path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9377.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                T. Przygienda, Ed.
Request for Comments: 9377                                       Juniper
Category: Experimental                                         C. Bowers
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               Individual
                                                                  Y. Lee
                                                                 Comcast
                                                               A. Sharma
                                                              Individual
                                                                R. White
                                                                  Akamai
                                                              April 2023


                         IS-IS Flood Reflection

Abstract

   This document describes a backward-compatible, optional IS-IS
   extension that allows the creation of IS-IS flood reflection
   topologies.  Flood reflection permits topologies in which
   IS-IS Level 1 (L1) areas provide transit-forwarding for IS-IS Level 2
   (L2) areas using all available L1 nodes internally.  It accomplishes
   this by creating L2 flood reflection adjacencies within each L1 area.
   Those adjacencies are used to flood L2 Link State Protocol Data Units
   (LSPs) and are used in the L2 Shortest Path First (SPF) computation.
   However, they are not ordinarily utilized for forwarding within the
   flood reflection cluster.  This arrangement gives the L2 topology
   significantly better scaling properties than prevalently used flat
   designs.  As an additional benefit, only those routers directly
   participating in flood reflection are required to support the
   feature.  This allows for incremental deployment of scalable L1
   transit areas in an existing, previously flat network design, without
   the necessity of upgrading all routers in the network.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for examination, experimental implementation, and
   evaluation.

   This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  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).  Not
   all documents approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of
   Internet Standard; see 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/rfc9377.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
   in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions Used in This Document
     2.1.  Terminology
     2.2.  Requirements Language
   3.  Further Details
   4.  Encodings
     4.1.  Flood Reflection TLV
     4.2.  Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV
     4.3.  Flood Reflection Discovery Tunnel Type Sub-Sub-TLV
     4.4.  Flood Reflection Adjacency Sub-TLV
     4.5.  Flood Reflection Discovery
     4.6.  Flood Reflection Adjacency Formation
   5.  Route Computation
     5.1.  Tunnel-Based Deployment
     5.2.  No-Tunnel Deployment
   6.  Redistribution of Prefixes
   7.  Special Considerations
   8.  IANA Considerations
     8.1.  New IS-IS TLV Codepoint
     8.2.  Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV
     8.3.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV
     8.4.  Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information
   9.  Security Considerations
   10. References
     10.1.  Normative References
     10.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgements
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This section introduces the problem space and outlines the solution.
   Some of the terms may be unfamiliar to readers without extensive IS-
   IS background; for such readers, the terminology is provided in
   Section 2.1.

   Due to the inherent properties of link-state protocols, the number of
   IS-IS routers within a flooding domain is limited by processing and
   flooding overhead on each node.  While that number can be maximized
   by well-written implementations and techniques such as exponential
   backoffs, IS-IS will still reach a saturation point where no further
   routers can be added to a single flooding domain.  In some L2
   backbone deployment scenarios, this limit presents a significant
   challenge.

   The standard approach to increasing the scale of an IS-IS deployment
   is to break it up into multiple L1 flooding domains and a single L2
   backbone.  This works well for designs where an L2 backbone connects
   L1 access topologies, but it is limiting where a single, flat L2
   domain is supposed to span large number of routers.  In such
   scenarios, an alternative approach could be to consider multiple L2
   flooding domains that are connected together via L1 flooding domains.
   In other words, L2 flooding domains are connected by "L1/L2 lanes"
   through the L1 areas to form a single L2 backbone again.
   Unfortunately, in its simplest implementation, this requires the
   inclusion of most, or all, of the transit L1 routers as L1/L2 to
   allow traffic to flow along optimal paths through those transit
   areas.  Consequently, such an approach fails to reduce the number of
   L2 routers involved and, with that, fails to increase the scalability
   of the L2 backbone as well.

   Figure 1 is an example of a network where a topologically rich L1
   area is used to provide transit between six different L2-only routers
   (R1-R6).  Note that the six L2-only routers do not have connectivity
   to one another over L2 links.  To take advantage of the abundance of
   paths in the L1 transit area, all the intermediate systems could be
   placed into both L1 and L2, but this essentially combines the
   separate L2 flooding domains into a single one, again triggering the
   maximum L2 scale limitation we were trying to address in first place.

