Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Chen
Request for Comments: 9346 Huawei
Obsoletes: 5316 L. Ginsberg
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Previdi
Huawei Technologies
D. Xiaodong
X. Duan
China Mobile
January 2023
IS-IS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and
GMPLS Traffic Engineering
Abstract
This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines IS-IS
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.
This document builds on RFC 5316 by adding support for IPv6-only
operation.
This document obsoletes RFC 5316.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9346.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Problem Statement
2.1. A Note on Non-objectives
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination
2.3. Backward-Recursive Path Computation
3. Extensions to IS-IS TE
3.1. Choosing the TE Router ID Value
3.2. Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
3.3. TE Router ID
3.4. Sub-TLVs for Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
3.4.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
3.4.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Identifier Sub-TLV
3.4.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Identifier Sub-TLV
3.4.4. IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier Sub-TLV
3.5. Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
3.5.1. IPv4 TE Router ID Sub-TLV
3.5.2. IPv6 TE Router ID Sub-TLV
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information
5. Security Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Changes to RFC 5316
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
[RFC5305] defines extensions to the IS-IS protocol [RFC1195] 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 [RFC5305], 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.
[RFC6119] and [RFC5307] define similar extensions to IS-IS in support
of IPv6 and GMPLS TE, respectively.
Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE
Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous Systems
(ASes) are described in [RFC4216]. As described in [RFC4216], a
method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a path spanning multiple
ASes. So a path computation entity that may be the head-end Label
Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router (ASBR), or a Path
Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] 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, the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV is
defined to advertise inter-AS TE information, and four sub-TLVs are
defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV to
carry the information about the remote Remote AS number, remote Number, Remote ASBR ID,
Identifier, and IPv6 Local ASBR ID. Identifier. The sub-TLVs defined in
[RFC5305], [RFC6119], 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
Information TLV for describing the TE properties of an inter-AS TE
link as well. Also, two more 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 IS-IS
routing domain. The extensions are equally applicable to IPv4 and
IPv6 as identical extensions to [RFC5305] and [RFC6119]. 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 IS-IS. See Section 2.1 for
a full list of non-objectives for this work.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Problem Statement
As described in [RFC4216], 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:
* a set of AS numbers as loose hops and/or
* a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.
Two methods for determining inter-AS paths have been described
elsewhere. The per-domain method [RFC5152] determines the path one
domain at a time. The backward-recursive method [RFC5441] 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.
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 [RFC4216].
The following features are explicitly excluded:
* There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
AS to another AS.
* There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
reachability information for destinations outside the AS.
* There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.
* TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.
* There is no exchange of private information between ASes.
* No IS-IS 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.
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 an 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 [RFC5152], 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:
* List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.
* TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.
* AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
link.
* 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 [RFC5307].
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.
2.3. Backward-Recursive Path Computation
Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem.
[RFC5441] defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called
"Backward-Recursive Path Computation (BRPC)") 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 Path Computation Client (PCC) (R1) is
relayed by PCE1 and PCE2 along the PCE chain to PCE3. Then, PCE3
begins to compute the path 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 BRPC, 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 IS-IS 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, the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV is
defined for the advertisement of inter-AS TE links. Four sub-TLVs
are also defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability
Information TLV to carry the information about the neighboring AS
number, the remote Remote ASBR ID, Identifier, and IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier of
an inter-AS link. The sub-TLVs defined in [RFC5305], [RFC6119], and
other documents for inclusion in the extended IS reachability TLV are
applicable to be included in the
inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information
TLV for the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
This document also defines two sub-TLVs 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 IS-IS 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. Choosing the TE Router ID Value
Subsequent sections specify advertisement of a TE Router ID value for
IPv4 and/or IPv6. This section defines how this value is chosen.
A TE Router ID MUST be an address that is unique within the IS-IS
domain and stable, i.e., it can always be referenced in a path that
will be reachable from multiple hops away, regardless of the state of
the node's interfaces.
When advertising an IPv4 address as a TE Router ID, if the Traffic
Engineering router ID TLV [RFC5305] is being advertised, then the
address SHOULD be identical to the address in the Traffic Engineering
router ID TLV. The TE Router ID MAY be identical to an IP Interface
Address [RFC1195] advertised by the originating IS so long as the
address meets the requirements specified above.
