 This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing 47 protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 48 (GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS- 49 ROUTING]. 51 3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work 53 This work fits squarely in either CCAMP or IS-IS boxes. 55 3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG 57 This draft is targeted at either the CCAMP or IS-IS WGs, because this 58 draft specifies the extensions to the IS-IS routing protocols in 59 support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of CCAMP WG, and 60 because IS-IS is within the scope of the IS-IS WG. 62 3.4. Justification 64 The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions 65 to the IS-IS routing protocols in support of GMPLS. 67 4. Specification of Requirements 69 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 70 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 71 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 73 5. Introduction 75 This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in 76 support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi- 77 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to 78 IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. 80 6. IS-IS Routing Enhancements 82 In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of 83 GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS TE LSAs. 85 In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS 86 reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically, 87 we add the following sub-TLVs: 89 Sub-TLV Type Length Name 90 4 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 91 20 2 Link Protection Type 92 21 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 94 We further add one new TLV to the TE LSAs. 96 TLV Type Length Name 97 138 variable Shared Risk Link Group 99 6.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers 101 A Link Local Interface Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the extended IS 102 reachability TLV. The type of this sub-TLV is 4, and length is eight 103 octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link 104 Local Identifier followed by four octets of Link Remote Idenfier (see 105 Section "Support for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the 106 Link Remote Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0. 108 0 1 2 3 109 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 1 110 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 | Link Local Idenfiier | 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | Link Remote Idenfiier | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 6.2. Link Protection Type 117 The Link Protection Type is is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the 118 extended IS reachability TLV, with length two octets. 120 0 1 121 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 122 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 |Protection Cap | Reserved | 124 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 126 The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection 127 capabilities of the link (see Section "Link Protection Type" of 128 [GMPLS-ROUTING]). They are: 130 0x01 Extra Traffic 132 0x02 Unprotected 134 0x04 Shared 136 0x08 Dedicated 1:1 138 0x10 Dedicated 1+1 140 0x20 Enhanced 142 0x40 Reserved 144 0x80 Reserved 146 The second octet SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and SHOULD be 147 ignored by the receiver. 149 The Link Protection Type sub-TLV may occur at most once within the 150 extended IS reachability TLV. 152 6.3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor 154 The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 155 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of 156 value field in octets. The format of the value field is as shown 157 below: 159 0 1 2 3 160 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 1 161 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 162 | Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved | 163 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 164 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 | 165 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 166 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 | 167 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 | 169 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 170 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 | 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 | 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 | 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 176 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 | 177 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 | Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 | 179 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 | Switching Capability-specific information | 181 | (variable) | 182 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 184 The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the 185 following values: 187 1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 188 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 189 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 190 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 191 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 192 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 193 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 194 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC) 196 The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 197 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG]. 199 Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in 200 the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7 201 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 203 The content of the Switching Capability specific information field 204 depends on the value of the Switching Capability field. 206 When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, 207 the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum 208 LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU. 210 0 1 2 3 211 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 1 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 213 | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 | Interface MTU | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 218 The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field in the 219 IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per 220 second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer. 222 When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching 223 Capability specific information field present. 225 When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability 226 specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an 227 indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary 228 SONET/SDH. 230 0 1 2 3 231 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 1 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 233 | Minimum LSP Bandwidth | 234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 235 | Indication | 236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 238 The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE 239 floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. 240 The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary 241 SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the 242 interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface 243 supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. 245 When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching 246 Capability specific information field present. 248 To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching 249 Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability 250 Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability 251 Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more than once within the extended IS 252 reachability TLV. 254 6.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV 256 The SRLG TLV (of type 138 TBD) contains a data structure consisting 257 of: 259 7 octets of System ID and Pseudonode Number 260 1 octet Flag 261 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local 262 Identifier 263 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote 264 Identifier 266 and a list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4 267 octets. The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values). 268 The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the 269 interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All other 270 bits are reserved and should be set to 0. 272 The neighbor is identified by its System Id (6-octets), plus one 273 octet to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN 274 interface. 276 0 1 2 3 277 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 1 278 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 279 | System ID | 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 281 | System ID (cont.) | Pseudonode num| 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 283 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 284 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 285 | ............ | 286 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 287 | Shared Risk Link Group Value | 288 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 290 This TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see Section 291 "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). 293 6.5. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces 295 Link Identifies are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field 296 of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type 297 [ISIS-3way]. 299 7. Implications on Graceful Restart 301 The restarting node should follow the ISIS restart procedures [ISIS- 302 RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP]. 304 When the restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, these 305 LSAs should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, and if the 306 Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as 307 Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of 308 unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by 309 the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the 310 restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved 311 resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already 312 established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the 313 node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs. 315 In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the 316 restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs with 0 as unreserved 317 bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability 318 then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This would discourage new LSP 319 establishment through the restarting router. 321 Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual 322 unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node. 324 Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE 325 topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA 326 or TE topology changes. 328 8. Security Considerations 330 The extensions proposed in this document does not raise any new 331 security concerns. 333 9. Acknowledgements 335 The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and 336 Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft. 338 10. References 340 [ISIS-TE] Smit, H., Li, T., "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 341 Engineering", 342 draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt (work in progress) 344 [GMPLS-SIG] Generalized MPLS Group, "Generalized MPLS - Signaling 345 Functional 346 Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work 347 in progress) 349 [GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS", 350 draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress) 352 [ISIS-3way] "Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point 353 Adjacencies", 354 draft-ietf-isis-3way-05.txt (work in progress) 356 [ISIS-RESTART] "Restart signaling for ISIS", draft-ietf-isis- 357 restart-00.txt 358 (work in progress) 360 [GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions", 361 draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress) 363 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 364 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 366 11. Authors' Information 368 Kireeti Kompella 369 Juniper Networks, Inc. 370 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 371 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 372 Email: kireeti@juniper.net 373 Yakov Rekhter 374 Juniper Networks, Inc. 375 1194 N. Mathilda Ave 376 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 377 Email: yakov@juniper.net 379 Ayan Banerjee 380 Calient Networks 381 5853 Rue Ferrari 382 San Jose, CA 95138 383 Phone: +1.408.972.3645 384 Email: abanerjee@calient.net 386 John Drake 387 Calient Networks 388 5853 Rue Ferrari 389 San Jose, CA 95138 390 Phone: (408) 972-3720 391 Email: jdrake@calient.net 393 Greg Bernstein 394 Ciena Corporation 395 10480 Ridgeview Court 396 Cupertino, CA 94014 397 Phone: (408) 366-4713 398 Email: greg@ciena.com 400 Don Fedyk 401 Nortel Networks Corp. 402 600 Technology Park Drive 403 Billerica, MA 01821 404 Phone: +1-978-288-4506 405 Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com 406 Eric Mannie 407 GTS Network Services 408 RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group 409 Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A 410 1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium 411 Phone: +32-2-658.56.52 412 E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com 414 Debanjan Saha 415 Tellium Optical Systems 416 2 Crescent Place 417 P.O. Box 901 418 Ocean Port, NJ 07757 419 Phone: (732) 923-4264 420 Email: dsaha@tellium.com 422 Vishal Sharma 423 Metanoia, Inc. 424 335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203 425 San Jose, CA 95134-2539 426 Phone: +1 408-943-1794 427 Email: v.sharma@ieee.org