wdiff rfc9666.original rfc9666.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Li
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9666 Juniper Networks
Intended status:
Category: Experimental S. Chen
Expires: 21 July 2024
ISSN: 2070-1721 V. Ilangovan
Arista Networks
G. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
18 January
October 2024

Area Proxy for IS-IS
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-area-proxy-12

Abstract

Link state

Link-state routing protocols have hierarchical abstraction already
built into them. However, when lower levels are used for transit,
they must expose their internal topologies to each other, thereby
leading to
scale scaling issues.

To avoid this, such issues, this document discusses extensions to the IS-IS
routing protocol that allow level Level 1 (L1) areas to provide transit, yet transit but
only inject an abstraction of the level Level 1 topology into level 2. Level 2 (L2).
Each level Level 1 area is represented as a single level Level 2 node, thereby
enabling a greater scale.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft document is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents
evaluation.

This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents valid approved by the IESG are candidates for a maximum any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 21 July 2024.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9666.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info)
(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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Area Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Inside Router Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. The Area Proxy TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Level 2 SPF Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Responsibilities concerning Concerning the Proxy LSP . . . . . . . . 8
4. Area Leader Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Area Leader Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Redundancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Distributing Area Proxy Information . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.1. The Area Proxy System ID Identifier Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. The Area SID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Proxy LSP Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.1. The Protocols Supported TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.2. The Area Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.3. The Dynamic Hostname TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.4. The IS Neighbors TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.5. The Extended IS Neighbors TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.6. The MT Intermediate Systems TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.7. Reachability TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.8. The Router Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4.9. The Multi-Topology TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.10. The SID/Label Binding and The the Multi-Topology SID/Label
Binding SID TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.11. The SRv6 Locator TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.12. Traffic Engineering Information . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4.13. The Area SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Inside Edge Router Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Generating L2 IIHs to Outside Routers . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Filtering LSP information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Information
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1.
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2.
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1. Introduction

The IS-IS routing protocol IS-IS [ISO10589] supports a two-level hierarchy
of abstraction. The fundamental unit of abstraction is the
'area', "area",
which is a (hopefully) connected set of systems running IS-IS at the
same level. Level 1, the lowest level, is abstracted by routers that
participate in both Level 1 and Level 2, and they inject area
information into Level 2. Level 2 systems seeking to access Level 1, 1
use this abstraction to compute the shortest path to the Level 1
area. The full topology database of Level 1 is not injected into
Level 2, rather, only a summary of the address space contained within
the area, so area is injected. Therefore, the scalability of the Level 2 Link
State Database (LSDB) is protected.

This works well if the Level 1 area is tangential to the Level 2
area. This also works well if there are several routers in both
Level
Levels 1 and Level 2 and they are adjacent to one another, so Level 2
traffic will never need to transit Level 1 only routers. Level 1
will not contain any Level 2 topology, topology and Level 2 will only contain
area abstractions for Level 1.

Unfortunately, this scheme does not work so well if the Level 1 only
area needs to provide transit for Level 2 traffic. For Level 2
shortest path first
Shortest Path First (SPF) computations to work correctly, the transit
topology must also appear in the Level 2 LSDB. This implies that all
routers that could provide transit, transit plus any links that might also
provide Level 2 transit must also become part of the Level 2
topology. If this is a relatively tiny portion of the Level 1 area,
this is not overly painful.

However, with today's data center topologies, this is problematic. A
common application is to use a Layer 3 Leaf-Spine (L3LS) topology,
which is a folded 3-stage Clos [Clos] fabric. fabric [Clos]. It can also be thought
of as a complete bipartite graph. In such a topology, the desire is
to use Level 1 to contain the routing dynamics of the entire L3LS
topology and then use Level 2 for the remainder of the network.
Leaves in the L3LS topology are appropriate for connection outside of
the data center itself, so they would provide connectivity for Level
2. If there are multiple connections to Level 2 for redundancy, redundancy or
other areas, these too would also be made to the leaves in the topology.
This creates a difficulty because there are now multiple Level 2
leaves in the topology, with connectivity between the leaves provided
by the spines.

