GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5316

Network Working Group M. Chen Request for Comments: 5316 R. Zhang Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd

                                                               X. Duan
                                                          China Mobile
                                                         December 2008
    ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS)
                 MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering

Status of This Memo

 This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
 Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
 improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
 Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
 and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 document authors.  All rights reserved.
 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
 and restrictions with respect to this document.

Abstract

 This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol to
 support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
 (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems
 (ASes).  It defines ISIS-TE extensions for the flooding of TE
 information about inter-AS links, which can be used to perform inter-
 AS TE path computation.
 No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS
 is proposed or defined in this document.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
    1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
 2. Problem Statement ...............................................3
    2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives ...................................4
    2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination ..............................4
    2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation ........................6
 3. Extensions to ISIS-TE ...........................................7
    3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV ..................................7
    3.2. TE Router ID ...............................................9
    3.3. Sub-TLV Detail .............................................9
         3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV ............................9
         3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV ........................10
         3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV ........................11
         3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV ..........................11
         3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV ..........................12
 4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links ................................12
    4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information ..........................14
 5. Security Considerations ........................................14
 6. IANA Considerations ............................................15
    6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV .................................15
    6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV ................15
    6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ..............17
 7. Acknowledgments ................................................17
 8. References .....................................................17
    8.1. Normative References ......................................17
    8.2. Informative References ....................................17

1. Introduction

 [ISIS-TE] defines extensions to the ISIS protocol [ISIS] to support
 intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE).  The extensions provide a way of
 encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network
 (TE links) and flooding this information within an area.  The
 extended IS reachability TLV and traffic engineering router ID TLV,
 which are defined in [ISIS-TE], are used to carry such TE
 information.  The extended IS reachability TLV has several nested
 sub-TLVs that describe the TE attributes for a TE link.
 [ISIS-TE-V3] and [GMPLS-TE] define similar extensions to ISIS [ISIS]
 in support of IPv6 and GMPLS traffic engineering, respectively.
 Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE
 Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous Systems
 (ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].  As described in [INTER-
 AS-TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a path
 spanning multiple ASes.  So a path computation entity that may be the

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router (ASBR), or
 a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs to know the TE
 information not only of the links within an AS, but also of the links
 that connect to other ASes.
 In this document, a new TLV, which is referred to as the inter-AS
 reachability TLV, is defined to advertise inter-AS TE information,
 and three new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the inter-AS
 reachability TLV to carry the information about the remote AS number
 and remote ASBR ID.  The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3],
 and other documents for inclusion in the extended IS reachability TLV
 for describing the TE properties of a TE link are applicable to be
 included in the inter-AS reachability TLV for describing the TE
 properties of an inter-AS TE link as well.  Also, two more new sub-
 TLVs are defined for inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to
 carry the TE Router ID when the TE Router ID needs to reach all
 routers within an entire ISIS routing domain.  The extensions are
 equally applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 as identical extensions to
 [ISIS-TE] and [ISIS-TE-V3].  Detailed definitions and procedures are
 discussed in the following sections.
 This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise
 any other extra-AS TE information within ISIS.  See Section 2.1 for a
 full list of non-objectives for this work.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

2. Problem Statement

 As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an
 inter-AS TE LSP that traverses multiple ASes, the Path message
 [RFC3209] may include the following elements in the Explicit Route
 Object (ERO) in order to describe the path of the LSP:
  1. a set of AS numbers as loose hops, and/or
  1. a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.
 Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being
 discussed.  The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one
 domain at a time.  The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses
 cooperation between PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path.
 The sections that follow examine how inter-AS TE link information
 could be useful in both cases.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives

 It is important to note that this document does not make any change
 to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of
 ASes in the Internet.  In particular, this document is conformant to
 the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].
 The following features are explicitly excluded:
 o  There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
    AS to another AS.
 o  There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
    reachability information for destinations outside the AS.
 o  There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.
 o  TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.
 o  There is no exchange of private information between ASes.
 o  No ISIS adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.

