Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)
RFC 3784

Network Working Group                                            H. Smit
Request for Comments: 3784                              Procket Networks
Category: Informational                                            T. Li
                                                               June 2004

           Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
                Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

   This document describes extensions to the Intermediate System to
   Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol to support Traffic Engineering
   (TE).  This document extends the IS-IS protocol by specifying new
   information that an Intermediate System (router) can place in Link
   State Protocol (LSP) Data Units.  This information describes
   additional details regarding the state of the network that are useful
   for traffic engineering computations.

1.  Introduction

   The IS-IS protocol is specified in ISO 10589 [1], with extensions for
   supporting IPv4 specified in RFC 1195 [3].  Each Intermediate System
   (IS) (router) advertises one or more IS-IS Link State Protocol Data
   Units (LSPs) with routing information.  Each LSP is composed of a
   fixed header and a number of tuples, each consisting of a Type, a
   Length, and a Value.  Such tuples are commonly known as TLVs, and are
   a good way of encoding information in a flexible and extensible
   format.

   This document contains the design of new TLVs to replace the existing
   IS Neighbor TLV, IP Reachability TLV, and to include additional
   information about the characteristics of a particular link to an IS-
   IS LSP.  The characteristics described in this document are needed
   for Traffic Engineering [4] (TE).  Secondary goals include increasing
   the dynamic range of the IS-IS metric and improving the encoding of
   IP prefixes.

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 1]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

   The router id is useful for traffic engineering purposes because it
   describes a single address that can always be used to reference a
   particular router.

   Mechanisms and procedures to migrate to the new TLVs are not
   discussed in this document.

2.  Introducing Sub-TLVs

   This document introduces a new way to encode routing information in
   IS-IS.  The new object is called a sub-TLV.  Sub-TLVs are similar to
   regular TLVs.  They use the same concepts as regular TLVs.  The
   difference is that TLVs exist inside IS-IS packets, while sub-TLVs
   exist inside TLVs.  TLVs are used to add extra information to IS-IS
   packets.  Sub-TLVs are used to add extra information to particular
   TLVs.  Each sub-TLV consists of three fields, a one-octet Type field,
   a one-octet Length field, and zero or more octets of Value.  The Type
   field indicates the type of items in the Value field.  The Length
   field indicates the length of the Value field in octets.  Each sub-
   TLV can potentially hold multiple items.  The number of items in a
   sub-TLV can be computed from the length of the whole sub-TLV, when
   the length of each item is known.  Unknown sub-TLVs are to be ignored
   and skipped upon receipt.

   The Sub-TLV type space is managed by the IETF IS-IS WG
   (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/isis-charter.html).  New type
   values are allocated following review on the IETF IS-IS mailing list.
   This will normally require publication of additional documentation
   describing how the new type is used.  In the event that the IS-IS
   working group has disbanded the review shall be performed by a
   Designated Expert assigned by the responsible Area Director.

3.  The Extended IS Reachability TLV

   The extended IS reachability TLV is TLV type 22.

   The existing IS reachability (TLV type 2, defined in ISO 10589 [1])
   contains information about a series of IS neighbors.  For each
   neighbor, there is a structure that contains the default metric, the
   delay, the monetary cost, the reliability, and the 7-octet ID of the
   adjacent neighbor.  Of this information, the default metric is
   commonly used.  The default metric is currently one octet, with one
   bit used to indicate whether the metric is internal or external, and
   one bit that was originally unused, but which was later defined by
   RFC 2966 to be the up/down bit.  The remaining 6 bits are used to
   store the actual metric, resulting in a possible metric range of 0-
   63.  This limitation is one of the restrictions that we would like to
   lift.

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 2]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

   The remaining three metrics (delay, monetary cost, and reliability)
   are not commonly implemented and reflect unused overhead in the TLV.
   The neighbor is identified by its system ID, typically 6-octets, plus
   one octet indicating the pseudonode number.  Thus, the existing TLV
   consumes 11 octets per neighbor, with 4 octets for metric and 7
   octets for neighbor identification.  To indicate multiple
   adjacencies, this structure is repeated within the IS reachability
   TLV.  Because the TLV is limited to 255 octets of content, a single
   TLV can describe up to 23 neighbors.  The IS reachability TLV can be
   repeated within the LSP fragments to describe further neighbors.