When advertising an IPv6 address as a TE Router ID, if the IPv6 TE
Router ID TLV [RFC6119] is being advertised, then the address SHOULD
be identical to the address in the IPv6 TE Router ID TLV. The TE
Router ID MAY be identical to a non-link-local IPv6 Interface Address
advertised by the originating IS in a Link State PDU using the IPv6
Interface Address TLV [RFC5308] so long as the address meets the
requirements specified above.
3.2. Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
The inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV has type 141 (see
Section 6.1) and contains a data structure consisting of:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Router ID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Default Metric | (3 octets)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | (1 octet)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sub-TLVs Length| (1 octet)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Sub-TLVs ... (0-246 octets)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Flags consists of the following:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S|D| Rsvd |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:
S bit: If the S bit is set(1), the Inter-AS Reachability Information
TLV MUST be flooded across the entire routing domain. If the S
bit is not set(0), the TLV MUST NOT be leaked between levels.
This bit MUST NOT be altered during the TLV leaking.
D bit: When the Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV is leaked from
Level 2 (L2) to Level 1 (L1), the D bit MUST be set. Otherwise,
this bit MUST be clear. Inter-AS Reachability Information TLVs
with the D bit set MUST NOT be leaked from Level 1 to Level 2.
This is to prevent TLV looping.
Reserved (Rsvd): Reserved bits MUST be zero when originated and
ignored when received.
Compared to the extended IS reachability TLV, which is defined in
[RFC5305], the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information 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 Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV is 4
octets in length and has a value as defined in Section 3.1. If the
originating node does not support IPv4, then the reserved value
0.0.0.0 MUST be used in the Router ID field, and the IPv6 Router ID
sub-TLV MUST be present in the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV.
The Router ID could be used to indicate the source of the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS
Reachability Information TLV.
The flooding procedures for the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
are identical to the flooding procedures for the GENINFO TLV, which
are defined in Section 4 of [RFC6823]. These procedures have been
previously discussed in [RFC7981]. 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 IS-IS 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 [RFC5305], [RFC6119], and other documents for
describing the TE properties of a TE link are also applicable to the
inter-AS reachability
Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV for describing the TE
properties of an inter-AS TE link. Apart from these sub-TLVs, four
sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability
Information TLV defined in this document:
+==============+========+=============================+
| Sub-TLV type | Length | Name |
+==============+========+=============================+
| 24 | 4 | remote Remote AS number Number |
+--------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| 25 | 4 | IPv4 remote Remote ASBR identifier Identifier |
+--------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| 26 | 16 | IPv6 remote Remote ASBR identifier Identifier |
+--------------+--------+-----------------------------+
| 45 | 16 | IPv6 local Local ASBR identifier Identifier |
+--------------+--------+-----------------------------+
Table 1
Detailed definitions of these four sub-TLVs are described in Sections
3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4.
3.3. TE Router ID
The Traffic Engineering router ID TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID TLV,
which are defined in [RFC5305] and [RFC6119], 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 IS-IS routing
domain, and it MUST have the same flooding scope as the Inter-AS
Reachability Information TLV does.
[RFC7981] defines a generic advertisement mechanism for IS-IS, which
allows a router to advertise its capabilities within an IS-IS area or
an entire IS-IS routing domain. [RFC7981] 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 IS-
IS routing domain. Two sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the IS-
IS Router CAPABILITY TLV to carry the TE Router IDs.
+==============+========+===================+
| Sub-TLV type | Length | Name |
+==============+========+===================+
| 11 | 4 | IPv4 TE Router ID |
+--------------+--------+-------------------+
| 12 | 16 | IPv6 TE Router ID |
+--------------+--------+-------------------+
Table 2
Detailed definitions of these sub-TLVs are described in Sections
3.4.1 and 3.4.2.
3.4. Sub-TLVs for Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
3.4.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
The remote Remote AS number Number sub-TLV is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS
reachability Inter-AS
Reachability Information TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The remote
Remote AS
number Number sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring
AS to which the advertised link connects.
The remote Remote AS number 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, the left (high-order) 2 octets MUST be set to 0.
The remote Remote AS number Number sub-TLV MUST be included when a router
advertises an inter-AS TE link.