2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination

 In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an
 MPLS-TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a
 Path message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop
 that is an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the
 local AS are connected to the downstream AS.  That way, it can
 compute a TE LSP segment across the local AS to one of those LSRs and
 forward the Path message to that LSR and hence into the next AS.  See
 Figure 1 for an example.
              R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
                      |     | \    |      / |
                      |     |  \   |  ----  |
                      |     |   \  | /      |
              R2------R4----R6   --R8------R10----R12
                         :              :
              <-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
                  Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model
 The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1
 through R12).  R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1.  R5, R6, R7, and R8 are
 ASBRs in AS2.  R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
 the AS sequence will be: AS1, AS2, AS3.
 Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3.  The next hop in
 the ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to
 reach AS3.  It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7,
 and R8), and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity
 to AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available
 bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.
 Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3
 (say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that
 connects to R9.  Since there may be multiple ASBRs that are connected
 to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to know the TE
 properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select the correct
 exit ASBR.
 Once the Path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS
 TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by the entry ASBR
 that computed the segment.
 More details can be found in Section 4 of [PD-PATH], which clearly
 points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.
 To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR, the following
 information is needed:
 o  List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.
 o  TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.
 o  AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
    link.
 o  Identity (TE Router ID) of the neighboring ASBR connected to by
    each inter-AS TE link.
 In GMPLS networks, further information may also be required to select
 the correct TE links as defined in [GMPLS-TE].
 The example above shows how this information is needed at the entry-
 point ASBRs for each AS (or the PCEs that provide computation
 services for the ASBRs).  However, this information is also needed
 throughout the local AS if path computation functionality is fully
 distributed among LSRs in the local AS, for example to support LSPs
 that have start points (ingress nodes) within the AS.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation

 Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem.  [BRPC]
 defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called Backward
 Recursive Path Computation) to compute optimal inter-domain
 constrained MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSPs.  In this path computation method,
 a specific set of traversed domains (ASes) are assumed to be selected
 before computation starts.  Each downstream PCE in domain(i) returns
 to its upstream neighbor PCE in domain(i-1) a multipoint-to-point
 tree of potential paths.  Each tree consists of the set of paths from
 all boundary nodes located in domain(i) to the destination where each
 path satisfies the set of required constraints for the TE LSP
 (bandwidth, affinities, etc.).
 So a PCE needs to select boundary nodes (that is, ASBRs) that provide
 connectivity from the upstream AS.  In order for the tree of paths
 provided by one PCE to its neighbor to be correlated, the identities
 of the ASBRs for each path need to be referenced.  Thus, the PCE must
 know the identities of the ASBRs in the remote AS that are reached by
 any inter-AS TE link, and, in order to provide only suitable paths in
 the tree, the PCE must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE
 links.  See the following figure as an example.
                 PCE1<------>PCE2<-------->PCE3
                 /       :             :
                /        :             :
              R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
                      |     | \    |      / |
                      |     |  \   |  ----  |
                      |     |   \  | /      |
              R2------R4----R6   --R8------R10----R12
                         :              :
              <-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
             Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model
 The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1,
 PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12).  R3 and R4 are
 ASBRs in AS1.  R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2.  R9 and R10 are
 ASBRs in AS3.  PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS
 path computation and are responsible for path segment computation
 within their own domain(s).
 If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12,
 the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and
 the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3.  First, the path computation
 request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2
 along the PCE chain to PCE3.  Then, PCE3 begins to compute the path

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from
 AS2 to the destination (R12).  But, to provide suitable path
 segments, PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide
 connectivity to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS
 number), and must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links.
 In the same way, PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary
 nodes according to its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link
 capabilities.
 Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation, the same
 information listed in Section 2.2 is required.  The AS number of the
 neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE link is particularly
 important.

3. Extensions to ISIS-TE

 Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution
 of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any
 form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS,
 does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or
 recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private
 information between ASes.  See Section 2.1.
 In this document, for the advertisement of inter-AS TE links, a new
 TLV, which is referred to as the inter-AS reachability TLV, is
 defined.  Three new sub-TLVs are also defined for inclusion in the
 inter-AS reachability TLV to carry the information about the
 neighboring AS number and the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS link.
 The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents
 for inclusion in the extended IS reachability TLV are applicable to
 be included in the inter-AS reachability TLV for inter-AS TE links
 advertisement.  Also, two other new sub-TLVs are defined for
 inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the TE Router
 ID when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an
 entire ISIS routing domain.
 While some of the TE information of an inter-AS TE link may be
 available within the AS from other protocols, in order to avoid any
 dependency on where such protocols are processed, this mechanism
 carries all the information needed for the required TE operations.