 +====+  +=======+             +=======+               +======-+  +====+
 I R1 I  I  R10  +-------------+  R20  +---------------+  R30  I  I R4 I
 I L2 +--+ L1/L2 I             I  L1   I               I L1/L2 +--+ L2 I
 I    I  I       +          +--+       I  +------------+       I  I    I
 +====+  ++====+=+          |  +===+===+  |            +=+==+=++  +====+
          |    |            |      |      |              |    |
          |    |            |      |      |  +-----------+    |
          |    +-------+    |      |      |  |                |
          |            |    |      |      |  |                |
          |            |    |      |      |  |                |
          |            |    |      |      |  |                |
 +====+  ++=====-+     |    |  +===+===+--+  |         +======++  +====+
 I R2 I  I  R11  I     |    |  I  R21  I     |         I  R31  I  I R5 I
 I L2 +--+ L1/L2 +-------------+  L1   +---------------+ L1/L2 +--+ L2 I
 I    I  I       I     |    |  I       I     | +-------+       I  I    I
 +====+  ++=====-+     |    |  ++==+==++     | |       +======++  +====+
          |            |    |   |  |  |      | |              |
          | +---------------+   |  |  |      | |              |
          | |          |        |  |  |      | |              |
          | |  +----------------+  |  +-----------------+     |
          | |  |       |           |         | |        |     |
 +====+  ++=+==+=+     +-------+===+===+-----+ |       ++=====++  +====+
 I R3 I  I  R12  I             I  R22  I       |       +  R32  I  I R6 I
 I L2 +--+ L1/L2 I             I  L1   +-------+       I L1/L2 +--+ L2 I
 I    I  I       +-------------+       +---------------+       I  I    I
 +====+  +=======+             +=======+               +=======+  +====+

            Figure 1: Example Topology of L1 with L2 Borders

   A more effective solution would allow the reduction of the number of
   links and routers exposed in L2, while still utilizing the full L1
   topology when forwarding through the network.

   [RFC8099] describes Topology Transparent Zones (TTZ) for OSPF.  The
   TTZ mechanism represents a group of OSPF routers as a full mesh of
   adjacencies between the routers at the edge of the group.  A similar
   mechanism could be applied to IS-IS as well.  However, a full mesh of
   adjacencies between edge routers (or L1/L2 nodes) significantly
   limits the practically achievable scale of the resulting topology.
   The topology in Figure 1 has six L1/L2 nodes.  Figure 2 illustrates a
   full mesh of L2 adjacencies between the six L1/L2 nodes, resulting in
   (5 * 6)/2 = 15 L2 adjacencies.  In a somewhat larger topology
   containing 20 L1/L2 nodes, the number of L2 adjacencies in a full
   mesh rises to 190.

  +----+  +-------+    +-------------------------------+-------+  +----+
  | R1 |  |  R10  |    |                               |  R30  |  | R4 |
  | L2 +--+ L1/L2 +------------------------------------+ L1/L2 +--+ L2 |
  |    |  |       |    |                               |       |  |    |
  +----+  ++-+-+--+-+  |                             +-+--+---++  +----+
           | | |    |  |                             |    |   |
           | +----------------------------------------------+ |
           |   |    |  |                             |    | | |
           |   +-----------------------------------+ |    | | |
           |        |  |                           | |    | | |
           |     +----------------------------------------+ | |
           |     |  |  |                           | |      | |
  +----+  ++-----+- |  |                           | | -----+-++  +----+
  | R2 |  |  R11  | |  |                           | | |  R31  |  | R5 |
  | L2 +--+ L1/L2 +------------------------------------+ L1/L2 +--+ L2 |
  |    |  |       | |  |                           | | |       |  |    |
  +----+  ++------+------------------------------+ | | +----+-++  +----+
           |        |  |                         | | |      | |
           |        |  |                         | | |      | |
           |    +-------------------------------------------+ |
           |    |   |  |                         | | |        |
           |    |   |  |                         +----------+ |
           |    |   |  |                           | |      | |
           |    |   |  |                           +-----+  | |
           |    |   |  |                             |   |  | |
  +----+  ++----+-+-+  |                             +-+-+--+-++  +----+
  | R3 |  |  R12  |    |      L2 adjacency             |  R32  |  | R6 |
  | L2 +--+ L1/L2 +------------------------------------+ L1/L2 +--+ L2 |
  |    |  |       |    |                               |       |  |    |
  +----+  +-------+----+                               +-------+  +----+

     Figure 2: Example Topology Represented in L2 with a Full Mesh of
                    L2 Adjacencies between L1/L2 Nodes

   BGP, as specified in [RFC4271], faced a similar scaling problem,
   which has been solved in many networks by deploying BGP route
   reflectors [RFC4456].  We note that BGP route reflectors do not
   necessarily have to be in the forwarding path of the traffic.  This
   non-congruity of forwarding and control path for BGP route reflectors
   allows the control plane to scale independently of the forwarding
   plane and represents an interesting degree of freedom in network
   architecture.

   We propose in this document a similar solution for IS-IS and call it
   "flood reflection" in a fashion analogous to "route reflection".  A
   simple example of what a flood reflector control plane approach would
   look like is shown in Figure 3, where router R21 plays the role of a
   flood reflector.  Each L1/L2 ingress/egress router builds a tunnel to
   the flood reflector, and an L2 adjacency is built over each tunnel.
   In this solution, we need only six L2 adjacencies, instead of the 15
   needed for a full mesh.  In a somewhat larger topology containing 20
   L1/L2 nodes, this solution requires only 20 L2 adjacencies, instead
   of the 190 needed for a full mesh.  Multiple flood reflectors can be
   used, allowing the network operator to balance between resilience,
   path utilization, and state in the control plane.  The resulting L2
   adjacency scale is R*n, where R is the number of flood reflectors
   used and n is the number of L1/L2 nodes.  This compares quite
   favorably with n*(n-1)/2 L2 adjacencies required in a topologically
   fully meshed L2 solution.