   The proposed extended IS reachability TLV contains a new data
   structure, consisting of:

      7 octets of system Id and pseudonode number
      3 octets of default metric
      1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
      0-244 octets of sub-TLVs,
           where each sub-TLV consists of a sequence of
                1 octet of sub-type
                1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
                0-242 octets of value

   Thus, if no sub-TLVs are used, the new encoding requires 11 octets
   and can contain up to 23 neighbors.  Please note that while the
   encoding allows for 255 octets of sub-TLVs, the maximum value cannot
   fit in the overall IS reachability TLV.  The practical maximum is 255
   octets minus the 11 octets described above, or 244 octets.  Further,
   there is no defined mechanism for extending the sub-TLV space for a
   particular neighbor.  Thus, wasting sub-TLV space is discouraged.

   The metric octets are encoded as a 24-bit unsigned integer.  Note
   that the metric field in the new extended IP reachability TLV is
   encoded as a 32-bit unsigned integer.  These different sizes were
   chosen so that it is very unlikely that the cost of an intra-area
   route has to be chopped off to fit in the metric field of an inter-
   area route.

   To preclude overflow within a traffic engineering SPF implementation,
   all metrics greater than or equal to MAX_PATH_METRIC SHALL be
   considered to have a metric of MAX_PATH_METRIC.  It is easiest to
   select MAX_PATH_METRIC such that MAX_PATH_METRIC plus a single link
   metric does not overflow the number of bits for internal metric
   calculation.  We assume that this is 32 bits.  Therefore, we have
   chosen MAX_PATH_METRIC to be 4,261,412,864 (0xFE000000, 2^32 - 2^25).

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 3]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

   If a link is advertised with the maximum link metric (2^24 - 1), this
   link MUST NOT be considered during the normal SPF computation.  This
   will allow advertisement of a link for purposes other than building
   the normal Shortest Path Tree.  An example is a link that is
   available for traffic engineering, but not for hop-by-hop routing.

   Certain sub-TLVs are proposed here:

   Sub-TLV type  Length (octets)  Name
      3               4           Administrative group (color)
      6               4           IPv4 interface address
      8               4           IPv4 neighbor address
      9               4           Maximum link bandwidth
      10              4           Reservable link bandwidth
      11              32          Unreserved bandwidth
      18              3           TE Default metric
      250-254                     Reserved for cisco specific extensions
      255                         Reserved for future expansion

   Each of these sub-TLVs is described below.  Unless stated otherwise,
   multiple occurrences of the information are supported by multiple
   inclusions of the sub-TLV.

3.1.  Sub-TLV 3: Administrative group (color, resource class)

   The administrative group sub-TLV contains a 4-octet bit mask assigned
   by the network administrator.  Each set bit corresponds to one
   administrative group assigned to the interface.

   By convention, the least significant bit is referred to as 'group 0',
   and the most significant bit is referred to as 'group 31'.

   This sub-TLV is OPTIONAL.  This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
   each extended IS reachability TLV.

3.2.  Sub-TLV 6: IPv4 interface address

   This sub-TLV contains a 4-octet IPv4 address for the interface
   described by the (main) TLV.  This sub-TLV can occur multiple times.

   Implementations MUST NOT inject a /32 prefix for the interface
   address into their routing or forwarding table because this can lead
   to forwarding loops when interacting with systems that do not support
   this sub-TLV.

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 4]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

   If a router implements the basic TLV extensions in this document, it
   MAY add or omit this sub-TLV from the description of an adjacency.
   If a router implements traffic engineering, it MUST include this
   sub-TLV.

