RFC 8668: Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
- L. Ginsberg, Ed.,
- A. Bashandy,
- C. Filsfils,
- M. Nanduri,
- E. Aries
Abstract
There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS operates is a Layer 2 interface bundle. Existing IS-IS advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the Layer 3 interface. If entities external to IS-IS wish to control traffic flows on the individual physical links that comprise the Layer 2 interface bundle, link attribute information about the bundle members is required.¶
This document introduces the ability for IS-IS to advertise the link attributes of Layer 2 (L2) Bundle Members.¶
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://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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://
1. Introduction
There are deployments where the Layer 3 interface on which an IS-IS adjacency is established is a Layer 2 interface bundle, for instance, a Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX]. This reduces the number of adjacencies that need to be maintained by the routing protocol in cases where there are parallel links between the neighbors. Entities external to IS-IS such as Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655] may wish to control traffic flows on individual members of the underlying Layer 2 bundle. In order to do so, link attribute information about individual bundle members is required. The protocol extensions defined in this document provide the means to advertise this information.¶
This document introduces a new TLV to advertise link attribute information for each of the L2 Bundle Members that comprise the Layer 3 interface on which IS-IS operates.¶
[RFC8667] introduces a new link attribute, adjacency segment identifier (Adj-SID), which can be used as an instruction to forwarding to send traffic over a specific link. This document introduces additional sub-TLVs to advertise Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members.¶
Note that the new advertisements defined in this document are intended to be provided to external (to IS-IS) entities. The following items are intentionally not defined and/or are outside the scope of this document:¶
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. L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV
A new TLV is introduced to advertise L2 Bundle Member attributes. Although much of the information is identical to and uses the same sub-TLVs included in Extended IS Neighbor advertisements (TLVs 22 and 222), a new TLV is used so that changes to the advertisement of the L2 Bundle Member link attributes do not trigger unnecessary action by the [ISO10589] Decision Process.¶
Advertisement of this information implies that the identified link is a member of the L2 Bundle associated with the identified Parent L3 Neighbor and that the member link is operationally up. Therefore, advertisements MUST be withdrawn if the link becomes operationally down or it is no longer a member of the identified L2 Bundle.¶
This new TLV utilizes the sub-TLV space defined for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223.¶
The following new TLV is introduced:¶
3.1. Parallel L3 Adjacencies
When there exist multiple L3 adjacencies to the same neighbor, additional information is required to uniquely identify the L3 Neighbor. One and only one of the following three sub-TLVs is used to uniquely identify the L3 adjacency:¶
When the P-Flag is set in the flags field in the Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor, one and only one of the above sub-TLVs MUST be present. The chosen sub-TLV MUST immediately follow the flags field described in Section 3.¶
These sub-TLVs MAY be omitted if no parallel adjacencies to the neighbor exist.¶
3.2. Shared Attribute Sub-TLVs
These sub-TLVs advertise a single copy of an attribute (e.g., link bandwidth). The attribute applies to all of the L2 Bundle Members in the set advertised under the preceding L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor. No more than one copy of a given sub-TLV in this category may appear in the set of sub-TLVs under the preceding L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor. If multiple copies of a given sub-TLV are present, all copies MUST be ignored.¶
The set of L2 Bundle Member Descriptors that may be advertised under a single L2 Bundle Member Attribute Descriptor is therefore limited to bundle members that share the set of attributes advertised in the shared attribute sub-TLVs.¶
All existing sub-TLVs defined in the IANA registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 are in the category of shared attribute sub-TLVs unless otherwise specified in this document.¶
4. Advertising L2 Bundle Member Adj-SIDs
[RFC8667] defines sub-TLVs to advertise Adj-SIDs for L3 adjacencies. However, these sub-TLVs only support the advertisement of a single Adj-SID. As it is expected that each L2 Bundle Member will have unique Adj-SIDs in many deployments, it is desirable to define a new sub-TLV that allows more efficient encoding of a set of Adj-SIDs in a single sub-TLV. Two new sub-TLVs are therefore introduced to support advertising Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members. The format of the new sub-TLVs is similar to that used for L3 adjacencies, but it is optimized to allow advertisement of a set of Adj-SIDs (one per L2 Bundle Member) in a single sub-TLV.¶
The two new sub-TLVs defined in the following sections do not fall into the category of shared attribute sub-TLVs.¶
