draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23.txt   draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24.txt 
IS-IS for IP Internets S. Previdi, Ed. IS-IS for IP Internets S. Previdi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track L. Ginsberg, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Expires: September 30, 2019 C. Filsfils Expires: October 19, 2019 C. Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
A. Bashandy A. Bashandy
Individual Arrcus
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
B. Decraene B. Decraene
Orange Orange
March 29, 2019 April 17, 2019
IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-23 draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane.
skipping to change at page 2, line 7 skipping to change at page 2, line 7
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 September 30, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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 49 skipping to change at page 2, line 49
2.4.4. Mapping Server Prefix-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.4.4. Mapping Server Prefix-SID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4.5. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.4.5. SID/Label Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.6. Example Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.4.6. Example Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5. Multi-Topology SID/Label Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5. Multi-Topology SID/Label Binding TLV . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Router Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3. Router Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1. SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.1. SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2. SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2. SR-Algorithm Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3. SR Local Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.3. SR Local Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4. SRMS Preference Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.4. SRMS Preference Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1. Sub TLVs for Type 22,23,25,141,222, and 223 . . . . . . . 25 4.1. Sub TLVs for Type 22,23,25,141,222, and 223 . . . . . . . 26
4.2. Sub TLVs for Type 135,235,236 and 237 . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.2. Sub TLVs for Type 135,235,236 and 237 . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3. Sub TLVs for Type 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.3. Sub TLVs for Type 242 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4. New TLV Codepoint and Sub-TLV registry . . . . . . . . . 28 4.4. New TLV Codepoint and Sub-TLV registry . . . . . . . . . 26
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end
paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of
topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are
advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF). advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
Prefix segments represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or Prefix segments represent an ECMP-aware shortest-path to a prefix (or
a node), as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments a node), as per the state of the IGP topology. Adjacency segments
represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the represent a hop over a specific adjacency between two nodes in the
IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an IGP. A prefix segment is typically a multi-hop path while an
adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR's adjacency segment, in most of the cases, is a one-hop path. SR's
control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and control-plane can be applied to both IPv6 and MPLS data-planes, and
do not require any additional signaling (other than the regular IGP). does not require any additional signaling (other than the regular
For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not require any IGP). For example, when used in MPLS networks, SR paths do not
LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in the presence require any LDP or RSVP-TE signaling. Still, SR can interoperate in
of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP. the presence of LSPs established with RSVP or LDP.
There are additional segment types, e.g., Binding SID defined in There are additional segment types, e.g., Binding SID defined in
[RFC8402]. This draft also defines an advertisement for one type of [RFC8402]. This document also defines an advertisement for one type
Binding SID: the Mirror Context segment. of Binding SID: the Mirror Context segment.
This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be This draft describes the necessary IS-IS extensions that need to be
introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane. introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data-plane.
The Segment Routing architecture is described in [RFC8402]. The Segment Routing architecture is described in [RFC8402].
Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855]. Segment Routing use cases are described in [RFC7855].
2. Segment Routing Identifiers 2. Segment Routing Identifiers
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
L-Flag: Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by L-Flag: Local Flag. If set, then the value/index carried by
the Prefix-SID has local significance. By default the flag is the Prefix-SID has local significance. By default the flag is
UNSET. UNSET.
Other bits: MUST be zero when originated and ignored when Other bits: MUST be zero when originated and ignored when
received. received.
Algorithm: the router may use various algorithms when calculating Algorithm: the router may use various algorithms when calculating
reachability to other nodes or to prefixes attached to these reachability to other nodes or to prefixes attached to these
nodes. Algorithms identifiers are defined in Section 3.2. nodes. Algorithm identifiers are defined in Section 3.2.
Examples of these algorithms are metric based Shortest Path First Examples of these algorithms are metric based Shortest Path First
(SPF), various sorts of Constrained SPF, etc. The algorithm field (SPF), various sorts of Constrained SPF, etc. The algorithm field
of the Prefix-SID contains the identifier of the algorithm the of the Prefix-SID contains the identifier of the algorithm the
router uses to compute the reachability of the prefix to which the router uses to compute the reachability of the prefix to which the
Prefix-SID is associated. Prefix-SID is associated.