3.3.  Sub-TLV 8: IPv4 neighbor address

   This sub-TLV contains a single IPv4 address for a neighboring router
   on this link.  This sub-TLV can occur multiple times.

   Implementations MUST NOT inject a /32 prefix for the neighbor address
   into their routing or forwarding table because this can lead to
   forwarding loops when interacting with systems that do not support
   this sub-TLV.

   If a router implements the basic TLV extensions in this document, it
   MAY add or omit this sub-TLV from the description of an adjacency.
   If a router implements traffic engineering, it MUST include this
   sub-TLV on point-to-point adjacencies.

3.4.  Sub-TLV 9: Maximum link bandwidth

   This sub-TLV contains the maximum bandwidth that can be used on this
   link in this direction (from the system originating the LSP to its
   neighbors).  This is useful for traffic engineering.

   The maximum link bandwidth is encoded in 32 bits in IEEE floating
   point format.  The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.

   This sub-TLV is optional.  This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
   each extended IS reachability TLV.

3.5.  Sub-TLV 10: Maximum reservable link bandwidth

   This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be
   reserved in this direction on this link.  Note that for
   oversubscription purposes, this can be greater than the bandwidth of
   the link.

   The maximum reservable link bandwidth is encoded in 32 bits in IEEE
   floating point format.  The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.

   This sub-TLV is optional.  This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
   each extended IS reachability TLV.

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 5]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

3.6.  Sub-TLV 11: Unreserved bandwidth

   This sub-TLV contains the amount of bandwidth reservable in this
   direction on this link.  Note that for oversubscription purposes,
   this can be greater than the bandwidth of the link.

   Because of the need for priority and preemption, each head end needs
   to know the amount of reserved bandwidth at each priority level.
   Thus, this sub-TLV contains eight 32 bit IEEE floating point numbers.
   The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.  The values correspond to
   the bandwidth that can be reserved with a setup priority of 0 through
   7, arranged in increasing order with priority 0 occurring at the
   start of the sub-TLV, and priority 7 at the end of the sub-TLV.

   For stability reasons, rapid changes in the values in this sub-TLV
   SHOULD NOT cause rapid generation of LSPs.

   This sub-TLV is optional.  This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
   each extended IS reachability TLV.

3.7.  Sub-TLV 18: Traffic Engineering Default Metric

   This sub-TLV contains a 24-bit unsigned integer.  This metric is
   administratively assigned and can be used to present a differently
   weighted topology to traffic engineering SPF calculations.

   To preclude overflow within a traffic engineering SPF implementation,
   all metrics greater than or equal to MAX_PATH_METRIC SHALL be
   considered to have a metric of MAX_PATH_METRIC.  It is easiest to
   select MAX_PATH_METRIC such that MAX_PATH_METRIC plus a single link
   metric does not overflow the number of bits for internal metric
   calculation.  We assume that this is 32 bits.  Therefore, we have
   chosen MAX_PATH_METRIC to be 4,261,412,864 (0xFE000000, 2^32 - 2^25).

   This sub-TLV is optional.  This sub-TLV SHOULD appear once at most in
   each extended IS reachability TLV.  If a link is advertised without
   this sub-TLV, traffic engineering SPF calculations MUST use the
   normal default metric of this link, which is advertised in the fixed
   part of the extended IS reachability TLV.

4.  The Extended IP Reachability TLV

   The extended IP reachability TLV is TLV type 135.

   The existing IP reachability TLVs (TLV type 128 and TLV type 130,
   defined in RFC 1195 [3]) carry IP prefixes in a format that is
   analogous to the IS neighbor TLV from ISO 10589 [1].  They carry four
   metrics, of which only the default metric is commonly used.  The

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 6]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

   default metric has a possible range of 0-63.  We would like to remove
   this restriction.

   In addition, route redistribution (a.k.a. route leaking) has a key
   problem that was not fully addressed by the existing IP reachability
   TLVs.  RFC 1195 [3] allows a router to advertise prefixes upwards in
   the level hierarchy.  Unfortunately there were no mechanisms defined
   to advertise prefixes downwards in the level hierarchy.

