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
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Request for Comments: 8918 P. Wells
Updates: 5305, 6232 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track T. Li
ISSN: 2070-1721 Arista Networks
T. Przygienda
S. Hegde
Juniper Networks, Inc.
September 2020
Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
Abstract
The key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of
unsupported and/or invalid Type-Length-Value (TLV) tuples. Although
there are explicit statements in existing specifications, deployment
experience has shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior
when a TLV that is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit
(PDU) is received.
This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior
explicit in order to ensure that interoperability is maximized.
This document updates RFCs 5305 and 6232.
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 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8918.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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
1.1. Requirements Language
2. TLV Codepoints Registry
3. TLV Acceptance in PDUs
3.1. Handling of Disallowed TLVs in Received PDUs Other Than LSP
Purges
3.2. Special Handling of Disallowed TLVs in Received LSP Purges
3.3. Applicability to Sub-TLVs
3.4. Correction to POI "TLV Codepoints Registry" Entry
4. TLV Validation and LSP Acceptance
5. IANA Considerations
6. Security Considerations
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol
[ISO10589] utilizes Type-Length-Value (TLV) encoding for all content
in the body of Protocol Data Units (PDUs). New extensions to the
protocol are supported by defining new TLVs. In order to allow
protocol extensions to be deployed in a backwards compatible way, an
implementation is required to ignore TLVs that it does not
understand. This behavior is also applied to sub-TLVs [RFC5305],
which are contained within TLVs.
Also essential to the correct operation of the protocol is having the
validation of PDUs be independent from the validation of the TLVs
contained in the PDU. PDUs that are valid must be accepted
[ISO10589] even if an individual TLV contained within that PDU is not
understood or is invalid in some way (e.g., incorrect syntax, data
value out of range, etc.).
The set of TLVs (and sub-TLVs) that are allowed in each PDU type is
documented in the "TLV Codepoints Registry" established by [RFC3563]
and updated by [RFC6233] and [RFC7356].
This document is intended to clarify some aspects of existing
specifications and, thereby, reduce the occurrence of non-conformant
behavior seen in real-world deployments. Although behaviors
specified in existing protocol specifications are not changed, the
clarifications contained in this document serve as updates to
[RFC5305] (see Section 3.3) and [RFC6232] (see Section 3.4).
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. TLV Codepoints Registry
[RFC3563] established the IANA-managed "IS-IS TLV Codepoints
Registry" for recording assigned TLV codepoints [TLV_CODEPOINTS].
The initial contents of this registry were based on [RFC3359].
The registry includes a set of columns indicating in which PDU types
a given TLV is allowed:
IIH TLV is allowed in Intermediate System to Intermediate System
Hello (IIH) PDUs (Point-to-point and LAN)
LSP TLV is allowed in Link State PDUs (LSPs)
SNP TLV is allowed in Sequence Number PDUs (SNPs) (Partial
Sequence Number PDUs (PSNPs) and Complete Sequence Number
PDUs (CSNPs))
Purge TLV is allowed in LSP Purges [RFC6233]
If "Y" is entered in a column, it means the TLV is allowed in the
corresponding PDU type.
If "N" is entered in a column, it means the TLV is not allowed in the
corresponding PDU type.
3. TLV Acceptance in PDUs
This section describes the correct behavior when a PDU that contains
a TLV that is specified as disallowed in the "TLV Codepoints
Registry" is received.
3.1. Handling of Disallowed TLVs in Received PDUs Other Than LSP Purges
[ISO10589] defines the behavior required when a PDU is received
containing a TLV that is "not recognised". It states (see Sections
9.5 - 9.13):
| Any codes in a received PDU that are not recognised shall be
| ignored.
This is the model to be followed when a TLV that is disallowed is
received. Therefore, TLVs in a PDU (other than LSP purges) that are
disallowed MUST be ignored and MUST NOT cause the PDU itself to be
rejected by the receiving IS.
3.2. Special Handling of Disallowed TLVs in Received LSP Purges
When purging LSPs, [ISO10589] recommends (but does not require) the
body of the LSP (i.e., all TLVs) be removed before generating the
purge. LSP purges that have TLVs in the body are accepted, though
any TLVs that are present are ignored.
When cryptographic authentication [RFC5304] was introduced, this
looseness when processing received purges had to be addressed in
order to prevent attackers from being able to initiate a purge
without having access to the authentication key. Therefore,
[RFC5304] imposed strict requirements on what TLVs were allowed in a
purge (authentication only) and specified that:
| ISes MUST NOT accept purges that contain TLVs other than the
| authentication TLV.
This behavior was extended by [RFC6232], which introduced the Purge
Originator Identification (POI) TLV, and [RFC6233], which added the
"Purge" column to the "TLV Codepoints Registry" to identify all the
TLVs that are allowed in purges.