3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV

 The inter-AS reachability TLV has type 141 (see Section 6.1) and
 contains a data structure consisting of:

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

    o  4 octets of Router ID
    o  3 octets of default metric
    o  1 octet of control information, consisting of:
       -  1 bit of flooding-scope information (S bit)
       -  1 bit of up/down information (D bit)
       -  6 bits reserved
    o  1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
    o  0-246 octets of sub-TLVs, where each sub-TLV consists of a
       sequence of:
       -  1 octet of sub-type
       -  1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
       -  0-244 octets of value
 Compared to the extended reachability TLV, which is defined in
 [ISIS-TE], the inter-AS reachability TLV replaces the "7 octets of
 System ID and Pseudonode Number" field with a "4 octets of Router ID"
 field and introduces an extra "control information" field, which
 consists of a flooding-scope bit (S bit), an up/down bit (D bit), and
 6 reserved bits.
 The Router ID field of the inter-AS reachability TLV is 4 octets in
 length, which contains the Router ID of the router who generates the
 inter-AS reachability TLV.  The Router ID MUST be unique within the
 ISIS area.  If the router generates inter-AS reachability TLV with
 entire ISIS routing domain flooding scope, then the Router ID MUST
 also be unique within the entire ISIS routing domain.  The Router ID
 could be used to indicate the source of the inter-AS reachability
 TLV.
 The flooding procedures for inter-AS reachability TLV are identical
 to the flooding procedures for the GENINFO TLV, which are defined in
 Section 4 of [GENINFO].  These procedures have been previously
 discussed in [ISIS-CAP].  The flooding-scope bit (S bit) SHOULD be
 set to 0 if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single
 IGP area to which the ASBR belongs.  It MAY be set to 1 if the
 information is intended to reach all routers (including area border
 routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the entire ISIS routing domain.  The
 choice between the use of 0 or 1 is an AS-wide policy choice, and
 configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations that
 support the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
 The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents
 for describing the TE properties of a TE link are also applicable to
 the inter-AS reachability TLV for describing the TE properties of an
 inter-AS TE link.  Apart from these sub-TLVs, three new sub-TLVs are
 defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV defined in
 this document:

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 Sub-TLV type    Length  Name
 ------------    ------  ---------------------------
           24        4   remote AS number
           25        4   IPv4 remote ASBR identifier
           26       16   IPv6 remote ASBR identifier
 The detailed definitions of the three new sub-TLVs are described in
 Section 3.3.

3.2. TE Router ID

 The IPv4 TE Router ID TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID TLV, which are
 defined in [ISIS-TE] and [ISIS-TE-V3] respectively, only have area
 flooding-scope.  When performing inter-AS TE, the TE Router ID MAY be
 needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain and
 it MUST have the same flooding scope as the inter-AS reachability TLV
 does.
 [ISIS-CAP] defines a generic advertisement mechanism for ISIS, which
 allows a router to advertise its capabilities within an ISIS area or
 an entire ISIS routing domain.  [ISIS-CAP] also points out that the
 TE Router ID is a candidate to be carried in the IS-IS router
 capability TLV when performing inter-area TE.
 This document uses such mechanism for TE Router ID advertisement when
 the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS
 Routing domain.  Two new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the
 IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router IDs,
 respectively:
 Sub-TLV type   Length  Name
 ------------    ------  -----------------
           11        4   IPv4 TE Router ID
           12       16   IPv6 TE Router ID
 Detailed definitions of the two new sub-TLVs are described in Section
 3.3.

