idnits 2.17.1 draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC1195], [ISO10589]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'SHOULD not' in this paragraph: Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be used in policy to perform a policy action. Whether or not tag A precedes or succeeds tag B SHOULD not change the meaning of the tag set. -- The document date (October 21, 2013) is 3811 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO10589' == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-00 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IS-IS for IP Internets P. Sarkar, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft H. Gredler 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde 5 Expires: April 24, 2014 H. Raghuveer 6 Juniper Networks, Inc. 7 S. Litkowski 8 B. Decraene 9 Orange 10 October 21, 2013 12 Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS 13 draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-00 15 Abstract 17 This document describes an extension to IS-IS protocol [ISO10589], 18 [RFC1195] to add an optional operational capability, that allows 19 tagging and grouping ofthe nodes in an IS-IS domain. This allows 20 simple management and easy control over route and path selection, 21 based on local configured policies. 23 This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per- 24 node admin-tags in IS-IS protocols. 26 Requirements Language 28 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 29 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 30 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 32 Status of This Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 38 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 39 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 40 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 42 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 43 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 44 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 45 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 56 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 57 publication of this document. Please review these documents 58 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 59 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 60 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 61 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 62 described in the Simplified BSD License. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 67 2. Administrative Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 68 3. TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 69 3.1. Per-node Admin Tag TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 3.2. Ordering of tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 4. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 74 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 75 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 1. Introduction 82 This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node 83 administrative tags in the IS-IS Link State PDU [RFC1195]. In 84 certain path-selection applications like for example in traffic- 85 engineering or LFA [RFC5286] selection there is a need to tag the 86 nodes based on their roles in the network and have policies to prefer 87 or prune a certain group of nodes. 89 2. Administrative Tag TLV 91 For the purpose of advertising per-node administrative tags within 92 IS-IS, a new TLV is proposed. Because path selection is a functional 93 set which applies both to TE and non-TE applications the same has not 94 added as a new sub-TLV in the Traffic Engingineering TLVs [RFC5305]. 96 An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to 97 identify a group of nodes in the IS-IS domain. The new TLV specifies 98 one or more administrative tag values. An IS-IS node advertises the 99 set of groups it is part of in the specific IS-IS level. As an 100 example, all PE-nodes may be configured with certain tag value, 101 whereas all P-nodes are configured with a different tag value in. 103 The new TLV defined will be carried as a new TLV in the Link State 104 PDUs originated by the router. Link State PDUs [ISO10589] has level- 105 wise (i.e. L1 or L2) flooding scope. Choosing the flooding scope to 106 flood the group tags are defined by the policies and is a local 107 matter. Once a group tag is decided in a specific level the same 108 will be inserted in the administrative tag TLV in the Link State PDU 109 for the same level. Implementations should allow configuring both a 110 'global' and 'per-level' admin tag. In the absence of a specific 111 admin tag configuration for a specific level the global admin tag 112 should be copied in to the LSP PDU for the same level. 114 3. TLV format 116 3.1. Per-node Admin Tag TLV 118 The new Administrative Tag TLV, like other ISIS TLVs, is formatted as 119 Type/Length/Value (TLV)triplets. Figure 1 below shows the format of 120 the new TLV. 122 0 1 2 3 123 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 1 124 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 125 | Type | Length | 126 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 127 | Administrative Tag #1 | 128 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 129 | Administrative Tag #2 | 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 // // 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 | Administrative Tag #N | 134 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 136 Type : TBA 138 Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value 139 portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets 140 dependent on the number of tags advertised. 142 Value: A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the 143 administrative tags. 145 Figure 1: IS-IS per-node Administrative Tag TLV 147 The 'Per-node Admin Tag' TLV may be generated more than once by an 148 originating router. This MAY happen if a node carries more than 63 149 per-node admin groups and a single TLV does not provide sufficient 150 space. As such occurence of the 'Per-node Admin Tag' TLV does not 151 cancel previous TLV announcements, but rather is cumulative. 153 3.2. Ordering of tags 155 The semantics of the tag order are implementation-dependent. There 156 is no implied meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a 157 certain operation or set of operations that need to be performed 158 based on the ordering. 160 Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be 161 used in policy to perform a policy action. Whether or not tag A 162 precedes or succeeds tag B SHOULD not change the meaning of the tag 163 set. 165 4. Applications 167 Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) [RFC5286] has 168 exposed some limitations. A recent draft on Operation management of 169 Loop Free Alternates [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes 170 refinements to address those limitations. One of the proposed 171 refinements is to be able to group the nodes in IGP domain with 172 administrative tags and engineer the alternate paths based on 173 configured policies. 175 The proposal in this document helps provide the capability to 176 advertise group tags within IS-IS protocol and perform policy based 177 LFA selection. The policies configured on each node can then make 178 use of these tags to prefer or prune LFAs via certain group of nodes. 180 5. Security Considerations 182 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 183 than those discussed in [ISO10589] and [RFC1195]. 185 6. IANA Considerations 187 IANA maintains the registry for the TLVs. IS-IS Administrative Tags 188 will require one new type code for the TLV defined in this document. 190 7. Acknowledgments 191 8. References 193 8.1. Normative References 195 [ISO10589] 196 , "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain 197 routeing information exchange protocol for use in 198 conjunction with the protocol for providing the 199 connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 200 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 202 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 203 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 205 8.2. Informative References 207 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] 208 Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and K. Raza, 209 "Operational management of Loop Free Alternates", draft- 210 ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-00 (work in progress), May 211 2013. 213 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 214 dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. 216 [RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast 217 Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008. 219 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 220 Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. 222 Authors' Addresses 224 Pushpasis Sarkar (editor) 225 Juniper Networks, Inc. 226 Electra, Exora Business Park 227 Bangalore, KA 560103 228 India 230 Email: psarkar@juniper.net 231 Hannes Gredler 232 Juniper Networks, Inc. 233 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 234 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 235 US 237 Email: hannes@juniper.net 239 Shraddha Hegde 240 Juniper Networks, Inc. 241 Electra, Exora Business Park 242 Bangalore, KA 560103 243 India 245 Email: shraddha@juniper.net 247 Harish Raghuveer 248 Juniper Networks, Inc. 249 Electra, Exora Business Park 250 Bangalore, KA 560103 251 India 253 Email: hraghuveer@juniper.net 255 Stephane Litkowski 256 Orange 258 Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com 260 Bruno Decraene 261 Orange 263 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com