4.1. L2 Bundle Member Adjacency Segment Identifier Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used to advertise Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members associated with a parent L3 adjacency that is point-to-point. The following format is defined for this sub-TLV:¶
4.2. L2 Bundle Member LAN Adjacency SID Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used to advertise Adj-SIDs for L2 Bundle Members associated with a parent L3 adjacency that is a LAN adjacency. In LAN subnetworks, the Designated Intermediate System (DIS) is elected and originates the Pseudonode-LSP (PN-LSP) including all neighbors of the DIS. When Segment Routing is used, each router in the LAN MAY advertise the Adj-SID of each of its neighbors on the LAN. Similarly, for each L2 Bundle Member, a router MAY advertise an Adj-SID to each neighbor on the LAN.¶
The following format is defined for this sub-TLV:¶
5. IANA Considerations
This document adds the following new TLV to the IS-IS "TLV Codepoints Registry".¶
The name of the IANA registry for Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 141, 222, and 223 has been changed to include sub-TLV 25. An additional column has been added to the registry to indicate which sub-TLVs may appear in the new L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV. The column for TLV 25 has one of the following three values:¶
- y
- sub-TLV may appear in TLV 25 but MUST NOT be shared by multiple L2 Bundle Members¶
- y(s)
- sub-TLV may appear in TLV 25 and MAY be shared by multiple L2 Bundle Members¶
- n
- sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in TLV 25¶
The following table indicates the appropriate settings for all currently defined sub-TLVs with regard to their use in the new L2 Bundle Member Attributes TLV.¶
This document adds the following new sub-TLVs to the above registry.¶
6. Security Considerations
The IS-IS protocol has supported the advertisement of link attribute information, including link identifiers, for many years. The advertisements defined in this document are identical to existing advertisements defined in [RFC4202], [RFC5305], [RFC8570], and [RFC8667], but are associated with L2 links that are part of a bundle interface on which the IS-IS protocol operates. There are therefore no new security issues introduced by the extensions in this document.¶
As always, if the protocol is used in an environment where unauthorized access to the physical links on which IS-IS Protocol Data Units (PDUs) are sent occurs, then attacks are possible. The use of authentication as defined in [RFC5304] and [RFC5310] is recommended to prevent such attacks.¶
7. References
7.1. Normative References
- [IEEE802.1AX]
-
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks -- Link Aggregation", IEEE 802.1AX, <https://
ieeexplore >..ieee .org /document /7055197 - [ISO10589]
-
ISO, "Information technology -- Telecommunicati
ons , ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, .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)" - [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC4202]
-
Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4202 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4202 - [RFC5304]
-
Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5304 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5304 - [RFC5305]
-
Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5305 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5305 - [RFC5307]
-
Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5307 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc5307 - [RFC5310]
-
Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC5310 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 , , <https:///RFC6119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6119 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8570]
-
Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8570 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8570 - [RFC8667]
-
Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsburg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8667 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8667
7.2. Informative References
- [RFC4655]
-
Farrel, A., Vasseur, JP., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4655 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4655 - [RFC8402]
-
Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8402 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8402
Appendix A. Example Encoding
Below is an example encoding of L2 Bundle advertisements in a case
where we have two parallel adjacencies to the same neighbor whose
system-id is 1234
L3 Adjacency #1¶
L3 IPv4 local link address: 192.0.2.1¶
Four bundle members with the following attributes:¶
L3 Adjacency #2¶
L3 IPv4 local link address: 192.0.2.2¶
Three bundle members with the following attributes:¶
This requires two TLVs, one for each L3 adjacency.¶
TLV for Adjacency #1:¶
Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor¶
IPv4 Interface Address Sub-TLV¶
L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors¶
Maximum Link Bandwidth Sub-TLV¶
L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Sub-TLV¶
L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors¶
Maximum Link Bandwidth Sub-TLV¶
L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Sub-TLV¶
TLV for Adjacency #2:¶
Parent L3 Neighbor Descriptor¶
IPv4 Interface Address Sub-TLV¶
L2 Bundle Attribute Descriptors¶
Maximum Link Bandwidth Sub-TLV¶
L2 Bundle Member Adj-SID Sub-TLV¶
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jon Mitchell for his careful review.¶
Contributors
The following people gave a substantial contribution to the content of this document and should be considered coauthors:¶