RFC4205: Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Download in PDF format Download in text format
Obsoleted By:
RFC5307
Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4205 Y. Rekhter, Ed.
Updates: 3784 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational October 2005
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Status of This Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS).
1. Introduction
This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in
support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements
to IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. Support for unnumbered
interfaces assumes support for the "Point-to-Point Three-Way
Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [ISIS-3way].
In this section we define the enhancements to the Traffic Engineering
(TE) properties of GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS Link
State Protocol Data Units.
In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS
reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically,
we add the following sub-TLVs:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name
4 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers
20 2 Link Protection Type
21 variable Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
We further add one new TLV to the TE TLVs:
TLV Type Length Name
138 variable Shared Risk Link Group
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].
1.1. Link Local/Remote Identifiers
A Link Local Interface Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the extended IS
reachability TLV. The type of this sub-TLV is 4, and length is eight
octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link
Local Identifier followed by four octets of Link Remote Identifier
(see Section "Support for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If
the Link Remote Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.
The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link
Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than
once within the extended IS reachability TLV. If the Link
Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV occurs more than once within the
extended IS reachability TLV, the receiver SHOULD ignore all these
sub-TLVs.
1.2. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the extended IS
reachability TLV, with length two octets.
The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link
Protection Type sub-TLV.
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Protection Cap | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection
capabilities of the link (see Section "Link Protection Type" of
[GMPLS-ROUTING]). They are:
0x01 Extra Traffic
0x02 Unprotected
0x04 Shared
0x08 Dedicated 1:1
0x10 Dedicated 1+1
0x20 Enhanced
0x40 Reserved
0x80 Reserved
The second octet SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and SHOULD be
ignored by the receiver.
The Link Protection Type sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than once within
the extended IS reachability TLV. If the Link Protection Type sub-
TLV occurs more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV,
the receiver SHOULD ignore all these sub-TLVs.
1.3. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type
21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of
value field in octets. The following illustrates encoding of the
Value field of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV.
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
following values:
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and
priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum
LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE
floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer, and carries the
MTU value in the units of bytes.
When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present.
When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability
specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an
indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
SONET/SDH.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Indication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE
floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the
interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface
supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching
Capability specific information field present.
To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching
Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability
Descriptor sub-TLV MAY occur more than once within the extended IS
reachability TLV.
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
1.4. Shared Risk Link Group TLV
The SRLG TLV (of type 138) contains a data structure consisting of:
6 octets of System ID
1 octet of Pseudonode Number
1 octet Flag
4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local
Identifier
4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote
Identifier
(variable) list of SRLG values, where each element in the list
has 4 octets.
The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the SRLG
TLV.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID (cont.) | Pseudonode num| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 neighbors address/Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The neighbor is identified by its System Id (6-octets), plus one
octet to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN
interface.
The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the
interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All
other bits are reserved and should be set to 0.
The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values).
This TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see Section
"Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
The SRLG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State
Protocol Data Units.
1.5. Link Identifier for Unnumbered Interfaces
Link Identifiers are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field
of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type
[ISIS-3way].
2. Implications on Graceful Restart
The restarting node SHOULD follow the ISIS restart procedures
[ISIS-RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
When the restarting node is going to originate its IS-IS Link State
Protocol data units for TE links, these Link State Protocol data
units SHOULD be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, Traffic
Engineering Default metric set to 0xffffff, and if the link has LSC
or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP
Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of
unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of
unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart, the node SHOULD advertise these resources in its Link State
Protocol data units.
In addition, in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting,
the restarting node SHOULD originate the IS-IS Link State Protocol
data units for TE links with 0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the
link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as
Max LSP Bandwidth. This would discourage new LSP establishment
through the restarting router.
Neighbors of the restarting node SHOULD continue to advertise the
actual unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to
that node.
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
3. Contributors
Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3645
EMail: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3720
EMail: jdrake@calient.net
Greg Bernstein
Grotto Networking
EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1 978 288 4506
EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Eric Mannie
Independent Consultant
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: +1 732 923 4264
EMail: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma
EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jim Gibson, Suresh Katukam, Jonathan
Lang and Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.
5. Security Considerations
This document specifies the contents of GMPLS TE TLVs in ISIS. As
these TLVs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the
extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing.
Tampering with GMPLS TE TLVs may have an effect on the underlying
transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. Mechanisms to secure
ISIS Link State PDUs and/or the TE TLVs [ISIS-HMAC] can be used to
secure the GMPLS TE TLVs as well.
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type that needs to
be reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry:
Type Description IIH LSP SNP
---- ---------------------- --- --- ---
138 Shared Risk Link Group n y n
This document also defines the following new sub-TLV types of top-
level TLV 22 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV registry
for TLV 22:
Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ --------
4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 8
20 Link Protection Type 2
21 Interface Switching Capability variable
Descriptor
References
Normative References
[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 9]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point
Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-
7653-8).
[ISIS-3way] Katz, D. and R. Saluja, "Three-Way Handshake for
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 3373, September
2002.
[ISIS-RESTART] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)",
RFC 3847, July 2004.
[ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic
Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ISIS-HMAC] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 10]
RFC 4205 IS-IS Extensions for MPLS October 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kompella & Rekhter Informational [Page 11]