Following the current rules of IS-IS, all spine routers would
necessarily be part of the Level 2 topology, topology plus all links between a
Level 2 leaf and the spines. In the limit, where all leaves need to
support Level 2, it implies that the entire L3LS topology becomes
part of Level 2. This is seriously problematic problematic, as it more than
doubles the LSDB held in the L3LS topology and eliminates any
benefits of the hierarchy.

This document discusses the handling of IP traffic. Supporting MPLS-
based traffic is a subject for future 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. Area Proxy

To address this, in

In this specification specification, we completely abstract away the details of the
Level 1 area topology within Level 2, making the entire area look
like a single proxy system directly connected to all of the area's
Level 2 neighbors. By only providing an abstraction of the topology,
Level 2's requirement for connectivity can be satisfied without the
full overhead of the area's internal topology. It then becomes the
responsibility of the Level 1 area to provide the forwarding
connectivity that's advertised.

For this discussion, we'll consider a single Level 1 IS-IS area to be
the Inside Area, Area and the remainder of the Level 2 area to be the
Outside Area. All routers within the Inside Area speak Level 1 and
Level 2 IS-IS on all of the links within the topology. We propose to
implement Area Proxy by having a Level 2 Proxy Link State Protocol
Data Unit (PDU, LSP) PDU (LSP)
that represents the entire Inside Area. We will refer to this as the
Proxy LSP. This is the only LSP from the area that will be flooded
into the overall Level 2 LSDB.

There are four classes of routers that we need to be concerned with
in this discussion:

Inside Router Router: A router within the Inside Area that runs Level 1 and
Level 2 IS-IS. A router is recognized as an Inside Router by the
existence of its LSP in the Level 1 LSDB.

Area Leader Leader: The Area Leader is an Inside Router that is elected to
represent the Level 1 area by injecting the Proxy LSP into the
Level 2 LSDB. There may be multiple candidates for Area Leader,
but only one is elected at a given time. Any Inside Router can be
the Area Leader.

Inside Edge Router Router: An Inside Edge Router is an Inside Area Router
that has at least one Level 2 interface outside of the Inside
Area. An interface on an Inside Edge Router that is connected to
an Outside Edge Router is an Area Proxy Boundary.

Outside Edge Router Router: An Outside Edge Router is a Level 2 router that
is outside of the Inside Area that has an adjacency with an Inside
Edge Router.

Inside Area

+--------+ +--------+
| Inside |-----------------| Inside |
| Router | | Edge |
+--------+ +------------| Router |
| / +--------+
| / |
+--------+ / =============|======
| Area |/ || |
| Leader | || +---------+
+--------+ || | Outside |
|| | Edge |
|| | Router |
|| +---------+

Outside Area

Figure 1: An example Example of router classes Router Classes

All Inside Edge Routers learn the Area Proxy System Identifier from
the Area Proxy TLV advertised by the Area Leader and use that as the
system identifier in their Level 2 IS-IS Hello (IIH) PDUs (IIHs) on all
Outside interfaces. Outside Edge Routers will then advertise an
adjacency to the Area Proxy System Identifier. This allows all
Outside Routers to use the Proxy LSP in their SPF computations
without seeing the full topology of the Inside Area.

Area Proxy functionality assumes that all circuits on Inside Routers
are either Level 1-2 circuits within the Inside Area, or Level 2
circuits between Outside Edge Routers and Inside Edge Routers.

Area Proxy Boundary multi-access circuits (i.e., Ethernets in LAN
mode) with multiple Inside Edge Routers on them are not supported.
The Inside Edge Router on any boundary LAN MUST NOT flood Inside
Router LSPs on this link. Boundary LANs SHOULD NOT be enabled for
Level 1. An Inside Edge Router may be elected as the Designated
Intermediate System (DIS) for a Boundary LAN. In this case, using
the Area Proxy System ID as the basis for the LAN pseudonode
identifier could create a collision, so the Insider Edge Router
SHOULD compose the pseudonode identifier using its native originally
configured system identifier. This choice of pseudonode identifier
may confuse neighbors with an extremely strict implementation, in which case implementation. In
this case, the Inside Edge Router may be configured with priority 0,
causing an Outside Router to be elected as the DIS.

2.1. Segment Routing

If the Inside Area supports Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8402], then all
Inside Nodes MUST advertise an SR a Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB).
The first value of the SRGB advertised by all Inside Nodes MUST start
at the same value. If the Area Leader detects SRGBs that do not
start with the same value, it MUST log an error and not advertise an
SRGB in the Proxy LSP. The range advertised for the area will be the
minimum of that advertised by all Inside Nodes.

To support Segment Routing, SR, the Area Leader will take the SRGB information found
in the L1 LSDB and convey that to L2 through the Proxy LSP. Prefixes
with SID Segment Identifier (SID) assignments will be copied to the Proxy
LSP. Adjacency SIDs for Outside Edge Nodes will be copied to the
Proxy LSP.

To further extend Segment Routing, SR, it is helpful to have a segment that refers to
the entire Inside Area. This allows a path to refer to an area and
have any node within that area accept and forward the packet. In
effect, this becomes an anycast SID that is accepted by all Inside
Edge Nodes. The information about this SID is distributed in the
Area SID Sub-TLV, sub-TLV as part of the Area Leader's Area Proxy TLV
(Section 4.3.2). The Inside Edge Nodes MUST establish forwarding
based on this SID. The Area Leader SHALL also include the Area SID
in the Proxy LSP so that the remainder of L2 can use it for path
construction. (Section 4.4.13).

3. Inside Router Functions

All Inside Routers run Level 1-2 IS-IS and must be explicitly
instructed to enable the Area Proxy functionality. To signal their
readiness to participate in Area Proxy functionality, they will
advertise the Area Proxy TLV in their L2 LSP.

3.1. The Area Proxy TLV

The Area Proxy TLV serves multiple functions:

* The presence of the Area Proxy TLV in a node's LSP indicates that
the node is enabled for Area Proxy.

* An LSP containing the Area Proxy TLV is also an Inside Node. All
Inside Nodes, including pseudonodes, MUST advertise the Area Proxy
TLV.

* It is a container for sub-TLVs with Area Proxy information.

A node advertises the Area Proxy TLV in fragment 0 of its L2 LSP.
Nodes MUST NOT advertise the Area Proxy TLV in an L1 LSP. Nodes MUST
ignore the Area Proxy TLV if it is found in an L1 LSP. The Area
Proxy TLV is not used in the Proxy LSP. The format of the Area Proxy
TLV is:

0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV Type | TLV Length | Sub-TLVs ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

TLV Type: 20

TLV Length: length Length of the sub-TLVs sub-TLVs.

3.2. Level 2 SPF Computation

When Outside Routers perform a Level 2 SPF computation, they will use
the Proxy LSP for computing a path transiting the Inside Area.
Because the topology has been abstracted away, the cost for
transiting the Inside Area will be zero.

When Inside Routers perform a Level 2 SPF computation, they MUST
ignore the Proxy LSP. Further, because Because these systems do see the Inside Area
topology, the link metrics internal to the area are visible. This
could lead to different and possibly inconsistent SPF results,
potentially leading to forwarding loops.

To prevent this, the Inside Routers MUST consider the metrics of
links outside of the Inside Area (inter-area metrics) separately from
the metrics of the Inside Area links (intra-area metrics). Intra-
area metrics MUST be treated as less than any inter-area metric.
Thus, if two paths have different total inter-area metrics, the path
with the lower inter-area metric would be preferred, preferred regardless of any
intra-area metrics involved. However, if two paths have equal
inter-area inter-
area metrics, then the intra-area metrics would be used to compare
the paths.

Point-to-point links between two Inside Routers are considered to be
Inside Area links. LAN links which that have a pseudonode LSP in the Level
1 LSDB are considered to be Inside Area links.

3.3. Responsibilities concerning Concerning the Proxy LSP

The Area Leader will generate a Proxy LSP that will be flooded across
the Inside Area. Inside Routers MUST ignore the contents of flood the Proxy LSP other than for flooding. and MUST
ignore its contents. The Proxy LSP uses the Area Proxy System
Identifier as its Source ID.

4. Area Leader Functions

The Area Leader has several responsibilities. First, it MUST inject
the Area Proxy System Identifier into the Level 2 LSDB. Second, the
Area Leader MUST generate the Proxy LSP for the Inside Area.

4.1. Area Leader Election

The Area Leader is selected using the election mechanisms and TLVs
described in Dynamic "Dynamic Flooding for IS-IS
[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]. on Dense Graphs" [RFC9667].

4.2. Redundancy

If the Area Leader fails, another candidate may become Area Leader
and MUST regenerate the Proxy LSP. The failure of the Area Leader is
not visible outside of the area and appears to simply be an update of
the Proxy LSP.

For consistency, all Area Leader candidates SHOULD be configured with
the same Proxy System ID, Proxy Hostname, and any other information
that may be inserted into the Proxy LSP.

4.3. Distributing Area Proxy Information

The Area Leader is responsible for distributing information about the
area to all Inside Nodes. In particular, the Area Leader distributes
the Proxy System ID and the Area SID. This is done using two sub-
TLVs of the Area Proxy TLV.

4.3.1. The Area Proxy System ID Identifier Sub-TLV

The Area Proxy System ID Sub-TLV Identifier sub-TLV MUST be used by the Area
Leader to distribute the Area Proxy System ID. This is an additional
system identifier that is used by Inside Nodes as an indication that
Area Proxy is active. The format of this sub-TLV is:

0 1 2
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Proxy System Identifier |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Type: 1

Length: length Length of a system ID (6) (6).

Proxy System Identifier: the The Area Proxy System Identifier.

The Area Leader MUST advertise the Area Proxy System Identifier Sub- sub-
TLV when it observes that all Inside Routers are advertising the Area
Proxy TLV. Their advertisements indicate that they are individually
ready to perform Area Proxy functionality. The Area Leader then
advertises the Area Proxy System Identifier TLV to indicate that the
Inside Area MUST enable Area Proxy functionality.

Other candidates for Area Leader MAY also advertise the Area Proxy
System Identifier when they observe that all Inside Routers are
advertising the Area Proxy Router Capability. TLV. All candidates advertising the Area
Proxy System Identifier TLV SHOULD be advertising the same system
identifier. Multiple proxy system identifiers in a single area is a
misconfiguration and each unique occurrence SHOULD be logged.
Systems should use the proxy system
identifier Proxy System ID advertised by the Area Leader.

The Area Leader and other candidates for Area Leader MAY withdraw the
Area Proxy System Identifier when one or more Inside Routers are not
advertising the Area Proxy Router Capability. TLV. This will disable Area Proxy
functionality. However, before withdrawing the Area Proxy System
Identifier, an implementation SHOULD protect against unnecessary
churn from transients by delaying the withdrawal. The amount of
delay is implementation dependent.

4.3.2. The Area SID Sub-TLV

The Area SID Sub-TLV sub-TLV allows the Area Leader to advertise a prefix and
SID that represents represent the entirety of the Inside Area to the Outside
Area. This sub-TLV is learned by all of the Inside Edge Nodes who
should consume this SID at forwarding time. The Area SID Sub-TLV sub-TLV has
the following format:

where:

Type: 2

Length: variable Variable (1 + SID length)

Flags: 1 octet.

SID/Index/Label: as defined in [RFC8667] Section 2.1.1.1

Prefix Length: 1 octet

Prefix: 0-16 octets

The Flags octet is octet, defined as follows: follows.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|F|V|L| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

where:

F: Address-Family Flag. If unset, this flag is not set, then this proxy
SID is used when forwarding IPv4-encapsulated traffic. If
set, then this proxy SID is used when forwarding
IPv6-encapsulated traffic.

V: Value Flag. If set, then the proxy SID carries a value, as
defined in [RFC8667] [RFC8667], Section 2.1.1.1.

L: Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by the proxy
SID has local significance, as defined in [RFC8667] [RFC8667],
Section 2.1.1.1.

Other bits: MUST be zero when originated and ignored when
received.

SID/Index/Label: As defined in [RFC8667], Section 2.1.1.1.

Prefix Length: 1 octet

Prefix: 0-16 octets

4.4. Proxy LSP Generation

Each Inside Router generates a Level 2 LSP, LSP and the Level 2 LSPs for
the Inside Edge Routers will include adjacencies to Outside Edge
Routers. Unlike normal Level 2 operations, these LSPs are not
advertised outside of the Inside Area and MUST be filtered by all
Inside Edge Routers to not be flooded to Outside Routers. Only the
Proxy LSP is injected into the overall Level 2 LSDB.

The Area Leader uses the Level 2 LSPs generated by the Inside Edge
Routers to generate the Proxy LSP. This LSP is originated using the
Area Proxy System Identifier. The Area Leader can also insert the
following additional TLVs into the Proxy LSP for additional
information for the Outside Area. LSPs generated by unreachable
nodes MUST NOT be considered.

4.4.1. The Protocols Supported TLV

The Area Leader SHOULD insert a Protocols Supported TLV (129)
[RFC1195] into the Proxy LSP. The values included in the TLV SHOULD
be the protocols supported by the Inside Area.

4.4.2. The Area Address TLV

The Area Leader SHOULD insert an Area Addresses TLV (1) [ISO10589]
into the Proxy LSP.

4.4.3. The Dynamic Hostname TLV

It is RECOMMENDED that the Area Leader insert the Dynamic Hostname
TLV (137) [RFC5301] into the Proxy LSP. The contents of the hostname
may be specified by configuration. The presence of the hostname
helps to simplify debugging the network. network debugging.

4.4.4. The IS Neighbors TLV

The Area Leader can insert the IS Neighbors TLV (2) [ISO10589] into
the Proxy LSP for Outside Edge Routers. The Area Leader learns of
the Outside Edge Routers by examining the LSPs generated by the
Inside Edge Routers copying any IS Neighbors TLVs referring to
Outside Edge Routers into the Proxy LSP. Since the Outside Edge
Routers advertise an adjacency to the Area Proxy System Identifier,
this will result in a bi-directional bidirectional adjacency.

An entry for a neighbor in both the IS Neighbors TLV and the Extended
IS Neighbors TLV would be functionally redundant, so the Area Leader
SHOULD NOT do this. The Area Leader MAY omit either the IS Neighbors
TLV or the Extended IS Neighbors TLV, but it MUST include at least
one of them.

4.4.5. The Extended IS Neighbors TLV

The Area Leader can insert the Extended IS Reachability TLV (22)
[RFC5305] into the Proxy LSP. The Area Leader SHOULD copy each
Extended IS Reachability TLV advertised by an Inside Edge Router
about an Outside Edge Router into the Proxy LSP.

If the Inside Area supports Segment Routing Routing, and Segment Routing
selects a SID where the L-Flag is unset, not set, then the Area Lead SHOULD
include an Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV (31) [RFC8667] using
the selected SID.

If the inside area supports SRv6, the Area Leader SHOULD copy the
"SRv6 End.X SID" and "SRv6 LAN End.X SID" sub-TLVs of the extended Extended IS
reachability
Reachability TLVs advertised by Inside Edge Routers about Outside
Edge Routers.

If the inside area supports Traffic Engineering (TE), the Area Leader
SHOULD copy TE-related sub-TLVs [RFC5305] ([RFC5305], Section 3 3) to each
Extended IS Reachability TLV in the Proxy LSP.

4.4.6. The MT Intermediate Systems TLV

If the Inside Area supports Multi-Topology, Multi-Topology (MT), then the Area Leader
SHOULD copy each Outside Edge Router advertisement that is advertised
by an Inside Edge Router in an MT Intermediate Systems TLV into the
Proxy LSP.

4.4.7. Reachability TLVs

The Area Leader SHOULD insert additional TLVs describing any routing
prefixes that should be advertised on behalf of the area. These
prefixes may be learned from the Level 1 LSDB, Level 2 LSDB, or
redistributed from another routing protocol. This applies to all of
the various types of TLVs used for prefix advertisement:

* IP Internal Reachability Information TLV (128) [RFC1195]

* IP External Reachability Information TLV (130) [RFC1195]

* Extended IP Reachability TLV (135) [RFC5305]

* IPv6 Reachability TLV (236) [RFC5308]

* Multi-Topology Reachable IPv4 Prefixes TLV (235) [RFC5120]

* Multi-Topology Reachable IPv6 Prefixes TLV (237) [RFC5120]

For TLVs in the Level 1 LSDB, for a given TLV type and prefix, the
Area Leader SHOULD select the TLV with the lowest metric and copy
that TLV into the Proxy LSP.

When examining the Level 2 LSDB for this function, the Area Leader
SHOULD only consider TLVs advertised by Inside Routers. Further, for
prefixes that represent Boundary links, the Area Leader SHOULD copy
all TLVs that have unique sub-TLV contents.

If the Inside Area supports Segment Routing SR and the selected TLV includes a Prefix
Segment Identifier sub-TLV (3) [RFC8667], then the sub-TLV SHOULD be
copied as well. The P-Flag SHOULD be set in the copy of the sub-TLV
to indicate that penultimate hop popping should not be performed for
this prefix. The E-Flag SHOULD be reset in the copy of the sub-TLV
to indicate that an explicit NULL is not required. The R-Flag SHOULD
simply be copied.

4.4.8. The Router Capability TLV

The Area Leader MAY insert the Router Capability TLV (242) [RFC7981]
into the Proxy LSP. If Segment Routing SR is supported by the inside area, as
indicated by the presence of an SRGB being advertised by all Inside
Nodes, then the Area Leader SHOULD advertise an SR-
Capabilities sub-TLV SR-Capabilities sub-
TLV (2) [RFC8667] with an SRGB. The first value of the SRGB is the
same as the first value advertised by all Inside Nodes. The range
advertised for the area will be the minimum of all ranges advertised
by Inside Nodes. The Area Leader SHOULD use its Router ID in the
Router Capability TLV.

If SRv6 Capability sub-TLV [RFC7981] is advertised by all Inside
Routers, the Area Leader should insert an SRv6 Capability sub-TLV in
the Router Capability TLV. Each flag in the SRv6 Capability sub-TLV
should be set if the flag is set by all Inside Routers.

If the Node Maximum SID Depth (MSD) sub-TLV [RFC8491] is advertised
by all Inside Routers, the Area Leader should advertise the
intersection of the advertised MSD types and the smallest supported
MSD values for each type.

4.4.9. The Multi-Topology TLV

If the Inside Area supports multi-topology, then the Area Leader
SHOULD insert the Multi-Topology TLV (229) [RFC5120], including the
topologies supported by the Inside Nodes.

If any Inside Node is advertising the 'O' O (Overload) bit for a given
topology, then the Area Leader MUST advertise the 'O' O bit for that
topology. If any Inside Node is advertising the 'A' A (Attach) bit for a
given topology, then the Area Leader MUST advertise the 'A' A bit for
that topology.

4.4.10. The SID/Label Binding and The the Multi-Topology SID/Label Binding
SID
TLV

If an Inside Node advertises the SID/Label Binding or Multi-Topology
SID/Label Binding SID TLV [RFC8667], then the Area Leader MAY copy the
TLV to the Proxy LSP.

4.4.11. The SRv6 Locator TLV

If the inside area supports SRv6, the Area Leader SHOULD copy all
SRv6 locator TLVs [RFC9352] advertised by Inside Routers to the Proxy
LSP.

4.4.12. Traffic Engineering Information

If the inside area supports TE, the Area Leader SHOULD advertise a TE
Router ID TLV (134) [RFC5305] in the Proxy LSP. It SHOULD copy the
Shared Risk Link Group (SRLS) TLVs (138) [RFC5307] advertised by
Inside Edge Routers about links to Outside Edge Routers.

If the inside area supports IPv6 TE, the Area Leader SHOULD advertise
an IPv6 TE Router ID TLV (140) [RFC6119] in the Proxy LSP. It SHOULD
also copy the IPv6 SRLG TLVs (139) [RFC6119] advertised by Inside
Edge Routers about links to Outside Edge Routers.

4.4.13. The Area SID

When SR is enabled, it may be useful to advertise an Area SID which that
will direct traffic to any of the Inside Edge Routers. The
information for the Area SID is distributed to all Inside Edge
Routers using the Area SID sub-TLV (Section 4.3.2) by the Area
Leader.

The Area Leader SHOULD advertise the Area SID information in the
Proxy LSP as a Node SID as defined in [RFC8667] [RFC8667], Section 2.1. The
advertisement in the Proxy LSP informs the Outside Area that packets
directed to the SID will be forwarded to one of the Inside Edge Nodes
and the Area SID will be consumed.

Other uses of the Area SID and area Area SID prefix are outside the scope
of this document. Documents which that define other use cases for the Area
SID MUST specify whether the SID value should be the same or
different from that used in support of Area Proxy.

5. Inside Edge Router Functions

The Inside Edge Router has two additional and important functions.
First, it MUST generate IIHs that appear to have come from the Area
Proxy System Identifier. Second, it MUST filter the L2 LSPs, Partial
Sequence Number PDUs (PSNPs), and Complete Sequence Number PDUs
(CSNPs) that are being advertised to Outside Routers.

5.1. Generating L2 IIHs to Outside Routers

The Inside Edge Router has one or more Level 2 interfaces to the
Outside Routers. These may be identified by explicit configuration
or by the fact that they are not also Level 1 circuits. On these
Level 2 interfaces, the Inside Edge Router MUST NOT send an IIH until
it has learned the Area Proxy System ID from the Area Leader. Then,
once it has learned the Area Proxy System ID, it MUST generate its
IIHs on the circuit using the Proxy System ID as the source of the
IIH.

Using the Proxy System ID causes the Outside Router to advertise an
adjacency to the Proxy System ID, not to the Inside Edge Router,
which supports the proxy function. The normal system ID of the
Inside Edge Router MUST NOT be used as it will cause unnecessary
adjacencies to form.

5.2. Filtering LSP information Information

For the area proxy abstraction to be effective the L2 LSPs generated
by the Inside Routers MUST be restricted to the Inside Area. The
Inside Routers know which system IDs are members of the Inside Area
based on the advertisement of the Area Proxy TLV. To prevent
unwanted LSP information from escaping the Inside Area, the Inside
Edge Router MUST perform filtering of LSP flooding, CSNPs, and PSNPs.
Specifically:

* A Level 2 LSP with a source system identifier that is found in the
Level 1 LSDB MUST NOT be flooded to an Outside Router.

* A Level 2 LSP that contains the Area Proxy TLV MUST NOT be flooded
to an Outside Router.

* A Level 2 CSNP sent to an Outside Router MUST NOT contain any
information about an LSP with a system identifier found in the
Level 1 LSDB. If an Inside Edge Router filters a CSNP and there
is no remaining content, then the CSNP MUST NOT be sent. The
source address of the CSNP MUST be the Area Proxy System ID.

* A Level 2 PSNP sent to an Outside Router MUST NOT contain any
information about an LSP with a system identifier found in the
Level 1 LSDB. If an Inside Edge Router filters a PSNP and there
is no remaining content, then the PSNP MUST NOT be sent. The
source address of the PSNP MUST be the Area Proxy System ID.

6. Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Bruno Decraene and Gunter Van De
Velde for their many helpful comments. The authors would also like
to thank a small group that wishes to remain anonymous for their
valuable contributions.

7. IANA Considerations

This memo requests that

IANA allocate and assign has assigned code point 20 from the IS-IS "IS-IS TLV Codepoints Codepoints"
registry for the Area Proxy TLV. The registry fields should be: are IIH:n,
LSP:y, SNP:n, and Purge:n.

In association with this, this memo requests that IANA create has created a
registry for code points "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for the sub-TLVs of the
Area Proxy TLV.

Name of the registry: Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 (Area Proxy TLV)
Required information for registrations: TLV" registry. Temporary registrations may be made under the Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track
Code Points policy. [RFC7120] Permanent registrations require the
publication of an RFC describing the usage of the code point.

Applicable via
early allocation [RFC7120].

The registration policy: RFC Required and procedure is Expert Review.

Size, format, Review [RFC8126]. The values
are from 0-255, and syntax of registry entries: Value (0-255), the fields are Value, Name, and Reference

Initial Reference. The
initial assignments and reservations: IANA is requested to assign
the following code points:

+=======+==============================+===============+ are as follows.

+=======+==============================+===========+
| Value | Name | Reference |
+=======+==============================+===============+
+=======+==============================+===========+
| 1 | Area Proxy System Identifier | This document RFC 9666 |
+-------+------------------------------+---------------+
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+
| 2 | Area SID | This document RFC 9666 |
+-------+------------------------------+---------------+
+-------+------------------------------+-----------+

Table 1

7. Security Considerations

This document introduces no new security issues. Security of routing
within a domain is already addressed as part of the routing protocols
themselves. This document proposes no changes to those security
architectures. Security for IS-IS is provided by "IS-IS
Cryptographic Authentication" [RFC5304] and "IS-IS Generic
Cryptographic Authentication" [RFC5310].

8. References

9.1.

8.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding]
Li, T., Psenak, P., Chen, H., Jalil, L., and S. Dontula,
"Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-14, 8 June
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
lsr-dynamic-flooding-14>.

[ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate "Information technology — Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems — Intermediate System
to Intermediate System Intra-
Domain Routing Exchange Protocol intra-domain routeing information
exchange protocol for use in Conjunction conjunction with the Protocol protocol
for Providing providing the Connectionless-mode
Network Service connectionless-mode network service (ISO
8473)", Second Edition, ISO/IEC 10589:2002, October November 2002.

[RFC1195] Callon, 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., "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>.

[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301,
October 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5301>.

[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.

[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "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>.

[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.

[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and 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., and 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., "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>.

[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

[RFC8491] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and L. Ginsberg,
"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using IS-IS", RFC 8491,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8491, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8491>.

[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8667>.

[RFC9352] Psenak, P., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
and Z. Hu, "IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
over the IPv6 Data Plane", RFC 9352, DOI 10.17487/RFC9352,
February 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9352>.

9.2.

[RFC9667] Li, T., Ed., Psenak, P., Ed., Chen, H., Jalil, L., and S.
Dontula, "Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", RFC 9667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9667, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9667>.

8.2. Informative References

[Clos] Clos, C., "A Study study of Non-Blocking Switching Networks", non-blocking switching networks",
The Bell System Technical Journal Vol. 32(2), Journal, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp.
406-424, DOI 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x, March
1953,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x>.
<https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1953.tb01433.x>.

[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Acknowledgements

Authors' Addresses

Tony Li
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, California CA 94089
United States of America
Email: tony.li@tony.li

Sarah Chen
Arista Networks
5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, California CA 95054
United States of America
Email: sarahchen@arista.com

Vivek Ilangovan
Arista Networks
5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, California CA 95054
United States of America
Email: ilangovan@arista.com

Gyan S. Mishra
Verizon Inc.
13101 Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, MD 20904
United States of America
Phone: 301 502-1347
Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com