path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5308.txt

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].






Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 5308                Routing IPv6 with IS-IS             October 2008


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.




Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 5308                Routing IPv6 with IS-IS             October 2008


   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.
















Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 5308                Routing IPv6 with IS-IS             October 2008


   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.









Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 5308                Routing IPv6 with IS-IS             October 2008


   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.





Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 5308                Routing IPv6 with IS-IS             October 2008


   [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





























Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 5308                Routing IPv6 with IS-IS             October 2008


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.












Hopps                       Standards Track                     [Page 7]
^L