3.3. Sub-TLV Detail

3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV

 A new sub-TLV, the remote AS number sub-TLV, is defined for inclusion
 in the inter-AS reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS links.
 The remote AS number sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the
 neighboring AS to which the advertised link connects.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 The remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 24 (see Section 6.2) and is
 4 octets in length.  The format is as follows:
  0                   1                   2                   3
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Type             |             Length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Remote AS Number                        |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The Remote AS number field has 4 octets.  When only 2 octets are used
 for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-order) 2
 octets MUST be set to 0.  The remote AS number sub-TLV MUST be
 included when a router advertises an inter-AS TE link.

3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV

 A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-
 TLV, is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when
 advertising inter-AS links.  The IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
 specifies the IPv4 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the
 advertised inter-AS link connects.  This could be any stable and
 routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR.  Use of the TE Router ID as
 specified in the Traffic Engineering router ID TLV [ISIS-TE] is
 RECOMMENDED.
 The IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 25 (see Section 6.2) and
 is 4 octets in length.  The format of the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
 is as follows:
  0                   1                   2                   3
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Type             |             Length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
 ASBR has an IPv4 address.  If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
 IPv4 address (not even an IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 remote ASBR ID
 sub-TLV MUST be included instead.  An IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and
 IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an extended IS
 reachability TLV.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV

 A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-
 TLV, is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when
 advertising inter-AS links.  The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV
 specifies the IPv6 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the
 advertised inter-AS link connects.  This could be any stable and
 routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR.  Use of the TE Router ID as
 specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering router ID TLV [ISIS-TE-V3]
 is RECOMMENDED.
 The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 26 (see Section 6.2) and
 is 16 octets in length.  The format of the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-
 TLV is as follows:
  0                   1                   2                   3
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Type             |             Length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Remote ASBR ID                          |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Remote ASBR ID (continued)              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring
 ASBR has an IPv6 address.  If the neighboring ASBR does not have an
 IPv6 address, the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included
 instead.  An IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and IPv6 remote ASBR ID
 sub-TLV MAY both be present in an extended IS reachability TLV.

3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV

 The IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 11 (see Section 6.3) and is
 4 octets in length.  The format of the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is
 as follows:
  0                   1                   2                   3
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Type             |             Length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       TE Router ID                            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire
 ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS Router capability TLV MUST be included
 in its LSP.  If an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for IPv4 and if
 the ASBR has an IPv4 TE Router ID, the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST
 be included.  If the ASBR does not have an IPv4 TE Router ID, the
 IPv6 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead.  An IPv4 TE Router
 ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an
 IS-IS router capability TLV.

3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV

 The IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 12 (see Section 6.3) and is
 4 octets in length.  The format of the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is
 as follows:
  0                   1                   2                   3
  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |              Type             |             Length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       TE Router ID                            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       TE Router ID   (continued)              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       TE Router ID   (continued)              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       TE Router ID   (continued)              |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire
 ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS router capability TLV MUST be included
 in its LSP.  If an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for IPv6 and if
 the ASBR has an IPv6 TE Router ID, the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST
 be included.  If the ASBR does not have an IPv6 TE Router ID, the
 IPv4 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead.  An IPv4 TE Router
 ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an
 IS-IS router capability TLV.

4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links

 When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR
 SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for ISIS-TE
 [ISIS-TE].  When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the
 link, the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement.  When there are
 changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the
 available bandwidth changes), the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link
 but MUST take precautions against excessive re-advertisements.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged over the inter-AS link, and
 consequently, an ISIS adjacency MUST NOT be formed.
 The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE
 capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status
 and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS
 number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.
 Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are
 able to ignore it because they do not know the new TLV and sub-TLVs
 that are defined in Section 3 of this document.  They will continue
 to flood the LSP, but will not attempt to use the information
 received.
 In the current operation of ISIS TE, the LSRs at each end of a TE
 link emit LSAs describing the link.  The databases in the LSRs then
 have two entries (one locally generated, the other from the peer)
 that describe the different 'directions' of the link.  This enables
 Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) to do a two-way check on the
 link when performing path computation and eliminate it from
 consideration unless both directions of the link satisfy the required
 constraints.
 In the case we are considering here (i.e., of a TE link to another
 AS), there is, by definition, no IGP peering and hence no
 bidirectional TE link information.  In order for the CSPF route
 computation entity to include the link as a candidate path, we have
 to find a way to get LSAs describing its (bidirectional) TE
 properties into the TE database.
 This is achieved by the ASBR advertising, internally to its AS,
 information about both directions of the TE link to the next AS.  The
 ASBR will normally generate an LSA describing its own side of a link;
 here we have it 'proxy' for the ASBR at the edge of the other AS and
 generate an additional LSA that describes that device's 'view' of the
 link.
 Only some essential TE information for the link needs to be
 advertised; i.e., the Interface Address, the remote AS number, and
 the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS TE link.
 Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of
 inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that
 exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS
 through another TE link.  Such paths would constitute extremely rare
 occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of
 specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the
 path.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information