The behavior specified in [RFC5304] is not backwards compatible with
the behavior defined by [ISO10589]; therefore, it can only be safely
enabled when all nodes support cryptographic authentication.
Similarly, the extensions defined by [RFC6232] are not compatible
with the behavior defined in [RFC5304]; therefore, they can only be
safely enabled when all nodes support the extensions.
When new protocol behaviors are specified that are not backwards
compatible, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide controls
for their enablement. This serves to prevent interoperability issues
and allow for non-disruptive introduction of the new functionality
into an existing network.
3.3. Applicability to Sub-TLVs
[RFC5305] introduced sub-TLVs, which are TLV tuples advertised within
the body of a parent TLV. Registries associated with sub-TLVs are
associated with the "TLV Codepoints Registry" and specify in which
TLVs a given sub-TLV is allowed. Section 2 of [RFC5305] is updated
by the following sentence:
| As with TLVs, it is required that sub-TLVs that are disallowed
| MUST be ignored on receipt.
The existing sentence in Section 2 of [RFC5305]:
| Unknown sub-TLVs are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
is replaced by:
| Unknown sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
3.4. Correction to POI "TLV Codepoints Registry" Entry
An error was introduced by [RFC6232] when specifying in which PDUs
the POI TLV is allowed. Section 3 of [RFC6232] states:
| The POI TLV SHOULD be found in all purges and MUST NOT be found in
| LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime.
However, the IANA section of the same document states:
| The additional values for this TLV should be IIH:n, LSP:y, SNP:n,
| and Purge:y.
The correct setting for "LSP" is "n". This document updates
[RFC6232] by correcting that error.
This document also updates the previously quoted text from Section 3
of [RFC6232] to be:
| The POI TLV SHOULD be sent in all purges and MUST NOT be sent in
| LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime.
4. TLV Validation and LSP Acceptance
The correct format of a TLV and its associated sub-TLVs, if
applicable, is defined in the document(s) that introduces each
codepoint. The definition MUST include what action to take when the
format/content of the TLV does not conform to the specification
(e.g., "MUST be ignored on receipt"). When making use of the
information encoded in a given TLV (or sub-TLV), receiving nodes MUST
verify that the TLV conforms to the standard definition. This
includes cases where the length of a TLV/sub-TLV is incorrect and/or
cases where the value field does not conform to the defined
restrictions.
However, the unit of flooding for the IS-IS Update process is an LSP.
The presence of a TLV (or sub-TLV) with content that does not conform
to the relevant specification MUST NOT cause the LSP itself to be
rejected. Failure to follow this requirement will result in
inconsistent LSP Databases on different nodes in the network that
will compromise the correct operation of the protocol.
LSP Acceptance rules are specified in [ISO10589]. Acceptance rules
for LSP purges are extended by [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] and are
further extended by [RFC6233].
[ISO10589] also specifies the behavior when an LSP is not accepted.
This behavior is _not_ altered by extensions to the LSP Acceptance
rules, i.e., regardless of the reason for the rejection of an LSP,
the Update process on the receiving router takes the same action.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has added this document as a reference for the "TLV Codepoints
Registry".
IANA has also modified the entry for the Purge Originator
Identification TLV in the "TLV Codepoints Registry" to be IIH:n,
LSP:n, SNP:n, and Purge:y.
The reference field of the Purge Originator Identification TLV has
been updated to point to this document.
6. Security Considerations
As this document makes no changes to the protocol, there are no new
security issues introduced.
The clarifications discussed in this document are intended to make it
less likely that implementations will incorrectly process received
LSPs, thereby also making it less likely that a bad actor could
exploit a faulty implementation.
Security concerns for IS-IS are discussed in [ISO10589], [RFC5304],
and [RFC5310].
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ISO10589] International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- 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,
November 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3563] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
(JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
RFC 3563, DOI 10.17487/RFC3563, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3563>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
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>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC6232] Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge
Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6232, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6232>.
[RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for
Purges", RFC 6233, DOI 10.17487/RFC6233, May 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[TLV_CODEPOINTS]
IANA, "IS-IS TLV Codepoints",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC3359] Przygienda, T., "Reserved Type, Length and Value (TLV)
Codepoints in Intermediate System to Intermediate System",
RFC 3359, DOI 10.17487/RFC3359, August 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3359>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Alvaro Retana.
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Paul Wells
Cisco Systems
Email: pauwells@cisco.com
Tony Li
Arista Networks
5453 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95054
United States of America
Email: tony.li@tony.li
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Matilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States of America
Email: prz@juniper.net
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Embassy Business Park
Bangalore 560093
KA
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
|