  +----+  +-------+                                    +-------+  +----+
  | R1 |  |  R10  |                                    |  R30  |  | R4 |
  | L2 +--+ L1/L2 +--------------+   +-----------------+ L1/L2 +--+ L2 |
  |    |  |       |  L2 adj      |   |      L2 adj     |       |  |    |
  +----+  +-------+  over        |   |      over       +-------+  +----+
                     tunnel      |   |      tunnel
  +----+  +-------+           +--+---+--+              +-------+  +----+
  | R2 |  |  R11  |           |   R21   |              |  R31  |  | R5 |
  | L2 +--+ L1/L2 +-----------+  L1/L2  +--------------+ L1/L2 +--+ L2 |
  |    |  |       |  L2 adj   |  flood  |   L2 adj     |       |  |    |
  +----+  +-------+  over     |reflector|   over       +-------+  +----+
                     tunnel   +--+---+--+   tunnel
  +----+  +-------+              |   |                 +-------+  +----+
  | R3 |  |  R12  +--------------+   +-----------------+  R32  |  | R6 |
  | L2 +--+ L1/L2 |  L2 adj                 L2 adj     | L1/L2 +--+ L2 |
  |    |  |       |  over                   over       |       |  |    |
  +----+  +-------+  tunnel                 tunnel     +-------+  +----+

     Figure 3: Example Topology Represented in L2 with L2 Adjacencies
            from Each L1/ L2 Node to a Single Flood Reflector

   As illustrated in Figure 3, when R21 plays the role of flood
   reflector, it provides L2 connectivity among all of the previously
   disconnected L2 islands by reflooding all L2 Link State Protocol Data
   Unit (LSPs).  At the same time, R20 and R22 in Figure 1 remain
   L1-only routers.  L1-only routers and L1-only links are not visible
   in L2.  In this manner, the flood reflector allows us to provide L2
   control plane connectivity in a manner more scalable than a flat L2
   domain.

   As described so far, the solution illustrated in Figure 3 relies only
   on currently standardized IS-IS functionality.  Without new
   functionality, however, the data traffic will traverse only R21.
   This will unnecessarily create a bottleneck at R21 since there is
   still available capacity in the paths crossing the L1-only routers
   R20 and R22 in Figure 1.

   Hence, additional functionality is compulsory to allow the L1/L2 edge
   nodes (R10-12 and R30-32 in Figure 3) to recognize that the L2
   adjacency to R21 should not be used for forwarding.  The L1/L2 edge
   nodes should forward traffic that would normally be forwarded over
   the L2 adjacency to R21 over L1 links instead.  This would allow the
   forwarding within the L1 area to use the L1-only nodes and links
   shown in Figure 1 as well.  It allows networks that use the entire
   forwarding capacity of the L1 areas to be built, while at the same
   time it introduces control plane scaling benefits that are provided
   by L2 flood reflectors.

   It is expected that deployment at scale, and suitable time in
   operation, will provide sufficient evidence to either put this
   extension into a Standards Track document or suggest necessary
   modifications to accomplish that.

   The remainder of this document defines the remaining extensions
   necessary for a complete flood reflection solution:

   *  It defines a special "flood reflector adjacency" built for the
      purpose of reflecting flooding information.  These adjacencies
      allow "flood reflectors" to participate in the IS-IS control plane
      without necessarily being used in the forwarding plane.
      Maintenance of such adjacencies is a purely local operation on the
      L1/L2 ingress and flood reflectors; it does not require replacing
      or modifying any routers not involved in the reflection process.
      In practical deployments, it is far less tricky to just upgrade
      the routers involved in flood reflection rather than have a flag
      day for the whole IS-IS domain.

   *  It specifies an (optional) full mesh of tunnels between the L1/L2
      ingress routers, ideally load-balancing across all available L1
      links.  This harnesses all forwarding paths between the L1/L2 edge
      nodes without injecting unneeded state into the L2 flooding domain
      or creating "choke points" at the "flood reflectors" themselves.
      The specification is agnostic as to the tunneling technology used
      but provides enough information for automatic establishment of
      such tunnels if desired.  The discussion of IS-IS adjacency
      formation and/or liveness discovery on such tunnels is outside the
      scope of this specification and is largely a choice of the
      underlying implementation.  A solution without tunnels is also
      possible by introducing the correct scoping of reachability
      information between the levels.  This is described in more detail
      later.

   *  Finally, this document defines support of reflector redundancy and
      an (optional) way to auto-discover and annotate flood reflector
      adjacencies on advertisements.  Such additional information in
      link advertisements allows L2 nodes outside the L1 area to
      recognize a flood reflection cluster and its adjacencies.

2.  Conventions Used in This Document

2.1.  Terminology

   The following terms are used in this document.

   IS-IS Level 1 and Level 2 areas (mostly abbreviated as L1 and L2):
      IS-IS concepts where a routing domain has two "levels" with a
      single L2 area being the "backbone" that connects multiple L1
      areas for scaling and reliability purposes.  IS-IS architecture
      prescribes a routing domain with two "levels" where a single L2
      area functions as the "backbone" that connects multiple L1 areas
      amongst themselves for scaling and reliability purposes.  In such
      architecture, L2 can be used as transit for traffic carried from
      one L1 area to another, but L1 areas themselves cannot be used for
      that purpose because the L2 level must be a single "connected"
      entity, and all traffic exiting an L1 area flows along L2 routers
      until the traffic arrives at the destination L1 area itself.

   Flood Reflector:
      Node configured to connect in L2 only to flood reflector clients
      and to reflect (reflood) IS-IS L2 LSPs amongst them.

   Flood Reflector Client:
      Node configured to build Flood Reflector Adjacencies to Flood
      Reflectors and to build normal adjacencies to other clients and L2
      nodes not participating in flood reflection.

   Flood Reflector Adjacency:
      IS-IS L2 adjacency where one end is a Flood Reflector Client, and
      the other, a Flood Reflector.  Both have the same Flood Reflector
      Cluster ID.

   Flood Reflector Cluster:
      Collection of clients and flood reflectors configured with the
      same cluster identifier.

   Tunnel-Based Deployment:
      Deployment where Flood Reflector Clients build a partial or full
      mesh of tunnels in L1 to "shortcut" forwarding of L2 traffic
      through the cluster.

   No-Tunnel Deployment:
      Deployment where Flood Reflector Clients redistribute L2
      reachability into L1 to allow forwarding through the cluster
      without underlying tunnels.

   Tunnel Endpoint:
      An endpoint that allows the establishment of a bidirectional
      tunnel carrying IS-IS control traffic or, alternately, serves as
      the origin of such a tunnel.

   L1 shortcut:
      A tunnel established between two clients that is visible in L1
      only and is used as a next hop, i.e., to carry data traffic in
      tunnel-based deployment mode.

   Hot-Potato Routing:
      In the context of this document, a routing paradigm where L2->L1
      routes are less preferred than L2 routes [RFC5302].

2.2.  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.

3.  Further Details

   Several considerations should be noted in relation to such a flood
   reflection mechanism.

   First, the flood reflection mechanism allows multi-area IS-IS
   deployments to scale without any major modifications in the IS-IS
   implementation on most of the nodes deployed in the network.
   Unmodified (standard) L2 routers will compute reachability across the
   transit L1 area using the flood reflector adjacencies.  (In this
   document, the term "standard" refers to IS-IS as specified in
   [ISO10589].)

   Second, the flood reflectors are not required to participate in
   forwarding traffic through the L1 transit area.  These flood
   reflectors can be hosted on virtual devices outside the forwarding
   topology.

   Third, astute readers will realize that flooding reflection may cause
   the use of suboptimal paths.  This is similar to the BGP route
   reflection suboptimal routing problem described in [RFC9107].  The L2
   computation determines the egress L1/L2 and, with that, can create
   illusions of ECMP where there is none; and in certain scenarios, the
   L2 computation can lead to an L1/L2 egress that is not globally
   optimal.  This represents a straightforward instance of the trade-off
   between the amount of control plane state and the optimal use of
   paths through the network that are often encountered when aggregating
   routing information.

   One possible solution to this problem is to expose additional
   topology information into the L2 flooding domains.  In the example
   network given, links from router R10 to router R11 can be exposed
   into L2 even when R10 and R11 are participating in flood reflection.
   This information would allow the L2 nodes to build "shortcuts" when
   the L2 flood-reflected part of the topology looks more expensive to
   cross distance-wise.

   Another possible variation is for an implementation to use the tunnel
   cost to approximate the cost of the underlying topology.

   Redundancy can be achieved by configuring multiple flood reflectors
   in an L1 area.  Multiple flood reflectors do not need any
   synchronization mechanisms amongst themselves, except standard IS-IS
   flooding and database maintenance procedures.

4.  Encodings

4.1.  Flood Reflection TLV

   The Flood Reflection TLV is a top-level TLV that MUST appear in L2
   IIHs (IS-IS Hello) on all Flood Reflection Adjacencies.  The Flood
   Reflection TLV indicates the flood reflector cluster (based on Flood
   Reflection Cluster ID) that a given router is configured to
   participate in.  It also indicates whether the router is configured
   to play the role of either flood reflector or flood reflector client.
   The Flood Reflection Cluster ID and flood reflector roles advertised
   in the IIHs are used to ensure that flood reflector adjacencies are
   only formed between a flood reflector and flood reflector client and
   that the Flood Reflection Cluster IDs match.  The Flood Reflection
   TLV has the following format:

    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     |C|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Flood Reflection Cluster ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Sub-TLVs ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type:  161

   Length:  The length, in octets, of the following fields.

   C (Client):  This bit is set to indicate that the router acts as a
      flood reflector client.  When this bit is NOT set, the router acts
      as a flood reflector.  On a given router, the same value of the
      C-bit MUST be advertised across all interfaces advertising the
      Flood Reflection TLV in IIHs.

   Reserved:  This field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be set to
      0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.