At origination, the Prefix-SID algorithm field MUST be set to 0 or At origination, the Prefix-SID algorithm field MUST be set to 0 or
to any value advertised in the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV (Section 3.2). to any value advertised in the SR-Algorithm sub-TLV (Section 3.2).
A router receiving a Prefix-SID from a remote node and with an A router receiving a Prefix-SID from a remote node and with an
skipping to change at page 11, line 47 skipping to change at page 11, line 47
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where F, B, V, L, S and P flags are defined in Section 2.2.1. where F, B, V, L, S and P flags are defined in Section 2.2.1.
Other bits: MUST be zero when originated and ignored when Other bits: MUST be zero when originated and ignored when
received. received.
Weight: 1 octet. The value represents the weight of the Adj-SID Weight: 1 octet. The value represents the weight of the Adj-SID
for the purpose of load balancing. The use of the weight is for the purpose of load balancing. The use of the weight is
defined in [RFC8402]. defined in [RFC8402].
Neighbor System-ID: 6 octets of IS-IS System-ID of length "ID Neighbor System-ID: IS-IS System-ID of length "ID Length" as
Length" as defined in [ISO10589]. defined in [ISO10589].
SID/Index/Label as defined in Section 2.1.1.1. SID/Index/Label as defined in Section 2.1.1.1.
Multiple LAN-Adj-SID sub-TLVs MAY be encoded. Multiple LAN-Adj-SID sub-TLVs MAY be encoded.
Note that this sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in TLV 141. Note that this sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in TLV 141.
In case one TLV-22/23/222/223 (reporting the adjacency to the DIS) In case one TLV-22/23/222/223 (reporting the adjacency to the DIS)
can't contain the whole set of LAN-Adj-SID sub-TLVs, multiple can't contain the whole set of LAN-Adj-SID sub-TLVs, multiple
advertisements of the adjacency to the DIS MUST be used and all advertisements of the adjacency to the DIS MUST be used and all
advertisements MUST have the same metric. advertisements MUST have the same metric.
Each router within the level, by receiving the DIS PN LSP as well as Each router within the level, by receiving the DIS PN LSP as well as
the non-PN LSP of each router in the LAN, is capable of the non-PN LSP of each router in the LAN, is capable of
reconstructing the LAN topology as well as the set of Adj-SID each reconstructing the LAN topology as well as the set of Adj-SIDs each
router uses for each of its neighbors. router uses for each of its neighbors.
2.3. SID/Label Sub-TLV 2.3. SID/Label Sub-TLV
The SID/Label sub-TLV may be present in the following TLVs/sub-TLVs The SID/Label sub-TLV may be present in the following TLVs/sub-TLVs
defined in this document: defined in this document:
SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV (Section 3.1) SR-Capabilities Sub-TLV (Section 3.1)
SR Local Block Sub-TLV (Section 3.3) SR Local Block Sub-TLV (Section 3.3)
skipping to change at page 13, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SID/Label (variable) | | SID/Label (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where: where:
Type: 1 Type: 1
Length: 3 or 4 Length: 3 or 4
SID/Label: if length is set to 3 then the 20 rightmost bits SID/Label: if length is set to 3 then the 20 rightmost bits
represent a MPLS label. If length is set to 4 then the valu eis a represent a MPLS label. If length is set to 4 then the value is a
32 bit index 32 bit index
2.4. SID/Label Binding TLV 2.4. SID/Label Binding TLV
The SID/Label Binding TLV MAY be originated by any router in an IS-IS The SID/Label Binding TLV MAY be originated by any router in an IS-IS
domain. There are multiple uses of the SID/Label Binding TLV. domain. There are multiple uses of the SID/Label Binding TLV.