3.4.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Identifier Sub-TLV
The IPv4 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV is defined for inclusion in
the
inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV when advertising inter-AS
links. The IPv4
remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV specifies the IPv4
identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link
connects. The value advertised is selected as defined in
Section 3.1.
The IPv4 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV is TLV type 25 (see
Section 6.2) and is 4 octets in length. The format of the IPv4 remote
Remote ASBR ID Identifier 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 Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv4 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV MUST be included if the
neighboring ASBR has an IPv4 address. If the neighboring ASBR does
not have an IPv4 address, the IPv6 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV
MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV and
IPv6 remote Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV Identifier sub-TLV MAY both be present in an
extended IS reachability TLV.
3.4.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Identifier Sub-TLV
The IPv6 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV is defined for inclusion in
the
inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV when advertising inter-AS
links. The IPv6
remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV specifies the IPv6
identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link
connects. The value advertised is selected as defined in
Section 3.1.
The IPv6 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV is TLV type 26 (see
Section 6.2) and is 16 octets in length. The format of the IPv6 remote
Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV Identifier 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 Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID Identifier (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID Identifier (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID Identifier (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv6 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier 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 Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV
MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV and
IPv6 remote Remote ASBR ID sub-
TLV Identifier sub-TLV MAY both be present in an
extended IS reachability TLV.
3.4.4. IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier Sub-TLV
The IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV is defined for inclusion in
the inter-
AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV when advertising inter-AS
links. The IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV specifies the IPv6
identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link
connects. The value advertised is selected as defined in
Section 3.1.
The IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier sub-TLV is TLV type 45 (see
Section 6.2) and is 16 octets in length. The format of the IPv6
Local ASBR ID Identifier 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASBR ID Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASBR ID Identifier (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASBR ID Identifier (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Local ASBR ID Identifier (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If the originating node does not support IPv4, the IPv6 Local ASBR ID
Identifier sub-TLV MUST be present in the inter-AS reachability Inter-AS Reachability
Information TLV. Inter-AS
reachability Reachability Information TLVs that have a
Router ID of 0.0.0.0 and do not have the IPv6 Local ASBR ID Identifier
sub-TLV present MUST be ignored.
3.5. Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
3.5.1. 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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value advertised is selected as defined in Section 3.1.
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire
IS-IS 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 ID 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.
3.5.2. IPv6 TE Router ID Sub-TLV
The IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 12 (see Section 6.3) and is
16 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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The value advertised is selected as defined in Section 3.1.
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire
IS-IS 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 ID 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 [RFC5305].
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.
Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged over the inter-AS link, and
consequently, an IS-IS 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 Remote AS
number
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 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 IS-IS TE, the LSRs at each end of a TE
link emit LSPs 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 LSPs 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 LSP 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 LSP 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 Remote AS number, Number, and
the remote Remote ASBR ID Identifier 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.
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 the information described in Section 4 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 IS-IS security mechanisms (e.g., using the cleartext
passwords or Hashed Message Authentication Codes, which are defined
in [RFC1195], [RFC5304], and [RFC5310] separately).
There is no exchange of information between ASes and no change to the
IS-IS security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since
no IS-IS adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no
requirement for IS-IS security between the ASes.
Some of the information included in these advertisements (e.g., the
remote
Remote AS number Number and the remote Remote ASBR ID) Identifier) 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 provide incorrect information, or some manual misconfigurations
or mistakes may be made by the operators). For example, if a
different remote Remote AS number Number is received in a BGP OPEN [RFC4271] from
that locally configured to IS-IS TE, as we describe here, then local
policy SHOULD be applied to determine whether to alert the operator
to a potential misconfiguration or to suppress the IS-IS
advertisement of the inter-AS TE link. Advertisement of incorrect
information could result in an inter-AS TE LSP that traverses an
unintended AS. 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 such as described in [RFC5925] to
provide authentication and integrity checks.
For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS, see
[RFC5304].
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
IANA has registered the following IS-IS TLV type, described in
Section 3.1, in the "IS-IS Top-Level TLV Codepoints" registry:
+=======+==============+=====+=====+=====+=======+===========+
| Value | Name | IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge | Reference |
+=======+==============+=====+=====+=====+=======+===========+
| 141 | inter-AS Inter-AS | n | y | n | n | RFC 9346 |
| | reachability Reachability | | | | | |
| | information Information | | | | | |
+-------+--------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+-----------+
Table 3
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
IANA has registered the following sub-TLV types of top-level TLV 141
(see Section 6.1) in the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising
Neighbor Information" registry. These sub-TLVs are described in
Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4.