 Section 4 describes how an ASBR advertises TE link information as a
 proxy for its neighbor ASBR, but does not describe where this
 information comes from.
 Although the source of this information is outside the scope of this
 document, it is possible that it will be a configuration requirement
 at the ASBR, as are other local properties of the TE link.  Further,
 where BGP is used to exchange IP routing information between the
 ASBRs, a certain amount of additional local configuration about the
 link and the remote ASBR is likely to be available.
 We note further that it is possible, and may be operationally
 advantageous, to obtain some of the required configuration
 information from BGP.  Whether and how to utilize these possibilities
 is an implementation matter.

5. Security Considerations

 The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor
 and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the
 existing ISIS security mechanisms (e.g., using the cleartext
 passwords or Hashed Message Authentication Codes - Message Digest 5
 (HMAC-MD5) algorithm, which are defined in [ISIS] and [RFC5304],
 respectively).
 There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to
 the ISIS security relationship between the ASes.  In particular,
 since no ISIS adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
 requirement for ISIS security between the ASes.
 Some of the information included in these new advertisements (e.g.,
 the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID) is obtained manually
 from a neighboring administration as part of a commercial
 relationship.  The source and content of this information should be
 carefully checked before it is entered as configuration information
 at the ASBR responsible for advertising the inter-AS TE links.
 It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering, a Border
 Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and
 that this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration
 (e.g., the administration that originally supplied the information
 may be lying, or some manual mis-configurations or mistakes may be
 made by the operators).  For example, if a different remote AS number
 is received in a BGP OPEN [BGP] from that locally configured to
 ISIS-TE, as we describe here, then local policy SHOULD be applied to
 determine whether to alert the operator to a potential mis-

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 configuration or to suppress the ISIS advertisement of the inter-AS
 TE link.  Note further that if BGP is used to exchange TE information
 as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP session SHOULD be
 secured using mechanisms as described in [BGP] to provide
 authentication and integrity checks.
 For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS, see
 [RFC5304].

6. IANA Considerations

 IANA has made the following allocations from registries under its
 control.

6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV

 This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type, described in
 Section 3.1, which has been registered in the ISIS TLV codepoint
 registry:
            Type        Description              IIH   LSP   SNP
            ----        ----------------------   ---   ---   ---
             141        inter-AS reachability     n     y     n
                              information

6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV

 This document defines the following new sub-TLV types (described in
 Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3) of top-level TLV 141 (see Section
 6.1 above), which have been registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
 for TLV 141.  Note that these three new sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT appear in
 TLV 22 (or TLV 222) and MUST be ignored in TLV 22 (or TLV 222).
   Type        Description
   ----        ------------------------------
     24        remote AS number
     25        IPv4 remote ASBR Identifier
     26        IPv6 remote ASBR Identifier
 As described above in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE],
 [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents for describing the TE properties of
 a TE link are applicable to describe an inter-AS TE link and MAY be
 included in the inter-AS reachability TLV when adverting inter-AS TE
 links.
 IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for TLV
 22" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 141, and 222".  Three new
 columns have been added to the registry to show in which TLVs the