The SID/Label Binding TLV may be used to advertise prefixes to SID/ The SID/Label Binding TLV may be used to advertise prefixes to SID/
Label mappings. This functionality is called the Segment Routing Label mappings. This functionality is called the Segment Routing
Mapping Server (SRMS). The behavior of the SRMS is defined in Mapping Server (SRMS). The behavior of the SRMS is defined in
skipping to change at page 18, line 11 skipping to change at page 18, line 11
2001:DB8:2/48, Prefix-SID: Index 152 2001:DB8:2/48, Prefix-SID: Index 152
2001:DB8:3/48, Prefix-SID: Index 153 2001:DB8:3/48, Prefix-SID: Index 153
2001:DB8:4/48, Prefix-SID: Index 154 2001:DB8:4/48, Prefix-SID: Index 154
0 1 2 3 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 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 |1|0|0|0|0| | RESERVED | | Type | Length |1|0|0|0|0| | RESERVED |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range = 4 | 48 | 0x20 | | Range = 4 | 48 | 0x20 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x01 | 0xD | 0xB8 | 0x0 | | 0x01 | 0x0D | 0xB8 | 0x00 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 0x1 |Prefix-SID Type| sub-TLV Length| Flags | | 0x01 |Prefix-SID Type| sub-TLV Length| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Algorithm | 0 | | Algorithm | 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 151 | | 151 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
It is not expected that a network operator will be able to keep fully It is not expected that a network operator will be able to keep fully
continuous Prefix / SID/Index mappings. In order to support continuous Prefix / SID/Index mappings. In order to support
noncontinuous mapping ranges an implementation MAY generate several noncontinuous mapping ranges an implementation MAY generate several
instances of Binding TLVs. instances of Binding TLVs.
skipping to change at page 23, line 46 skipping to change at page 23, line 46
Type: 19 Type: 19
Length: variable. Length: variable.
Algorithm: 1 octet of algorithm Algorithm: 1 octet of algorithm
3.3. SR Local Block Sub-TLV 3.3. SR Local Block Sub-TLV
The SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV contains the range of labels the The SR Local Block (SRLB) Sub-TLV contains the range of labels the
node has reserved for local SIDs. Local SIDs are used, e.g., for node has reserved for local SIDs. Local SIDs are used, e.g., for
Adjacency-SIDs, and may also be allocated by other components than Adjacency-SIDs, and may also be allocated by components other than
the IS-IS protocol. As an example, an application or a controller the IS-IS protocol. As an example, an application or a controller
may instruct the router to allocate a specific local SID. Therefore, may instruct the router to allocate a specific local SID. Therefore,
in order for such applications or controllers to know what are the in order for such applications or controllers to know what are the
local SIDs available in the router, it is required that the router local SIDs available in the router, it is required that the router
advertises its SRLB. advertises its SRLB.
The SRLB Sub-TLV is used for that purpose and has following format: The SRLB Sub-TLV is used for this purpose and has following format:
0 1 2 3 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 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 | Flags | | Type | Length | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Range | | Range |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 24, line 43 skipping to change at page 24, line 43
range contains the number of SRLB elements. The range value MUST be range contains the number of SRLB elements. The range value MUST be
higher than 0. higher than 0.
The SRLB sub-TLV MAY be advertised in an LSP of any number but a The SRLB sub-TLV MAY be advertised in an LSP of any number but a
router MUST NOT advertise more than one SRLB sub-TLV. A router router MUST NOT advertise more than one SRLB sub-TLV. A router
receiving multiple SRLB sub-TLVs, from the same originator, SHOULD receiving multiple SRLB sub-TLVs, from the same originator, SHOULD
select the first advertisement in the lowest numbered LSP. select the first advertisement in the lowest numbered LSP.
The originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping ranges. The originating router MUST NOT advertise overlapping ranges.
When a router receives multiple overlapping ranges, it MUST conform
to the procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls].
It is important to note that each time a SID from the SRLB is It is important to note that each time a SID from the SRLB is
allocated, it should also be reported to all components (e.g.: allocated, it should also be reported to all components (e.g.:
controller or applications) in order for these components to have an controller or applications) in order for these components to have an
up-to-date view of the current SRLB allocation and in order to avoid up-to-date view of the current SRLB allocation and in order to avoid
collision between allocation instructions. collision between allocation instructions.
