idnits 2.17.1 draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02.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 (July 1, 2014) is 3588 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 'ISO10589' == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-00 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4971 (Obsoleted by RFC 7981) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 3 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: January 2, 2015 Juniper Networks, Inc. 6 S. Litkowski 7 B. Decraene 8 Orange 9 Z. Li 10 Huawei Technologies 11 H. Raghuveer 13 July 1, 2014 15 Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS 16 draft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-02 18 Abstract 20 This document describes an extension to IS-IS protocol [ISO10589], 21 [RFC1195] to add an optional operational capability, that allows 22 tagging and grouping ofthe nodes in an IS-IS domain. This allows 23 simple management and easy control over route and path selection, 24 based on local configured policies. 26 This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per- 27 node admin-tags in IS-IS protocols. 29 Requirements Language 31 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 32 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 33 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 35 Status of This Memo 37 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 38 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 40 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 41 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 42 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 43 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 45 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 46 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 47 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 48 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 49 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015. 51 Copyright Notice 53 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 54 document authors. All rights reserved. 56 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 57 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 58 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 59 publication of this document. Please review these documents 60 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 61 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 62 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 63 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 64 described in the Simplified BSD License. 66 Table of Contents 68 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 69 2. Administrative Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 70 3. TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 3.1. Per-node Admin Tag sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 72 3.2. Ordering of tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 4. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 80 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 1. Introduction 84 This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node 85 administrative tags in the IS-IS Link State PDU [RFC1195]. In 86 certain path-selection applications like for example in traffic- 87 engineering or LFA [RFC5286] selection there is a need to tag the 88 nodes based on their roles in the network and have policies to prefer 89 or prune a certain group of nodes. 91 2. Administrative Tag 93 For the purpose of advertising per-node administrative tags within 94 IS-IS, a new sub-TLV to the IS-IS Router Capability TLV-242 that is 95 defined in [RFC4971] is proposed. Because path selection is a 96 functional set which applies both to TE and non-TE applications the 97 same has not added as a new sub-TLV in the Traffic Engingineering 98 TLVs [RFC5305]. 100 An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to 101 identify a group of nodes in the IS-IS domain. The new sub-TLV 102 specifies one or more administrative tag values. An IS-IS node 103 advertises the set of groups it is part of in the specific IS-IS 104 level. As an example, all PE-nodes may be configured with certain 105 tag value, whereas all P-nodes are configured with a different tag 106 value in. 108 The new sub-TLV defined will be carried inside the IS-IS Router 109 Capability TLV-242 (defined in [RFC4971]) in the Link State PDUs 110 originated by the router. Link State PDUs [ISO10589] has level-wise 111 (i.e. L1 or L2) flooding scope. Choosing the flooding scope to 112 flood the group tags are defined by the policies and is a local 113 matter. Once a group tag is decided in a specific level the same 114 will be inserted in the administrative tag sub-TLV in the Link State 115 PDU for the same level. Implementations should allow configuring 116 both a 'global' and 'per-level' admin tag. In the absence of a 117 specific admin tag configuration for a specific level the global 118 admin tag should be copied in to the LSP PDU for the same level. 120 3. TLV format 122 3.1. Per-node Admin Tag sub-TLV 124 The new Administrative Tag sub-TLV, like other ISIS Capability sub- 125 TLVs, is formatted as Type/Length/Value (TLV)triplets. Figure 1 126 below shows the format of the new sub-TLV. 128 0 1 2 3 129 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 1 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 | Type | Length | 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 | Administrative Tag #1 | 134 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 135 | Administrative Tag #2 | 136 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 137 // // 138 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 139 | Administrative Tag #N | 140 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 142 Type : TBA 144 Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value 145 portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets 146 dependent on the number of tags advertised. 148 Value: A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the 149 administrative tags. 151 Figure 1: IS-IS per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV 153 The 'Per-node Admin Tag' sub-TLV may be generated more than once by 154 an originating router. This MAY happen if a node carries more than 155 63 per-node admin groups and a single sub-TLV does not provide 156 sufficient space. As such occurence of the 'Per-node Admin Tag' sub- 157 TLV does not cancel previous announcements, but rather is cumulative. 159 3.2. Ordering of tags 161 The semantics of the tag order are implementation-dependent. There 162 is no implied meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a 163 certain operation or set of operations that need to be performed 164 based on the ordering. 166 Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be 167 used in policy to perform a policy action. Whether or not tag A 168 precedes or succeeds tag B SHOULD not change the meaning of the tag 169 set. 171 4. Applications 173 Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) [RFC5286] has 174 exposed some limitations. A recent draft on Operation management of 175 Loop Free Alternates [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes 176 refinements to address those limitations. One of the proposed 177 refinements is to be able to group the nodes in IGP domain with 178 administrative tags and engineer the alternate paths based on 179 configured policies. 181 The proposal in this document helps provide the capability to 182 advertise group tags within IS-IS protocol and perform policy based 183 LFA selection. The policies configured on each node can then make 184 use of these tags to prefer or prune LFAs via certain group of nodes. 186 For a detailed list of more such applications please refer to section 187 5 in [I-D.hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag]. 189 5. Security Considerations 191 This document does not introduce any further security issues other 192 than those discussed in [ISO10589] and [RFC1195]. 194 6. IANA Considerations 196 IANA maintains the registry for the Router Capability sub-TLVs. IS- 197 IS Administrative Tags will require one new type code for the sub-TLV 198 defined in this document. 200 7. Acknowledgments 202 8. References 204 8.1. Normative References 206 [ISO10589] 207 "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain 208 routeing information exchange protocol for use in 209 conjunction with the protocol for providing the 210 connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC 211 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 213 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 214 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 216 8.2. Informative References 218 [I-D.hegde-ospf-node-admin-tag] 219 Hegde, S., Raghuveer, H., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., 220 Smirnov, A., and Z. Li, "Advertising per-node 221 administrative tags in OSPF", draft-hegde-ospf-node-admin- 222 tag-02 (work in progress), June 2014. 224 [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] 225 Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and K. Raza, 226 "Operational management of Loop Free Alternates", draft- 227 ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-00 (work in progress), May 228 2013. 230 [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and 231 dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. 233 [RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Shen, N., and R. Aggarwal, "Intermediate 234 System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for 235 Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007. 237 [RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast 238 Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008. 240 [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic 241 Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008. 243 Authors' Addresses 245 Pushpasis Sarkar (editor) 246 Juniper Networks, Inc. 247 Electra, Exora Business Park 248 Bangalore, KA 560103 249 India 251 Email: psarkar@juniper.net 253 Hannes Gredler 254 Juniper Networks, Inc. 255 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 256 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 257 US 259 Email: hannes@juniper.net 260 Shraddha Hegde 261 Juniper Networks, Inc. 262 Electra, Exora Business Park 263 Bangalore, KA 560103 264 India 266 Email: shraddha@juniper.net 268 Stephane Litkowski 269 Orange 271 Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com 273 Bruno Decraene 274 Orange 276 Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com 278 Li Zhenbin 279 Huawei Technologies 280 Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd 281 Beijing, KA 100095 282 China 284 Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com 286 Harish Raghuveer 288 Email: hraghuveer@juniper.net