   To address these two issues, the proposed extended IP reachability
   TLV provides for a 32 bit metric and adds one bit to indicate that a
   prefix has been redistributed 'down' in the hierarchy.

   The proposed extended IP reachability TLV contains a new data
   structure, consisting of:

      4 octets of metric information
      1 octet of control information, consisting of
           1 bit of up/down information
           1 bit indicating the presence of sub-TLVs
           6 bits of prefix length
      0-4 octet of IPv4 prefix
      0-250 optional octets of sub-TLVs, if present consisting of
           1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
           0-249 octets of sub-TLVs,
                where each sub-TLV consists of a sequence of
                     1 octet of sub-type
                     1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
                     0-247 octets of value

   This data structure can be replicated within the TLV, without
   exceeding the maximum length of the TLV.

   The 6 bits of prefix length can have the values 0-32 and indicate the
   number of significant bits in the prefix.  The prefix is encoded in
   the minimal number of octets for the given number of significant
   bits.  This implies:

         Significant bits                Octets
         0                               0
         1-8                             1
         9-16                            2
         17-24                           3
         25-32                           4

   The remaining bits of prefix are transmitted as zero and ignored upon
   receipt.

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 7]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

   If a prefix is advertised with a metric larger then MAX_PATH_METRIC
   (0xFE000000, see paragraph 3.0), this prefix MUST NOT be considered
   during the normal SPF computation.  This allows advertisement of a
   prefix for purposes other than building the normal IP routing table.

4.1.  The up/down Bit

   If routers were allowed to redistribute IP prefixes freely in both
   directions between level 1 and level 2 without any additional
   mechanisms, those routers would not be able to determine looping of
   routing information.  A problem occurs when a router learns a prefix
   via level 2 routing and advertises that prefix down into a level 1
   area, where another router might pick up the route and advertise the
   prefix back up into the level 2 backbone.  If the original source
   withdraws the prefix, those two routers might end up having a routing
   loop between them, where part of the looped path is via level 1
   routing and the other part of the looped path is via level 2 routing.
   The solution that RFC 1195 [3] poses is to allow only advertising
   prefixes upward in the level hierarchy, and to disallow the
   advertising of prefixes downward in the hierarchy.

   To prevent this looping of prefixes between levels, a new bit of
   information is defined in the new extended IP reachability TLV.  This
   bit is called the up/down bit.  The up/down bit SHALL be set to 0
   when a prefix is first injected into IS-IS.  If a prefix is
   advertised from a higher level to a lower level (e.g. level 2 to
   level 1), the bit MUST be set to 1, indicating that the prefix has
   traveled down the hierarchy.  Prefixes that have the up/down bit set
   to 1 may only be advertised down the hierarchy, i.e. to lower levels.

   These semantics apply even if IS-IS is extended in the future to have
   additional levels.  By insuring that prefixes follow only the IS-IS
   hierarchy, we have insured that the information does not loop,
   thereby insuring that there are no persistent forwarding loops.

   If a prefix is advertised from one area to another at the same level,
   then the up/down bit SHALL be set to 1.  This situation can arise
   when a router implements multiple virtual routers at the same level,
   but in different areas.

   The semantics of the up/down bit in the new extended IP reachability
   TLV are identical to the semantics of the up/down bit defined in RFC
   2966 [2].

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 8]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

4.2.  Expandability of the Extended IP Reachability TLV with Sub-TLVs

   The extended IP reachability TLV can hold sub-TLVs that apply to a
   particular prefix.  This allows for easy future extensions.  If there
   are no sub-TLVs associated with a prefix, the bit indicating the
   presence of sub-TLVs SHALL be set to 0.  If this bit is set to 1, the
   first octet after the prefix will be interpreted as the length of all
   sub-TLVs associated with this IPv4 prefix.  Please note that while
   the encoding allows for 255 octets of sub-TLVs, the maximum value
   cannot fit in the overall extended IP reachability TLV.  The
   practical maximum is 255 octets minus the 5-9 octets described above,
   or 250 octets.

