| IS-IS WG | S. Hegde |
| Internet-Draft | C. Bowers |
| Intended status: Standards Track | Juniper Networks |
| Expires: February 17, 2017 | P. Mattes |
| M. Nanduri | |
| Microsoft | |
| I. Mohammad | |
| Arista Networks | |
| August 16, 2016 |
Advertising TE protocols in IS-IS
draft-hegde-isis-advertising-te-protocols-00
This document defines a mechanism to indicate which traffic engineering protocols are enabled on a link in IS-IS. It does so by introducing a new traffic-engineering protocol sub-TLV for TLV-22. This document also describes mechanisms to address backward compatibility issues for implementations that have not yet been upgraded to software that understands this new sub-TLV.
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].
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
IS-IS extensions for traffic engineering are specified in [RFC5305]. [RFC5305] defines several link attributes such as administrative group, maximum link bandwidth, and shared risk link groups (SRLGs) which can be used by traffic engineering applications. Additional link attributes for traffic engineering have subsequently been defined in other documents as well. Most recently [RFC7810] defined link attributes for delay, loss, and measured bandwidth utilization.
The primary consumers of these traffic engineering link attributes have been RSVP-based applications that use the advertised link attributes to compute paths which will subsequently be signalled using RSVP-TE. However, these traffic engineering link attributes have also been used by other applications, such as IP/LDP fast-reroute using loop-free alternates as described in [RFC7916]. In the future, it is likely that traffic engineering applications based on Segment Routing [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] will also use these link attributes.
Existing IS-IS standards do not provide a mechanism to explicitly indicate whether or not RSVP has been enabled on a link. Instead, different RSVP-TE implementations have used the presence of certain traffic engineering sub-TLVs in IS-IS to infer that RSVP signalling is enabled on a given link. A study was conducted with various vendor implementations to determine which traffic engineering sub-TLVs cause an implementation to infer that RSVP signalling is enabled on a link. The results are shown in Figure 1.
+--------+--------------------------------------------+ | TLV/ | Sub-TLV name | X | Y | Z | |sub-TLV | | | | | +--------+--------------------------------------------+ |22 |Extended IS Reachability TLV | N | N | N | |22/3 |Administrative group (color) | N | Y | Y | |22/4 |Link Local/Remote ID | N | N | N | |22/6 |IPV4 Interface Address | N | N | N | |22/8 |IPV4 Neighbor Address | N | N | N | |22/9 |Max Link Bandwidth | N | Y | Y | |22/10 |Max Reservable Link Bandwidth| N | Y | Y | |22/11 |Unreserved Bandwidth | Y | Y | Y | |22/14 |Extended Admin Group | N | Y | N | |22/18 |TE Default Metric | N | N | N | |22/20 |Link Protection Type | N | Y | Y | |22/21 |Interface Switching | N | Y | Y | | | Capability | | | | |22/22 |TE Bandwidth Constraints | N | Y | Y | |22/33-39|TE Metric Extensions(RFC7180)| N | N | N | |138 |SRLG TLV | N | Y | Y | +--------+--------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Traffic engineering Sub-TLVs that cause implementation X, Y, or Z to infer that RSVP signalling is enabled on a link
The study indicates that the different implementations use the presence of different sub-TLVs under TLV 22 (or the presence of TLV 138) to infer that RSVP signalling is enabled on a link. It is possible that other implementations may use other sub-TLVs to infer that RSVP is enabled on a link.
This document defines a standard way to indicate whether or not RSVP, segment routing, or another future protocol is enabled on a link. In this way, implementations will not have to infer whether or not RSVP is enabled based on the presence of different sub-TLVs, but can use the explicit indication. When network operators want to use a non-RSVP traffic engineering application (such as IP/LDP FRR or segment routing), they will be able to advertise traffic engineer sub-TLVs and explicitly indicate what traffic engineering protocols are enabled on a link.
The motivation of this document is to provide a mechanism to advertise TE attributes for current and future applications without ambiguity. The following objectives help to accomplish this in a range of deployment scenarios.
A new sub-TLV Traffic-engineering protocol sub-TLV is added in the TLV 22 [RFC5305] or TLV 222 to indicate the protocols enabled on the link. The sub-TLV has flags in the value field to indicate the protocol enabled on the link. The length field is variable to allow the flags field to grow for future requirements.
Type : TBD suggested value 40 Length: Variable Value : 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Traffic-Engineering Protocol sub-TLV
Type : TBA (suggested value 40)
Length: variable (in bytes)
Value: The value field consists of bits indicating the protocols enabled on the link. This document defines the two protocol values below.