   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The same arbitrary 32-bit value MUST be
      assigned to all of the flood reflectors and flood reflector
      clients in the same L1 area.  The value MUST be unique across
      different L1 areas within the IGP domain.  In case of violation of
      those rules, multiple L1 areas may become a single cluster, or a
      single area may split in flood reflection sense, and several
      mechanisms, such as auto-discovery of tunnels, may not work
      correctly.  On a given router, the same value of the Flood
      Reflection Cluster ID MUST be advertised across all interfaces
      advertising the Flood Reflection TLV in IIHs.  When a router
      discovers that a node is using more than a single Cluster IDs
      based on its advertised TLVs and IIHs, the node MAY log such
      violations subject to rate-limiting.  This implies that a flood
      reflector MUST NOT participate in more than a single L1 area.  In
      case of Cluster ID value of 0, the TLV containing it MUST be
      ignored.

   Sub-TLVs (Optional Sub-TLVs):  For future extensibility, the format
      of the Flood Reflection TLV allows for the possibility of
      including optional sub-TLVs.  No sub-TLVs of the Flood Reflection
      TLV are defined in this document.

   The Flood Reflection TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once in an IIH.
   A router receiving one or more Flood Reflection TLVs in the same IIH
   MUST use the values in the first TLV, and it SHOULD log such
   violations subject to rate-limiting.

4.2.  Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV

   The Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLV is advertised as a sub-TLV of
   the IS-IS Router Capability TLV 242, defined in [RFC7981].  The Flood
   Reflection Discovery sub-TLV is advertised in L1 and L2 LSPs with
   area flooding scope in order to enable the auto-discovery of flood
   reflection capabilities.  The Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLV has
   the following format:

    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     |C|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Flood Reflection Cluster ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type:  161

   Length:  The length, in octets, of the following fields.

   C (Client):  This bit is set to indicate that the router acts as a
      flood reflector client.  When this bit is NOT set, the router acts
      as a flood reflector.

   Reserved:  This field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be set to
      0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.

   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
      is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV in
      Section 4.1 and obeys the same rules.

   The Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than
   once in TLV 242.  A router receiving one or more Flood Reflection
   Discovery sub-TLVs in TLV 242 MUST use the values in the first sub-
   TLV of the lowest numbered fragment, and it SHOULD log such
   violations subject to rate-limiting.

4.3.  Flood Reflection Discovery Tunnel Type Sub-Sub-TLV

   Flood Reflection Discovery Tunnel Type sub-sub-TLV is advertised
   optionally as a sub-sub-TLV of the Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-
   TLV, defined in Section 4.2.  It allows the automatic creation of L2
   tunnels to be used as flood reflector adjacencies and L1 shortcut
   tunnels.  The Flood Reflection Tunnel Type sub-sub-TLV has the
   following format:

    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     | Reserved    |F|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type:  161

   Length:  The length, in octets, of zero or more of the following
      fields.

   Reserved:  SHOULD be 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on
      reception.

   F Flag:  When set, indicates flood reflection tunnel endpoint.  When
      clear, indicates possible L1 shortcut tunnel endpoint.

   Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute:  Carries encapsulation type and
      further attributes necessary for tunnel establishment as defined
      in [RFC9012].  In context of this attribute, the protocol Type
      sub-TLV as defined in [RFC9012] MAY be included to ensure proper
      encapsulation of IS-IS frames.  In case such a sub-TLV is included
      and the F flag is set (i.e., the resulting tunnel is a flood
      reflector adjacency), this sub-TLV MUST include a type that allows
      to carry encapsulated IS-IS frames.  Furthermore, such tunnel type
      MUST be able to transport IS-IS frames of size up to
      "originatingL2LSPBufferSize".

   A flood reflector receiving Flood Reflection Discovery Tunnel Type
   sub-sub-TLVs in Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLV with F flag set
   (i.e., the resulting tunnel is a flood reflector adjacency) SHOULD
   use one or more of the specified tunnel endpoints to automatically
   establish one or more tunnels that will serve as a flood reflection
   adjacency and/or adjacencies to the clients advertising the
   endpoints.

   A flood reflection client receiving one or more Flood Reflection
   Discovery Tunnel Type sub-sub-TLVs in Flood Reflection Discovery sub-
   TLV with F flag clear (i.e., the resulting tunnel is used to support
   tunnel-based mode) from other leaves MAY use one or more of the
   specified tunnel endpoints to automatically establish one or more
   tunnels that will serve as L1 tunnel shortcuts to the clients
   advertising the endpoints.

   In case of automatic flood reflection adjacency tunnels and in case
   IS-IS adjacencies are being formed across L1 shortcuts, all the
   aforementioned rules in Section 4.5 apply as well.

   Optional address validation procedures as defined in [RFC9012] MUST
   be disregarded.

   It remains to be observed that automatic tunnel discovery is an
   optional part of the specification and can be replaced or mixed with
   statically configured tunnels for flood reflector adjacencies and
   tunnel-based shortcuts.  Specific implementation details how both
   mechanisms interact are specific to an implementation and mode of
   operation and are outside the scope of this document.

