1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7794 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track B. Decraene
ISSN: 2070-1721 Orange
S. Previdi
Cisco Systems
X. Xu
Huawei
U. Chunduri
Ericsson
March 2016
IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability
Abstract
This document introduces new sub-TLVs to support advertisement of
IPv4 and IPv6 prefix attribute flags and the source router ID of the
router that originated a prefix advertisement.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794.
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. New Sub-TLVs for Extended Reachability TLVs . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability Attribute Flags . . . . . 4
2.2. IPv4/IPv6 Source Router ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Advertising Router IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
1. Introduction
IS-IS is a link-state routing protocol defined in [ISO10589] and
[RFC1195]. Extensions in support of advertising new forms of
IPv4/IPv6 prefix reachability are defined in [RFC5305], [RFC5308],
and [RFC5120].
There are existing use cases in which knowing additional attributes
of a prefix is useful.
It is useful to know whether or not an advertised prefix is directly
connected to the advertising router. In the case of Segment Routing
as described in [SR], knowing whether or not a prefix is directly
connected determines what action should be taken as regards
processing of labels associated with an incoming packet.
It is useful to know what addresses can be used as addresses of the
node in support of services (e.g., Remote Loop Free Alternate (RLFA)
endpoint).
Current formats of the Extended Reachability TLVs for both IPv4 and
IPv6 are fixed and do not allow the introduction of additional flags
without backwards compatibility issues. Therefore, this document
defines a new sub-TLV that supports the advertisement of attribute
flags associated with prefix advertisements.
In cases where multiple node addresses are advertised by a given
router, it is also useful to be able to associate all of these
addresses with a single Router ID even when prefixes are advertised
outside of the area in which they originated. Therefore, a new sub-
TLV is introduced to advertise the Router ID of the originator of a
prefix advertisement.
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. New Sub-TLVs for Extended Reachability TLVs
The following new sub-TLVs are introduced:
o Prefix Attribute Flags
o IPv4 Source Router ID
o IPv6 Source Router ID
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
All sub-TLVs are applicable to TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237.
2.1. IPv4/IPv6 Extended Reachability Attribute Flags
This sub-TLV supports the advertisement of additional flags
associated with a given prefix advertisement. The behavior of each
flag when a prefix advertisement is leaked from one level to another
(upwards or downwards) is explicitly defined below.
All flags are applicable to TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237, unless
otherwise stated.
Prefix Attribute Flags
Type: 4
Length: Number of octets of the Value field.
Value:
(Length * 8) bits.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
|X|R|N| ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...
Bits are defined/sent starting with Bit 0 defined below. Additional
bit definitions that may be defined in the future SHOULD be assigned
in ascending bit order so as to minimize the number of bits that will
need to be transmitted.
Undefined bits MUST be transmitted as 0 and MUST be ignored on
receipt.
Bits that are NOT transmitted MUST be treated as if they are set to 0
on receipt.
X-Flag: External Prefix Flag (Bit 0)
Set if the prefix has been redistributed from another protocol.
This includes the case where multiple virtual routers are
supported and the source of the redistributed prefix is another
IS-IS instance.
The flag MUST be preserved when leaked between levels.
In TLVs 236 and 237, this flag SHOULD always be sent as 0 and MUST
be ignored on receipt. This is because there is an existing X
flag defined in the fixed format of these TLVs as specified in
[RFC5308] and [RFC5120].
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
R-Flag: Re-advertisement Flag (Bit 1)
Set when the prefix has been leaked from one level to another
(upwards or downwards).
N-flag: Node Flag (Bit 2)
Set when the prefix identifies the advertising router, i.e., the
prefix is a host prefix advertising a globally reachable address
typically associated with a loopback address.
The advertising router MAY choose to NOT set this flag even when
the above conditions are met.
If the flag is set and the prefix length is NOT a host prefix (/32
for IPV4, /128 for IPv6), then the flag MUST be ignored. The flag
MUST be preserved when leaked between levels.
2.2. IPv4/IPv6 Source Router ID
When a reachability advertisement is leaked from one level to
another, the source of the original advertisement is unknown. In
cases where the advertisement is an identifier for the advertising
router (e.g., with the N-flag set in the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-
TLV as described in Section 2.1), it may be useful for other routers
to know the source of the advertisement. The sub-TLVs defined below
provide that information.
Note that the Router ID advertised is always the Router ID of the
IS-IS instance that originated the advertisement. This would be true
even if the prefix had been learned from another protocol (i.e., with
the X-flag set as defined in Section 2.1).
IPv4 Source Router ID
Type: 11
Length: 4
Value: IPv4 Router ID of the source of the advertisement
Inclusion of this TLV is optional and MAY occur in TLVs 135, 235,
236, or 237. When included, the value MUST be identical to the value
advertised in the Traffic Engineering router ID (TLV 134) defined in
[RFC5305].
If present the sub-TLV MUST be included when the prefix advertisement
is leaked to another level.
IPv6 Source Router ID
Type: 12
Length: 16
Value: IPv6 Router ID of the source of the advertisement
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
Inclusion of this TLV is optional and MAY occur in TLVs 135, 235,
236, or 237. When included, the value MUST be identical to the value
advertised in the IPv6 TE Router ID (TLV 140) defined in [RFC6119].
If present, the sub-TLV MUST be included when the prefix
advertisement is leaked to another level.
2.3. Advertising Router IDs
[RFC5305] and [RFC6119] define the advertisement of router IDs for
IPv4 and IPv6, respectively. Although both documents discuss the use
of router ID in the context of Traffic Engineering (TE), the
advertisement of router IDs is explicitly allowed for purposes other
than TE. The use of router IDs to identify the source of a prefix
advertisement as defined in Section 2.2 is one such use case.
Therefore, whenever an IPv4 or IPv6 Source Router ID sub-TLV (as
defined in Section 2.2) is used, the originating router SHOULD also
advertise the corresponding address-family-specific router ID TLV.
3. IANA Considerations
This document adds the following new sub-TLVs to the registry of sub-
TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237.
Value: 4
Name: Prefix Attribute Flags
Value: 11
Name: IPv4 Source Router ID
Value: 12
Name: IPv6 Source Router ID
This document also introduces a new registry for bit values in the
Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV. The registration policy is Expert
Review as defined in [RFC5226]. This registry is part of the "IS-IS
TLV Codepoints" registry. The name of the registry is "Bit Values
for Prefix Attribute Flags Sub-TLV". The defined values are:
Bit # Name
----- ------------------------------
0 External Prefix Flag (X-flag)
1 Re-advertisement Flag (R-flag)
2 Node Flag (N-flag)
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
4. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310].
Advertisement of the additional information defined in this document
introduces no new security concerns.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization,
"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)",
ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov. 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, <http://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,
<http://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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<http://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, <http://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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
5.2. Informative References
[SR] Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and J. Tantsura, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06, December
2015.
Contributors
The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content
of this document:
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
Email: cf@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Orange Business Service
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7794 IS-IS Prefix Attributes March 2016
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
United States
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
38 rue du General Leclerc
Issy Moulineaux cedex 9 92794
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 0144
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Xiaohu Xu
Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Uma Chunduri
Ericsson
Email: uma.chunduri@ericsson.com
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
^L
|