+=======+=============+====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+===========+
| Value | Description | 22 | 23 | 25 | 141 | 222 | 223 | Reference |
+=======+=============+====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+===========+
| 24 | remote Remote AS | n | n | n | y | n | n | RFC 9346 |
| | number Number | | | | | | | |
+-------+-------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 25 | IPv4 remote Remote | n | n | n | y | n | n | RFC 9346 |
| | ASBR | | | | | | | |
| | identifier Identifier | | | | | | | |
+-------+-------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 26 | IPv6 remote Remote | n | n | n | y | n | n | RFC 9346 |
| | ASBR | | | | | | | |
| | identifier Identifier | | | | | | | |
+-------+-------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
| 45 | IPv6 local Local | n | n | n | y | n | n | RFC 9346 |
| | ASBR | | | | | | | |
| | identifier Identifier | | | | | | | |
+-------+-------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----------+
Table 4
As described in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs that are defined in
[RFC5305], [RFC6119], 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 Inter-AS Reachability Information TLV
when adverting inter-AS TE links.
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
IANA has registered the following sub-TLV types of top-level TLV 242
(see [RFC7981]) in the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY
TLV" registry. These sub-TLVs are described in Sections 3.4.1 and
3.4.2.
+======+===================+===========+
| Type | Description | Reference |
+======+===================+===========+
| 11 | IPv4 TE Router ID | RFC 9346 |
+------+-------------------+-----------+
| 12 | IPv6 TE Router ID | RFC 9346 |
+------+-------------------+-----------+
Table 5
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1195] Callon, R. and RFC Publisher, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S. and RFC Publisher, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, S., Ed., and RFC
Publisher, "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5305] Li, T., Smit, H., T. and RFC Publisher, H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C. and RFC Publisher, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., Bonica, R., and RFC Publisher, R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., Bartlett, M., and RFC Publisher, M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, DOI 10.17487/RFC6119,
February 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
[RFC7981] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Chen, M., and RFC Publisher, M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B. and RFC Publisher, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
Swallow, G.,
and RFC Publisher, G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4216] Zhang, R., Ed., Ed. and J.-P. Vasseur, J.-P., Ed., and RFC Publisher, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous Inter-
Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
Requirements", RFC 4216, DOI 10.17487/RFC4216, November
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4216>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., Ash, J., and RFC Publisher, J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5152] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., Zhang, R., and RFC
Publisher, R. Zhang, "A
Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain Inter-
Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 5152, DOI 10.17487/RFC5152, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5152>.
[RFC5304] Li, T., Atkinson, R., T. and RFC Publisher, R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Y., Ed., and RFC Publisher, "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
Fanto, M.,
and RFC Publisher, M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., Duan, X., and RFC Publisher, X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.
[RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux, JL., and
RFC Publisher,
"A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-
Domain Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5441>.
[RFC6823] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and RFC Publisher, M. Shand, "Advertising
Generic Information in IS-IS", RFC 6823,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6823, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6823>.
Appendix A. Changes to RFC 5316
The following is a summary of the substantive changes this document
makes to RFC 5316. Some editorial changes were also made.
RFC 5316 only allowed a 32-bit Router ID in the fixed header of TLV
141. This is problematic in an IPv6-only deployment where an IPv4
address may not be available. This document specifies:
1. The Router ID should be identical to the value advertised in the
Traffic Engineering router ID TLV (134) if available.
2. If no Traffic Engineering Router ID is assigned, the Router ID
should be identical to an IP Interface Address [RFC1195]
advertised by the originating IS.
3. If the originating node does not support IPv4, then the reserved
value 0.0.0.0 must be used in the Router ID field and the IPv6
Local ASBR identifier Identifier sub-TLV must be present in the TLV.
Acknowledgements
In the previous version of this document [RFC5316], the authors
thanked Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux, Christian Hopps, and
Hannes Gredler for their review and comments.
Authors' Addresses
Mach(Guoyi) Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Huawei Technologies
Italy
Email: stefano@previdi.net
Xiaodong Duan
China Mobile
Email: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com