   This document does not define any sub-TLVs for the extended IP
   reachability TLV.

5.  The Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV

   The Traffic Engineering router ID TLV is TLV type 134.

   The router ID TLV contains the 4-octet router ID of the router
   originating the LSP.  This is useful in several regards:

   For traffic engineering, it guarantees that we have a single stable
   address that can always be referenced in a path that will be
   reachable from multiple hops away, regardless of the state of the
   node's interfaces.

   If OSPF is also active in the domain, traffic engineering can compute
   the mapping between the OSPF and IS-IS topologies.

   If a router does not implement traffic engineering, it MAY add or
   omit the Traffic Engineering router ID TLV.  If a router implements
   traffic engineering, it MUST include this TLV in its LSP.  This TLV
   SHOULD not be included more than once in an LSP.

   If a router advertises the Traffic Engineering router ID TLV in its
   LSP, and if it advertises prefixes via the Border Gateway Protocol
   (BGP) with the BGP next hop attribute set to the BGP router ID, the
   Traffic Engineering router ID SHOULD be the same as the BGP router
   ID.

   Implementations MUST NOT inject a /32 prefix for the router ID into
   their forwarding table because this can lead to forwarding loops when
   interacting with systems that do not support this TLV.

Smit & Li                    Informational                      [Page 9]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

6.  IANA Considerations

6.1.  TLV Codepoint Allocations

   This document defines the following new IS-IS TLV types, which have
   been reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry:

      Type        Description                            IIH   LSP   SNP
      ----        -----------------------------------    ---   ---   ---
       22         The extended IS reachability TLV        n     y     n
       134        The Traffic Engineering router ID TLV   n     y     n
       135        The extended IP reachability TLV        n     y     n

6.2.  New Registries

   IANA has created the following new registries.

6.2.1.  Sub-TLVs for the Extended IS Reachability TLV

   This registry contains codepoints for Sub-TLVs of TLV 22.  The range
   of values is 0-255.  Allocations within the registry require
   documentation of the proposed use of the allocated value and approval
   by the Designated Expert assigned by the IESG (see [5]).

   Taking into consideration allocations specified in this document, the
   registry has been initialized as follows:

         Type        Description
         ----        -----------------------------------
         0-2         unassigned
          3          Administrative group (color)
         4-5         unassigned
          6          IPv4 interface address
          7          unassigned
          8          IPv4 neighbor address
          9          Maximum link bandwidth
          10         Reservable link bandwidth
          11         Unreserved bandwidth
         12-17       unassigned
          18         TE Default metric
         19-254      unassigned
          255        Reserved for future expansion

Smit & Li                    Informational                     [Page 10]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

6.2.2.  Sub-TLVs for the Extended IP Reachability TLV

   This registry contains codepoints for Sub-TLVs of TLV 135.  The range
   of values is 0-255.  Allocations within the registry require
   documentation of the use of the allocated value and approval by the
   Designated Expert assigned by the IESG (see [5]).

   No codepoints are defined in this document.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1] ISO, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain
       Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the
       Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
       (ISO 8473)", International Standard 10589:2002, Second Edition

   [2] Li, T., Przygienda, T. and H. Smit, "Domain-wide Prefix
       Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 2966, October 2000.

7.2.  Informative References

   [3] Callon, R.W., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual
       environments", RFC 1195, December 1990

   [4] Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O'Dell, M. and J. McManus,
       "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS", RFC 2702,
       September 1999.

   [5] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
       Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998.

8.  Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security issues for IS-IS.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Yakov Rekhter and Dave Katz for their
   comments on this work.

Smit & Li                    Informational                     [Page 11]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

10.  Authors' Addresses

   Henk Smit

   EMail: [email protected]

   Tony Li

   EMail: [email protected]

Smit & Li                    Informational                     [Page 12]
RFC 3784        IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering       June 2004

11.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   [email protected].

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Smit & Li                    Informational                     [Page 13]