   Flood reflector adjacencies rely on IS-IS L2 liveliness procedures.
   In case of L1 shortcuts, the mechanism used to ensure liveliness and
   tunnel integrity are outside the scope of this document.

4.4.  Flood Reflection Adjacency Sub-TLV

   The Flood Reflection Adjacency sub-TLV is advertised as a sub-TLV of
   TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (the "TLVs Advertising Neighbor
   Information").  Its presence indicates that a given adjacency is a
   flood reflector adjacency.  It is included in L2 area scope flooded
   LSPs.  The Flood Reflection Adjacency sub-TLV has the following
   format:

    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     |C|  Reserved   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Flood Reflection Cluster ID                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type:  161

   Length:  The length, in octets, of the following fields.

   C (Client):  This bit is set to indicate that the router advertising
      this adjacency is a flood reflector client.  When this bit is NOT
      set, the router advertising this adjacency is a flood reflector.

   Reserved:  This field is reserved for future use.  It MUST be set to
      0 when sent and MUST be ignored when received.

   Flood Reflection Cluster ID:  The Flood Reflection Cluster Identifier
      is the same as that defined in the Flood Reflection TLV in
      Section 4.1 and obeys the same rules.

   The Flood Reflection Adjacency sub-TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than
   once in a given TLV.  A router receiving one or more Flood Reflection
   Adjacency sub-TLVs in a TLV MUST use the values in the first sub-TLV
   of the lowest numbered fragment, and it SHOULD log such violations
   subject to rate-limiting.

4.5.  Flood Reflection Discovery

   A router participating in flood reflection as client or reflector
   MUST be configured as an L1/L2 router.  It MAY originate the Flood
   Reflection Discovery sub-TLV with area flooding scope in L1 and L2.
   Normally, all routers on the edge of the L1 area (those having
   standard L2 adjacencies) will advertise themselves as flood reflector
   clients.  Therefore, a flood reflector client will have both standard
   L2 adjacencies and flood reflector L2 adjacencies.

   A router acting as a flood reflector MUST NOT form any standard L2
   adjacencies except with flood reflector clients.  It will be an L1/L2
   router only by virtue of having flood reflector L2 adjacencies.  A
   router desiring to act as a flood reflector MAY advertise itself as
   such using the Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLV in L1 and L2.

   A given flood reflector or flood reflector client can only
   participate in a single cluster, as determined by the value of its
   Flood Reflection Cluster ID and should disregard other routers' TLVs
   for flood reflection purposes if the cluster ID is not matching.

   Upon reception of Flood Reflection Discovery sub-TLVs, a router
   acting as flood reflector SHOULD initiate a tunnel towards each flood
   reflector client with which it shares a Flood Reflection Cluster ID,
   using one or more of the tunnel encapsulations provided with F flag
   is set.  The L2 adjacencies formed over such tunnels MUST be marked
   as flood reflector adjacencies.  If the client or reflector has a
   direct L2 adjacency with the according remote side, it SHOULD use it
   instead of instantiating a tunnel.

   In case the optional auto-discovery mechanism is not implemented or
   enabled, a deployment MAY use statically configured tunnels to create
   flood reflection adjacencies.

   The IS-IS metrics for all flood reflection adjacencies in a cluster
   SHOULD be identical.

   Upon reception of Flood Reflection Discovery TLVs, a router acting as
   a flood reflector client MAY initiate tunnels with L1-only
   adjacencies towards any of the other flood reflector clients with
   lower router IDs in its cluster using encapsulations with F flag
   clear.  These tunnels MAY be used for forwarding to improve the load-
   balancing characteristics of the L1 area.  If the clients have a
   direct L2 adjacency, they SHOULD use it instead of instantiating a
   new tunnel.

4.6.  Flood Reflection Adjacency Formation

   In order to simplify implementation complexity, this document does
   not allow the formation of complex hierarchies of flood reflectors
   and clients or allow multiple clusters in a single L1 area.
   Consequently, all flood reflectors and flood reflector clients in the
   same L1 area MUST share the same Flood Reflector Cluster ID.
   Deployment of multiple cluster IDs in the same L1 area are outside
   the scope of this document.

   A flood reflector MUST NOT form flood reflection adjacencies with
   flood reflector clients with a different Cluster ID.  A flood
   reflector MUST NOT form any standard L2 adjacencies.

   Flood reflector clients MUST NOT form flood reflection adjacencies
   with flood reflectors with a different Cluster ID.

   Flood reflector clients MAY form standard L2 adjacencies with flood
   reflector clients or nodes not participating in flood reflection.
   When two flood reflector clients form a standard L2 adjacency, the
   Cluster IDs are disregarded.

   The Flood Reflector Cluster ID and flood reflector roles advertised
   in the Flood Reflection TLVs in IIHs are used to ensure that flood
   reflection adjacencies that are established meet the above criteria.

   On change in either flood reflection role or cluster ID on IIH on the
   local or remote side, the adjacency has to be reset.  It is then re-
   established if possible.

   Once a flood reflection adjacency is established, the flood reflector
   and the flood reflector client MUST advertise the adjacency by
   including the Flood Reflection Adjacency Sub-TLV in the Extended IS
   reachability TLV or Multi-Topology Intermediate System Neighbor (MT-
   ISN) TLV.

5.  Route Computation

   To ensure loop-free routing, the flood reflection client MUST follow
   the normal L2 computation to determine L2 routes.  This is because
   nodes outside the L1 area will generally not be aware that flood
   reflection is being performed.  The flood reflection clients need to
   produce the same result for the L2 route computation as a router not
   participating in flood reflection.

5.1.  Tunnel-Based Deployment

   In the tunnel-based option, the reflection client, after L2 and L1
   computation, MUST examine all L2 routes with flood reflector next-hop
   adjacencies.  Such next hops must be replaced by the corresponding
   tunnel next hops to the correct egress nodes of the flood reflection
   cluster.

5.2.  No-Tunnel Deployment

   In case of deployment without underlying tunnels, the necessary L2
   routes are distributed into the area, normally as L2->L1 routes.  Due
   to the rules in Section 4.6, the computation in the resulting
   topology is relatively simple: the L2 SPF from a flood reflector
   client is guaranteed to reach the Flood Reflector within a single
   hop, and in the following hop, it is guaranteed to reach the L2
   egress to which it has a forwarding tunnel.  All the flood reflector
   tunnel next hops in the according L2 route can hence be removed, and
   if the L2 route has no other ECMP L2 next hops, the L2 route MUST be
   suppressed in the RIB by some means to allow the less preferred
   L2->L1 route to be used to forward traffic towards the advertising
   egress.

   In the particular case the client has L2 routes which are not flood
   reflected, those will be naturally preferred (such routes normally
   "hot-potato" packets out of the L1 area).  However, in the case the
   L2 route through the flood reflector egress is "shorter" than such
   present L2 routes that are not flood reflected, the node SHOULD
   ensure that such routes are suppressed so the L2->L1 towards the
   egress still takes preference.  Observe that operationally this can
   be resolved in a relatively simple way by configuring flood reflector
   adjacencies to have a high metric, i.e., the flood reflector topology
   becomes "last resort," and the leaves will try to "hot-potato" out
   the area as fast as possible, which is normally the desirable
   behavior.

   In no-tunnel deployment, all L1/L2 edge nodes MUST be flood
   reflection clients.


6.  Redistribution of Prefixes

   In case of no-tunnel deployment per Section 5.2, a client that does
   not have any L2 flood reflector adjacencies MUST NOT redistribute L2
   routes into the cluster.

   The L2 prefix advertisements redistributed into an L1 that contains
   flood reflectors SHOULD be normally limited to L2 intra-area routes
   (as defined in [RFC7775]) if the information exists to distinguish
   them from other L2 prefix advertisements.

   On the other hand, in topologies that make use of flood reflection to
   hide the structure of L1 areas while still providing transit-
   forwarding across them using tunnels, we generally do not need to
   redistribute L1 prefix advertisements into L2.

7.  Special Considerations

   In pathological cases, setting the overload bit in L1 (but not in L2)
   can partition L1 forwarding, while allowing L2 reachability through
   flood reflector adjacencies to exist.  In such a case, a node cannot
   replace a route through a flood reflector adjacency with an L1
   shortcut, and the client MAY use the L2 tunnel to the flood reflector
   for forwarding.  In all those cases, the node MUST initiate an alarm
   and declare misconfiguration.

   A flood reflector with directly L2 attached prefixes should advertise
   those in L1 as well since, based on preference of L1 routes, the
   clients will not try to use the L2 flood reflector adjacency to route
   the packet towards them.  A very unlikely corner case can occur when
   the flood reflector is reachable via L2 flood reflector adjacency
   (due to underlying L1 partition) exclusively.  In this instance, the
   client can use the L2 tunnel to the flood reflector for forwarding
   towards those prefixes while it MUST initiate an alarm and declare
   misconfiguration.

   A flood reflector MUST NOT set the attached bit on its LSPs.

   In certain cases where reflectors are attached to the same broadcast
   medium, and where some other L2 router that is neither a flood
   reflector nor a flood reflector client (a "non-FR router", i.e., a
   router not participating in flood reflection) attaches to the same
   broadcast medium, flooding between the reflectors in question might
   not succeed, potentially partitioning the flood reflection domain.
   This could happen specifically in the event that the non-FR router is
   chosen as the Designated Intermediate System (DIS) -- the designated
   router.  Since, per Section 4.6, a flood reflector MUST NOT form an
   adjacency with a non-FR router, the flood reflector(s) will not be
   represented in the pseudo-node.

   To avoid this situation, it is RECOMMENDED that flood reflectors not
   be deployed on the same broadcast medium as non-FR routers.

   A router discovering such condition MUST initiate an alarm and
   declare misconfiguration.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned the following IS-IS TLVs and sub-TLVs and has
   created a new registry.