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 sub-TLVs may be present.  All sub-TLVs currently defined may be
 present in all three TLVs, hence the registry (with the definition of
 the new sub-TLVs defined here) should read as follows.
                                             TLV TLV TLV
 Type    Description                          22  141 222 Reference
 ------- ------------------------------------ --- --- --- ---------
    0    Unassigned                            y   y   y
    1    Unassigned                            y   y   y
    2    Unassigned                            y   y   y
    3    Administrative group (color)          y   y   y  [RFC5305]
    4    Link Local/Remote Identifiers         y   y   y
                                                 [RFC4205][RFC5307]
    5    Unassigned                            y   y   y
    6    IPv4 interface address                y   y   y  [RFC5305]
    7    Unassigned                            y   y   y
    8    IPv4 neighbor address                 y   y   y  [RFC5305]
    9    Maximum link bandwidth                y   y   y  [RFC5305]
   10    Maximum reservable link bandwidth     y   y   y  [RFC5305]
   11    Unreserved bandwidth                  y   y   y  [RFC5305]
   12    Unassigned                            y   y   y
   13    Unassigned                            y   y   y
   14    Unassigned                            y   y   y
   15    Unassigned                            y   y   y
   16    Unassigned                            y   y   y
   17    Unassigned                            y   y   y
   18    TE Default metric                     y   y   y  [RFC5305]
   19    Link-attributes                       y   y   y  [RFC5029]
   20    Link Protection Type                  y   y   y
                                                    [RFC4205][RFC5307]
   21    Interface Switching Capability Desc   y   y   y
                                                    [RFC4205][RFC5307]
   22    Bandwidth Constraints                 y   y   y  [RFC4124]
   23    Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV  y   y   y  [RFC5330]
   24    remote AS number                      n   y   n  [RFC5316]
   25    IPv4 remote ASBR identifier           n   y   n  [RFC5316]
   26    IPv6 remote ASBR identifier           n   y   n  [RFC5316]
 27-249  Unassigned
 250-254 Reserved for Cisco-specific exts
 255     Reserved for future expansion
 Further sub-TLVs may be defined in the future for inclusion in any of
 the TLVs 22, 141, or 222.  The re-naming of the registry as above
 ensures that there is no accidental overlap of sub-TLV codepoints.
 The introduction of the columns within the registry clarify the use
 of the sub-TLVs.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV

 This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in
 Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, of top-level TLV 242 (which is defined in
 [ISIS-CAP]) that have been registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
 for TLV 242:
    Type        Description                        Length
    ----        ------------------------------   --------
      11        IPv4 TE Router ID                       4
      12        IPv6 TE Router ID                      16

7. Acknowledgments

 The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux,
 Christian Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler for their review
 and comments on this document.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]         Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC3209]         Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
                   Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE:
                   Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209,
                   December 2001.
 [RFC5304]         Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
                   Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
 [ISIS]            Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP
                   and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
 [ISIS-CAP]        Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal,
                   Ed., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System
                   (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router
                   Information", RFC 4971, July 2007.

8.2. Informative References

 [INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang, R., Ed., and J.-P. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS
                   Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering
                   (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

 [PD-PATH]         Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang,
                   "A Per-Domain Path Computation Method for
                   Establishing Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering (TE)
                   Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152, February
                   2008.
 [BRPC]            Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., JL. Le
                   Roux, "A Backward Recursive PCE-Based Computation
                   (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Inter-Domain
                   Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", Work in
                   Progress, April 2008.
 [PCE]             Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
                   Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC
                   4655, August 2006.
 [ISIS-TE]         Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
                   Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
 [ISIS-TE-V3]      Harrison, J., Berger, J., and Bartlett, M., "IPv6
                   Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", Work in Progress,
                   June 2008.
 [GMPLS-TE]        Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS
                   Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
                   Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
 [BGP]             Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed.,
                   "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
                   January 2006.
 [GENINFO]         L. Ginsberg., Previdi, S., and M. Shand,
                   "Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS", Work in
                   Progress, June 2008.

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008

Authors' Addresses

 Mach (Guoyi) Chen
 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
 KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.
 Hai-Dian District
 Beijing, 100085
 P.R. China
 EMail: mach@huawei.com
 Renhai Zhang
 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
 KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.
 Hai-Dian District
 Beijing, 100085
 P.R. China
 EMail: zhangrenhai@huawei.com
 Xiaodong Duan
 China Mobile
 53A, Xibianmennei Ave.
 Xunwu District
 Beijing, China
 EMail: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com

Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5316.txt · Last modified: 2008/12/10 17:51 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki