| Rfc | 5308 |
|---|
| Title | Routing IPv6 with IS-IS |
|---|
| Author | C. Hopps |
|---|
| Date | October 2008 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Updated by | RFC7775 |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Network Working Group C. Hopps
Request for Comments: 5308 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track October 2008
Routing IPv6 with IS-IS
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document specifies a method for exchanging IPv6 routing
information using the IS-IS routing protocol. The described method
utilizes two new TLVs: a reachability TLV and an interface address
TLV to distribute the necessary IPv6 information throughout a routing
domain. Using this method, one can route IPv6 along with IPv4 and
OSI using a single intra-domain routing protocol.
1. Overview
IS-IS is an extendible intra-domain routing protocol. Each router in
the routing domain issues an Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) that
contains information pertaining to that router. The LSP contains
typed variable-length data, often referred to as TLVs (type-length-
values). We extend the protocol with two new TLVs to carry
information required to perform IPv6 routing.
In [RFC1195], a method is described to route both OSI and IPv4. We
utilize this same method with some minor changes to allow for IPv6.
To do so, we must define two new TLVs, namely "IPv6 Reachability" and
"IPv6 Interface Address", and a new IPv6 protocol identifier. In our
new TLVs, we utilize the extended metrics and up/down semantics of
[RFC5305].
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. IPv6 Reachability TLV
The "IPv6 Reachability" TLV is TLV type 236 (0xEC).
[RFC1195] defines two Reachability TLVs, "IP Internal Reachability
Information" and "IP External Reachability Information". We provide
the equivalent IPv6 data with the "IPv6 Reachability" TLV and an
"external" bit.
The "IPv6 Reachability" TLV describes network reachability through
the specification of a routing prefix, metric information, a bit to
indicate if the prefix is being advertised down from a higher level,
a bit to indicate if the prefix is being distributed from another
routing protocol, and OPTIONALLY the existence of Sub-TLVs to allow
for later extension. This data is represented by the following
structure:
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 = 236 | Length | Metric .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Metric |U|X|S| Reserve | Prefix Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Sub-TLV Len(*) | Sub-TLVs(*) ...
* - if present
U - up/down bit
X - external original bit
S - subtlv present bit
The above IPv6 Reachability TLV MAY appear any number of times
(including none) within an LSP. Link-local prefixes MUST NOT be
advertised using this TLV.
As is described in [RFC5305]: "The up/down bit SHALL be set to 0 when
a prefix is first injected into IS-IS. If a prefix is advertised
from a higher level to a lower level (e.g. level 2 to level 1), the
bit SHALL be set to 1, indicating that the prefix has traveled down
the hierarchy. Prefixes that have the up/down bit set to 1 may only
be advertised down the hierarchy, i.e., to lower levels".
If the prefix was distributed into IS-IS from another routing
protocol, the external bit SHALL be set to 1. This information is
useful when distributing prefixes from IS-IS to other protocols.
If the Sub-TLV bit is set to 0, then the octets of Sub-TLVs are not
present. Otherwise, the bit is 1 and the octet following the prefix
will contain the length of the Sub-TLV portion of the structure.
The prefix is "packed" in the data structure. That is, only the
required number of octets of prefix are present. This number can be
computed from the prefix length octet as follows:
prefix octets = integer of ((prefix length + 7) / 8)
Just as in [RFC5305], if a prefix is advertised with a metric larger
than MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC (0xFE000000), this prefix MUST not be
considered during the normal Shortest Path First (SPF) computation.
This will allow advertisement of a prefix for purposes other than
building the normal IPv6 routing table.
If Sub-TLVs are present, they have the same form as normal TLVs, as
shown below.
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 | Value(*) ..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* - if present
Length indicates how many octets of value are present and can be 0.
3. IPv6 Interface Address TLV
The "IPv6 Interface Address" TLV is TLV type 232 (0xE8).
TLV 232 maps directly to "IP Interface Address" TLV in [RFC1195] .
We necessarily modify the contents to be 0-15 16-octet IPv6 interface
addresses instead of 0-63 4-octet IPv4 interface addresses.
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 = 232 | Length | Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| .. Interface Address 1(*) .. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface Address 1(*) .. | Interface Address 2(*) ..
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
* - if present
We further restrict the semantics of this TLV depending on where it
is advertised. For Hello PDUs, the "Interface Address" TLV MUST
contain only the link-local IPv6 addresses assigned to the interface
that is sending the Hello. For LSPs, the "Interface Address" TLVs
MUST contain only the non-link-local IPv6 addresses assigned to the
IS.
4. IPv6 NLPID
The value of the IPv6 Network Layer Protocol ID (NLPID) is 142
(0x8E).
As with [RFC1195] and IPv4, if the IS supports IPv6 routing using
IS-IS, it MUST advertise this in the "NLPID" TLV by adding the IPv6
NLPID.
5. Operation
We utilize the same changes to [RFC1195] as made in [RFC5305] for the
processing of prefix information. These changes are both related to
the SPF calculation.
Since the metric space has been extended, we need to redefine the
MAX_PATH_METRIC (1023) from the original specification in [RFC1195].
This new value MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC is the same as in [RFC5305]
(0xFE000000). If, during the SPF, a path metric would exceed
MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC, it SHALL be considered to be MAX_V6_PATH_METRIC.
The order of preference between paths for a given prefix MUST be
modified to consider the up/down bit. The new order of preference is
as follows (from best to worst).
1. Level 1 up prefix
2. Level 2 up prefix
3. Level 2 down prefix
4. Level 1 down prefix
If multiple paths have the same best preference, then selection
occurs based on metric. Any remaining multiple paths SHOULD be
considered for equal-cost multi-path routing if the router supports
this; otherwise, the router can select any one of the multiple paths.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has updated the IS-IS codepoint registry so that TLV codes 232
and 236 refer to this RFC.
IANA has also created the following new codepoint registry for Sub-
TLVs of TLV 236. The range of values for Type is 0-255. Allocations
within the registry require documentation of the use and requires
approval by the Designated Expert assigned by the IESG [RFC5226].
All codepoints are currently unassigned.
7. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security considerations. Security
considerations for the IS-IS protocol are covered in [ISO10589] and
in [RFC5304].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ISO10589] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System intra-
domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)",
International Standard 10589:2002, Second Edition, 2002.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
Author's Address
Christian E. Hopps
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, California 95134
USA
EMail: chopps@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.