Within the context of IS-IS, the reporting of local SIDs is done Within the context of IS-IS, the reporting of local SIDs is done
through IS-IS Sub-TLVs such as the Adjacency-SID. However, the through IS-IS Sub-TLVs such as the Adjacency-SID. However, the
reporting of allocated local SIDs may also be done through other reporting of allocated local SIDs may also be done through other
means and protocols which mechanisms are outside the scope of this means and protocols which are outside the scope of this document.
document.
A router advertising the SRLB TLV may also have other label ranges, A router advertising the SRLB sub-TLV may also have other label
outside the SRLB, for its local allocation purposes which are NOT ranges, outside the SRLB, for its local allocation purposes which are
advertised in the SRLB. For example, it is possible that an NOT advertised in the SRLB. For example, it is possible that an
Adjacency-SID is allocated using a local label not part of the SRLB. Adjacency-SID is allocated using a local label not part of the SRLB.
3.4. SRMS Preference Sub-TLV 3.4. SRMS Preference Sub-TLV
The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used The Segment Routing Mapping Server (SRMS) Preference sub-TLV is used
in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a in order to associate a preference with SRMS advertisements from a
particular source. particular source.
The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has following format: The SRMS Preference sub-TLV has following format:
skipping to change at page 25, line 43 skipping to change at page 25, line 46
but a router MUST NOT advertise more than one SRMS Preference sub- but a router MUST NOT advertise more than one SRMS Preference sub-
TLV. A router receiving multiple SRMS Preference sub-TLVs, from the TLV. A router receiving multiple SRMS Preference sub-TLVs, from the
same originator, SHOULD select the first advertisement in the lowest same originator, SHOULD select the first advertisement in the lowest
numbered LSP. numbered LSP.
The use of the SRMS Preference during the SID selection process is The use of the SRMS Preference during the SID selection process is
described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] described in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This documents request allocation for the following TLVs and Sub- This document requests allocation for the following TLVs and Sub-
TLVs. TLVs.
4.1. Sub TLVs for Type 22,23,25,141,222, and 223 4.1. Sub TLVs for Type 22,23,25,141,222, and 223
This document makes the following registrations in the "sub-TLVs for This document makes the following registrations in the "sub-TLVs for
TLV 22, 23, 25, 141, 222 and 223" registry. TLV 22, 23, 25, 141, 222 and 223" registry.
Type: 31 Type Description 22 23 25 141 222 223
---- -------------------------------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Description: Adjacency Segment Identifier 31 Adjacency Segment Identifier y y n y y y
32 LAN Adjacency Segment Identifier y y n y y y
TLV 22: yes
TLV 23: yes
TLV 25: no
TLV 141: yes
TLV 222: yes
TLV 223: yes
Reference: This document (Section 2.2.1)
Type: 32
Description: LAN Adjacency Segment Identifier
TLV 22: yes
TLV 23: yes
TLV 25: no
TLV 141: yes
TLV 222: yes
TLV 223: yes
Reference: This document (Section 2.2.2)
4.2. Sub TLVs for Type 135,235,236 and 237 4.2. Sub TLVs for Type 135,235,236 and 237
This document makes the following registrations in the "sub-TLVs for This document makes the following registrations in the "sub-TLVs for
TLV 135,235,236 and 237" registry. TLV 135,235,236 and 237" registry.
Type: 3 Type Description 135 235 236 237
---- ------------------------- --- --- --- ---
Description: Prefix Segment Identifier 3 Prefix Segment Identifier y y y y
TLV 135: yes
TLV 235: yes
TLV 236: yes
TLV 237: yes
Reference: This document (Section 2.1)
4.3. Sub TLVs for Type 242 4.3. Sub TLVs for Type 242
This document makes the following registrations in the "sub-TLVs for This document makes the following registrations in the "sub-TLVs for
TLV 242" registry. TLV 242" registry.
