draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-11.txt   draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-12.txt 
Networking Working Group N. Shen Networking Working Group N. Shen
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track S. Amante Intended status: Standards Track S. Amante
Expires: January 3, 2019 Apple, Inc. Expires: February 21, 2019 Apple, Inc.
M. Abrahamsson M. Abrahamsson
T-Systems Nordic T-Systems Nordic
July 2, 2018 August 20, 2018
IS-IS Routing with Reverse Metric IS-IS Routing with Reverse Metric
draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-11 draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-12
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a mechanism to allow IS-IS routing to quickly This document describes a mechanism to allow IS-IS routing to quickly
and accurately shift traffic away from either a point-to-point or and accurately shift traffic away from either a point-to-point or
multi-access LAN interface during network maintenance or other multi-access LAN interface during network maintenance or other
operational events. This is accomplished by signaling adjacent IS-IS operational events. This is accomplished by signaling adjacent IS-IS
neighbors with a higher reverse metric, i.e., the metric towards the neighbors with a higher reverse metric, i.e., the metric towards the
signaling IS-IS router. signaling IS-IS router.
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
3.3. Multi-Access LAN Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Multi-Access LAN Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Point-To-Point Link Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. Point-To-Point Link Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. LDP/IGP Synchronization on LANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. LDP/IGP Synchronization on LANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Operational Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.6. Operational Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Node Isolation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Node Isolation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Link Isolation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix B. Link Isolation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix C. Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix C. Contributors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The IS-IS [ISO10589] routing protocol has been widely used in The IS-IS [ISO10589] routing protocol has been widely used in
Internet Service Provider IP/MPLS networks. Operational experience Internet Service Provider IP/MPLS networks. Operational experience
with the protocol, combined with ever increasing requirements for with the protocol, combined with ever increasing requirements for
lossless operations have demonstrated some operational issues. This lossless operations have demonstrated some operational issues. This
document describes the issues and a mechanism for mitigating them. document describes the issues and a mechanism for mitigating them.
1.1. Node and Link Isolation 1.1. Node and Link Isolation
skipping to change at page 10, line 14 skipping to change at page 10, line 14
IS-IS routers within a single Autonomous System nearly always are IS-IS routers within a single Autonomous System nearly always are
under the control of a single administrative authority, it is highly under the control of a single administrative authority, it is highly
RECOMMENDED that operators configure authentication of IS-IS PDUs to RECOMMENDED that operators configure authentication of IS-IS PDUs to
mitigate use of the Reverse Metric TLV as a potential attack vector, mitigate use of the Reverse Metric TLV as a potential attack vector,
particularly on multi-access LANs. particularly on multi-access LANs.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document requests that IANA allocate from the IS-IS TLV This document requests that IANA allocate from the IS-IS TLV
Codepoints Registry a new TLV, referred to as the "Reverse Metric" Codepoints Registry a new TLV, referred to as the "Reverse Metric"
TLV, possibly from the "Unassigned" range of 244-250, with the TLV, with the following attributes: IIH = y, LSP = n, SNP = n, Purge
following attributes: IIH = y, LSP = n, SNP = n, Purge = n. = n.
This document also introduces a new registry for sub-TLVs of the
Reverse Metric TLV. The registration policy is Expert Review as
defined in [RFC8126]. This registry is part of the "IS-IS TLV
Codepoints" registry. The name of the registry is "Sub-TLVs for
Reverse Metric TLV". The defined values are:
0: Reserved
1-17: Unassigned
18: Traffic Engineering Metric sub-TLV, as specified in this
document (Section 2)
19-255: Unassigned
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mike Shand, Dave Katz, Guan Deng, The authors would like to thank Mike Shand, Dave Katz, Guan Deng,
Ilya Varlashkin, Jay Chen, Les Ginsberg, Peter Ashwood-Smith, Uma Ilya Varlashkin, Jay Chen, Les Ginsberg, Peter Ashwood-Smith, Uma
Chunduri, Alexander Okonnikov, Jonathan Harrison, Dave Ward, Himanshu Chunduri, Alexander Okonnikov, Jonathan Harrison, Dave Ward, Himanshu
Shah, Wes George, Danny McPherson, Ed Crabbe, Russ White, Robert Shah, Wes George, Danny McPherson, Ed Crabbe, Russ White, Robert
Razsuk, Tom Petch and Acee Lindem for their comments and Razsuk, Tom Petch and Acee Lindem for their comments and
contributions. contributions.
skipping to change at page 11, line 9 skipping to change at page 11, line 24
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi [RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120, Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, <https://www.rfc- DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5120>. editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic [RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>. 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext] [I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext]
Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS
Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology", draft-shen-isis-spine- Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology", draft-shen-isis-spine-
leaf-ext-03 (work in progress), March 2017. leaf-ext-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
8 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/