+----------+-------------------------------+ | Value | Protocol Name | +----------+-------------------------------+ |0x01 | RSVP | +----------+-------------------------------+ |0x02 | Segment Routing | +----------+-------------------------------+
Figure 3: Flags for the protocols
The RSVP flag is set to one to indicate that RSVP-TE is enabled on a link. The RSVP flag is set to zero to indicate that RSVP-TE is not enabled on a link.
The Segment Routing flag is set to one to indicate that Segment Routing is enabled on a link. The Segment Routing flag is set to zero to indicate that Segment Routing is not enabled on a link.
All undefined flags MUST be set to zero on transmit and ignored on receipt.
An implementation that supports the TE protocol sub-TLV and sends TLV 22 MUST advertise the TE protocol sub-TLV in TLV 22 for that link, even when both the RSVP and SR flags are set to zero. This allows a receiving router to determine whether or not the sending router is capable of sending the TE protocol sub-TLV. It is used for backward compatibility as described in Section 4.
Routers running older software that do not understand the new Traffic-Engineering protocol sub-TLV will continue to interpret the presence of some sub-TLVs in TLV 22 or the presence of TLV 138 as meaning that RSVP is enabled a link. A network operator may not want to or be able to upgrade all routers in the domain at the same time. There are two backward compatibility scenarios to consider depending on whether the router that doesn't understand the new TE protocol sub-TLV is an RSVP-TE ingress router or an RSVP-TE transit router.
Suppose we have an upgraded transit router that explicitly indicates that RSVP is not enabled on a link by advertising the TE protocol sub-TLV with the RSVP flag set to zero. An RSVP-TE ingress router that has not been upgraded to understand the new TE protocol sub-TLV will not understand that RSVP-TE is not enabled on the link, and may include the link on a path computed for RSVP-TE. When the network tries to signal an explicit path LSP using RSVP-TE through that link, it will fail. In order to avoid this scenario, an operator can use the mechanism described below.
For this scenario, the basic idea is to use the existing administrative group link attribute as a means of preventing existing RSVP implementations from using a link. The network operator defines an administrative group to mean that RSVP is not enabled on a link. We call this admin group the RSVP-not-enabled admin group. If the operator needs to advertise a TE sub-TLV (maximum link bandwidth, for example) on a link, but doesn't want to enable RSVP on that link, then the operator also advertises the RSVP-not-enabled admin group on that link. The operator can then use existing mechanisms to exclude links advertising the RSVP-not-enabled admin group from the constrained shortest path first (CSPF) computation used by RSVP. This will prevent RSVP implementations from attempting to signal RSVP-TE LSPs across links that do not have RSVP enabled. Once the entire network domain is upgraded to understand the TE protocol sub-TLV in this draft, the configuration involving the RSVP-not-enabled admin group is no longer needed for this network.
The other scenario to consider is when the RSVP-TE ingress router has been upgraded to understand the TE protocol sub-TLV, but an RSVP-TE transit router has not. In this case, the transit router is not capable of sending the TE protocol sub-TLV. If the RSVP-TE ingress router understands that the transit router is not capable of sending the TE protocol sub-TLV, then it can continue inferring whether or not RSVP-TE is enabled on the transit router links based on the presence of TE sub-TLVs, as it does today. We require an upgraded router to send the TE protocol sub-TLV if it sends TLV 22, even when both the RSVP and SR flags are set to zero. This allows the receiving router to interpret the absence of the TE-protocol sub-TLV together with presence of TLV 22 to mean that the sending router has not been upgraded. This allows the upgraded RSVP-TE ingress router to distingish between transit routers that have been upgraded and those that haven't, and behave accordingly.
This document does not introduce any further security issues other than those discussed in [RFC1195] and [RFC5305].
This specification updates one IS-IS registry:
The extended IS reachability TLV Registry
i) Traffic-engineering Protocol sub-tlv = Suggested value 40
The authors thank Alia Atlas and Les Ginsberg for helpful discissions on the topic of this draft.
| [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] | Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S. and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09, July 2016. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC5305] | Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008. |
| [RFC7810] | Previdi, S., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J. and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 7810, DOI 10.17487/RFC7810, May 2016. |
| [RFC1195] | Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, December 1990. |
| [RFC7916] | Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K., Horneffer, M. and P. Sarkar, "Operational Management of Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 7916, DOI 10.17487/RFC7916, July 2016. |