Type: 2 Type Description
---- -----------
Description: Segment Routing Capability 2 Segment Routing Capability
19 Segment Routing Algorithm
Reference: This document (Section 3.1) 22 Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB)
24 Segment Routing Mapping Server Preference
Type: 19 (SRMS Preference)
Description: Segment Routing Algorithm
Reference: This document (Section 3.2)
Type: 22
Description: Segment Routing Local Block (SRLB)
Reference: This document (Section 3.3)
Type: 24
Description: Segment Routing Mapping Server Preference (SRMS
Preference)
Reference: This document (Section 3.4)
4.4. New TLV Codepoint and Sub-TLV registry 4.4. New TLV Codepoint and Sub-TLV registry
This document registers the following TLV: This document registers the following TLV:
Type: 149 Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge
----- --------------------------------- --- --- --- -----
name: Segment Identifier / Label Binding 149 Segment Identifier/Label Binding n y n n
150 Multi-Topology Segment Identifier n y n n
IIH: no /Label Binding
LSP: yes
SNP: no
Purge: no
Reference: This document (Section 2.4)
Type: 150
name: Multi-Topology Segment Identifier / Label Binding
IIH: no
LSP: yes
SNP: no
Purge: no
Reference: This document (Section 2.5)
This document creates the following sub-TLV Registry: This document creates the following sub-TLV Registry:
Registry: sub-TLVs for TLV 149 and 150 Name: sub-TLVs for TLVs 149 and 150
Registration Procedure: Expert Review
Registration Procedure: Expert review
Reference: This document (Section 2.4)
Type: 1
Description: SID/Label
Reference: This document (Section 2.4.5)
Type: 3
Description: Prefix-SID
Reference: This document (Section 2.1) Type Description
---- -----------
0 Reserved
1 SID/Label
2 Unassigned
3 Prefix SID
4-255 Unassigned
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
With the use of the extensions defined in this document, IS-IS With the use of the extensions defined in this document, IS-IS
carries information which will be used to program the MPLS data plane carries information which will be used to program the MPLS data plane
[RFC3031]. In general, the same types of attacks that can be carried [RFC3031]. In general, the same types of attacks that can be carried
out on the IP/IPv6 control plane can be carried out on the MPLS out on the IP/IPv6 control plane can be carried out on the MPLS
control plane resulting in traffic being misrouted in the respective control plane resulting in traffic being misrouted in the respective
data planes. However, the latter may be more difficult to detect and data planes. However, the latter may be more difficult to detect and
isolate. Existing security extensions as described in [RFC5304] and isolate.
[RFC5310] apply to these segment routing extensions.
Existing security extensions as described in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310]
apply to these segment routing extensions.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dave Ward, Dan Frost, Stewart Bryant, Pierre We would like to thank Dave Ward, Dan Frost, Stewart Bryant, Pierre
Francois and Jesper Skrivers for their contribution to the content of Francois and Jesper Skrivers for their contribution to the content of
this document. this document.
7. Contributors 7. Contributors
The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content
skipping to change at page 31, line 21 skipping to change at page 29, line 28
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-15 (work in
progress), September 2018. progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-19 data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-21
(work in progress), March 2019. (work in progress), April 2019.
[ISO10589] [ISO10589]
International Organization for Standardization, International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/ connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002. IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
skipping to change at page 32, line 5 skipping to change at page 30, line 15
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic [RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>. 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>.
[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., [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and [RFC7794] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794, and IPv6 Reachability", RFC 7794, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>. March 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794>.
skipping to change at page 32, line 39 skipping to change at page 30, line 41
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>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. [RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M.
Shand, "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space Shand, "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space
for IS-IS", RFC 5311, DOI 10.17487/RFC5311, February 2009, for IS-IS", RFC 5311, DOI 10.17487/RFC5311, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
[RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in [RFC5316] Chen, M., Zhang, R., and X. Duan, "ISIS Extensions in
Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5316, DOI 10.17487/RFC5316,
December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>. December 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5316>.
skipping to change at page 33, line 21 skipping to change at page 31, line 26
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stefano Previdi (editor) Stefano Previdi (editor)
Huawei Huawei
IT IT
Email: stefano@previdi.net Email: stefano@previdi.net
Les Ginsberg (editor) Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
IT USA
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Brussels Brussels
BE BE
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Ahmed Bashandy Ahmed Bashandy
Individual Arrcus
Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com Email: abashandy.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc. RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
FR FR
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
 End of changes. 34 change blocks. 
164 lines changed or deleted 82 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/