8.1.  New IS-IS TLV Codepoint

   The following IS-IS TLV has been registered in the "IS-IS Top-Level
   TLV Codepoints" registry:

          +=======+==================+=====+=====+=====+=======+
          | Value | Name             | IIH | LSP | SNP | Purge |
          +=======+==================+=====+=====+=====+=======+
          | 161   | Flood Reflection | y   | n   | n   | n     |
          +-------+------------------+-----+-----+-----+-------+

              Table 1: Flood Reflection IS-IS TLV Codepoint

8.2.  Sub-TLVs for IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV

   The following has been registered in the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for IS-IS
   Router CAPABILITY TLV" registry:

                   +======+============================+
                   | Type | Description                |
                   +======+============================+
                   | 161  | Flood Reflection Discovery |
                   +------+----------------------------+

                    Table 2: IS-IS Router CAPABILITY TLV

8.3.  Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV

   IANA has created a new registry named "IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood
   Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV" under the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints"
   grouping.  The registration procedure for this registry is Expert
   Review [RFC8126], following the common expert review guidance given
   for the grouping.

   The range of values in this registry is 0-255.  The registry contains
   the following initial registration:

   +======+===========================================================+
   | Type | Description                                               |
   +======+===========================================================+
   | 161  | Flood Reflection Discovery Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute |
   +------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

    Table 3: IS-IS Sub-Sub-TLVs for Flood Reflection Discovery Sub-TLV

8.4.  Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information

   The following has been registered in the "IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs
   Advertising Neighbor Information" registry;

   +======+===========================+====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+
   | Type | Description               | 22 | 23 | 25 | 141 | 222 | 223 |
   +======+===========================+====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+
   | 161  | Flood Reflector           | y  | y  | n  | y   | y   | y   |
   |      | Adjacency                 |    |    |    |     |     |     |
   +------+---------------------------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+

     Table 4: IS-IS Sub-TLVs for TLVs Advertising Neighbor Information

9.  Security Considerations

   This document uses flood reflection tunnels to carry IS-IS control
   traffic.  If an attacker can inject traffic into such a tunnel, the
   consequences could be (in the most extreme case) the complete
   subversion of the IS-IS Level 2 information.  Therefore, a mechanism
   inherent to the tunnel technology should be used to prevent such
   injection.  Since the available security procedures will vary by
   deployment and tunnel type, the details of securing tunnels are
   beyond the scope of this document.

   This document specifies information used to form dynamically
   discovered shortcut tunnels.  If an attacker were able to hijack the
   endpoint of such a tunnel and form an adjacency, it could divert
   shortcut traffic to itself, placing itself on-path and facilitating
   on-path attacks, or it could even completely subvert the IS-IS Level
   2 routing.  Therefore, steps should be taken to prevent such capture
   by using mechanism inherent to the tunnel type used.  Since the
   available security procedures will vary by deployment and tunnel
   type, the details of securing tunnels are beyond the scope of this
   document.

   Additionally, the usual IS-IS security mechanisms [RFC5304] SHOULD be
   deployed to prevent misrepresentation of routing information by an
   attacker in case a tunnel is compromised and the tunnel itself does
   not provide mechanisms strong enough to guarantee the integrity of
   the messages exchanged.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [ISO10589] ISO, "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)", Second Edition, ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 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>.

   [RFC5302]  Li, T., Smit, H., and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix
              Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5302>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7775]  Ginsberg, L., Litkowski, S., and S. Previdi, "IS-IS Route
              Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability",
              RFC 7775, DOI 10.17487/RFC7775, February 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7775>.

   [RFC7981]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M. Chen, "IS-IS Extensions
              for Advertising Router Information", RFC 7981,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7981, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7981>.

   [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
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9012]  Patel, K., Van de Velde, G., Sangli, S., and J. Scudder,
              "The BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 9012,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9012, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9012>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
              Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.

   [RFC4456]  Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
              Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
              (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.

   [RFC8099]  Chen, H., Li, R., Retana, A., Yang, Y., and Z. Liu, "OSPF
              Topology-Transparent Zone", RFC 8099,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8099, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8099>.

   [RFC9107]  Raszuk, R., Ed., Decraene, B., Ed., Cassar, C., Åman, E.,
              and K. Wang, "BGP Optimal Route Reflection (BGP ORR)",
              RFC 9107, DOI 10.17487/RFC9107, August 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9107>.

Acknowledgements

   The authors thank Shraddha Hegde, Peter Psenak, Acee Lindem, Robert
   Raszuk, and Les Ginsberg for their thorough review and detailed
   discussions.  Thanks are also extended to Michael Richardson for an
   excellent routing directorate review.  John Scudder ultimately spent
   significant time helping to make the document more comprehensible and
   coherent.

Authors' Addresses

   Tony Przygienda (editor)
   Juniper
   1137 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA
   United States of America
   Email: prz@juniper.net


   Chris Bowers
   Individual
   Email: chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com


   Yiu Lee
   Comcast
   1800 Bishops Gate Blvd
   Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
   United States of America
   Email: Yiu_Lee@comcast.com


   Alankar Sharma
   Individual
   Email: as3957@gmail.com


   Russ White
   Akamai
   Email: russ@riw.us