Internet Engineering Task Force | L. Ginsberg, Ed. |
Internet-Draft | Cisco Systems |
Intended status: Standards Track | A. Przygienda |
Expires: April 25, 2018 | Juniper Networks |
S. Aldrin | |
J. Zhang | |
Juniper Networks, Inc. | |
October 22, 2017 |
BIER support via ISIS
draft-ietf-bier-isis-extensions-06
Specification of an ISIS extension to support BIER domains and sub-domains.
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 .
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 https://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 April 25, 2018.
Copyright (c) 2017 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 (https://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.
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08] defines an architecture where all intended multicast receivers are encoded as bitmask in the Multicast packet header within different encapsulations such as [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10]. A router that receives such a packet will forward the packet based on the Bit Position in the packet header towards the receiver(s), following a precomputed tree for each of the bits in the packet. Each receiver is represented by a unique bit in the bitmask.
This document presents necessary extensions to the currently deployed ISIS for IP [RFC1195] protocol to support distribution of information necessary for operation of BIER domains and sub-domains. This document defines a new TLV to be advertised by every router participating in BIER signaling.
Some of the terminology specified in [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08] is replicated here and extended by necessary definitions:
This document adds the following new sub-TLV to the registry of sub- TLVs for TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] and TLVs 135,236 [RFC5305],[RFC5308].
Value: 32 (suggested - to be assigned by IANA)
Name: BIER Info
This document also introduces a new registry for sub-sub-TLVs for the BIER Info sub-TLV added above. The registration policy is Expert Review as defined in [RFC8126]. This registry is part of the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. The name of the registry is "sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info sub-TLV". The defined values are:
Type Name ---- ---- 1 BIER MPLS Encapsulation 3 BIER sub-domain BSL conversion
An ISIS signalled BIER domain is aligned with the scope of distribution of BFR-prefixes that identify the BFRs within ISIS. ISIS acts in such a case as the supporting BIER underlay.
Within such a domain, the extensions defined in this document advertise BIER information for one or more BIER sub-domains. Each sub-domain is uniquely identified by a subdomain-id. Each subdomain is associated with a single ISIS topology [RFC5120], which may be any of the topologies supported by ISIS. Local configuration controls which <MT,SD> pairs are supported by a router. The mapping of sub-domains to topologies MUST be consistent within a BIER flooding domain.
Each BIER sub-domain has as its unique attributes the encapsulation used and the type of tree it is using to forward BIER frames (currently always SPF). Additionally, per supported bitstring length in the sub-domain, each router will advertise the necessary label ranges to support it.
BIER information advertisements are associated with a new sub-TLV in the extended reachability TLVs. BIER information is always associated with a host prefix which MUST be a node address for the advertising node. The following restrictions apply:
A given sub-domain is supported within one and only one topology. All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER sub-TLVs MUST advertise the same sub-domain within the same multi-topology. A router receiving an <MT,SD> advertisement which does not match the locally configured pair MUST report a misconfiguration of the received <MT, SD> pair. All received BIER advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be ignored.
All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise the same encapsulation for a given <MT,SD>. A router discovering encapsulation advertised that is different from its own MUST report a misconfiguration of a specific <MT,SD>. All received BIER advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be ignored.
All routers in the flooding scope of the BIER TLVs MUST advertise a supported algorithm for a given <MT,SD>. The specified algorithm is used when calculating the optimal path. Currently only the default algorithm "SPF" is defined - which has a reserved value of 0. The supported algorithm MUST be consistent for all routers supporting a given <MT,SD>. A router receiving an <MT,SD> advertisement with a BAR which does not match the locally configured value MUST report a misconfiguration of the received <MT, SD> pair. All received BIER advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT, SD> pair MUST be ignored.
A router that desires to participate in <MT,SD> MUST advertise for each bitstring length it supports in <MT,SD> a label range size that guarantees to cover the maximum BFR-id injected into <MT,SD> (which implies a certain maximum set id per bitstring length as described in [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08]). Any router that violates this condition MUST be excluded from BIER BFTs for <MT,SD>.
Each BFER/BFIR MAY advertise with its TLV<MT,SD> the BFR-id that it has administratively chosen. A valid BFR-id MUST be unique within the flooding scope of the BIER advertisments. All BFERs/BFIRs MUST detect advertisement of duplicate valid BFR-IDs for a given <MT, SD>. When such duplication is detected all of the routers advertising duplicates MUST be treated as if they did not advertise a valid BFR-id. This implies they cannot act as BFER or BFIR in that <MT,SD>.
Whenever an advertisement is received which violates any of the constraints defined in this document the receiving router MUST report the misconfiguration. Such reports SHOULD be dampened to avoid excessive logging output.
BIER domain information SHOULD change infrequently. Frequent changes will increase the number of Link State PDU (LSP) updates and negatively impact performance in the network.
All ISIS BIER information is carried within the TLVs 235, 237 [RFC5120] or TLVs 135 [RFC5305], or TLV 236.
This sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER sub-domains that the router participates in as BFR. This sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times in a given prefix-reachability TLV - once for each sub-domain supported in the associated topology.
The sub-TLV advertises a single <MT,SD> combination followed by optional sub-sub-TLVs as described in the following sections.
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | BAR | subdomain-id | BFR-id | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | sub-sub-TLVs (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER MPLS encapsulation including the label range for a specific bitstring length for a certain <MT,SD>. It is advertised within the BIER Info sub-TLV (Section 6.1) . This sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times within a single BIER info sub-TLV.
On violation of any of the following conditions, the receiving router MUST ignore the encapsulating BIER Info 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Lbl Range Size|BS Len | Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This sub-sub-TLV indicates whether the BFR is capable of imposing a different Bit String Length (BSL) than the one it received in a BIER encapsulated packet. Such a capability may allow future, advanced tree types which ensure simple migration procedures from one BSL to another in a given <MT,SD> or prevent stable blackholes in scenarios where not all routers support the same set of BSLs in a given <MT,SD>. Conversions are supported only between the set of BSLs advertised as supported by the router. It is carried within the BIER Info sub-TLV (Section 6.1). This sub-sub-TLV is optional and its absence indicates that the router is NOT capable of imposing different BSLs but will always forward the packet with the BSL unchanged. This sub-sub-TLV MAY occur at most once in a given BIER info sub-TLV. If multiple occurences of this sub-sub-TLV are received in a given BIER info sub-TLV the encapsulating sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Implementations must assure that malformed TLV and Sub-TLV permutations do not result in errors which cause hard protocol failures.
The RFC is aligned with the [I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08] draft as far as the protocol mechanisms overlap.
Many thanks for comments from (in no particular order) Hannes Gredler, Ijsbrand Wijnands, Peter Psenak and Chris Bowers.
[RFC1195] | Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195, December 1990. |
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
[RFC5120] | Przygienda, T., Shen, N. and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008. |
[RFC5305] | Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October 2008. |
[RFC5308] | Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008. |
[RFC7794] | Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X. and U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, March 2016. |
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08] | Wijnands et al., IJ., "Stateless Multicast using Bit Index Explicit Replication Architecture", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-architecture-08.txt, Sep 2017. |
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10] | Wijnands et al., IJ., "Bit Index Explicit Replication using MPLS encapsulation", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-10.txt, Sep 2017. |
[I-D.draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08] | Psenak et al., P., "OSPF Extension for Bit Index Explicit Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-08.txt, Oct 2017. |
[RFC8126] | Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017. |