1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8401 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track A. Przygienda
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
S. Aldrin
Google
J. Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc.
June 2018
<span class="h1">Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via IS-IS</span>
Abstract
This document defines IS-IS extensions to support multicast
forwarding using the Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
architecture.
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 <a href="./rfc7841#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 7841</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8401">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8401</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. BIER Domains and Subdomains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Advertising BIER Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Multi-Topology and Subdomain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. BFR-id Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Logging Misconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. Packet Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. BIER Info Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#section-8">8</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
<a href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-12">12</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) [<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>] defines an
architecture where all intended multicast receivers are encoded as a
bitmask in the multicast packet header within different
encapsulations such as described in [<a href="./rfc8296" title=""Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks"">RFC8296</a>]. A router that
receives such a packet will forward the packet based on the bit
position in the packet header towards the receiver(s) following a
precomputed tree for each of the bits in the packet. Each receiver
is represented by a unique bit in the bitmask.
This document presents necessary extensions to the currently deployed
IS-IS for IP [<a href="./rfc1195" title=""Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments"">RFC1195</a>] to support distribution of information
necessary for operation of BIER domains and subdomains. This
document defines a new TLV to be advertised by every router
participating in BIER signaling.
This document defines support for MPLS encapsulation as specified in
[<a href="./rfc8296" title=""Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks"">RFC8296</a>]. Support for other encapsulation types and the use of
multiple encapsulation types are outside the scope of this document.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Terminology</span>
Some of the terminology specified in [<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>] is replicated here and
extended by necessary definitions:
BIER: Bit Index Explicit Replication. The overall architecture of
forwarding multicast using a bit position.
BIER-OL: BIER Overlay Signaling. The method for the BFIR to learn
about BFERs.
BFR: Bit Forwarding Router. A router that participates in Bit Index
Multipoint Forwarding. A BFR is identified by a unique BFR-prefix
in a BIER domain.
BFIR: Bit Forwarding Ingress Router. The ingress border router that
inserts the BitString into the packet. Each BFIR must have a
valid BFR-id assigned.
BFER: Bit Forwarding Egress Router. A router that participates in
Bit Index Forwarding as a leaf. Each BFER must be a BFR. Each
BFER must have a valid BFR-id assigned.
BFT: Bit Forwarding Tree used to reach all BFERs in a domain.
BIER subdomain: A further distinction within a BIER domain
identified by its unique subdomain identifier. A BIER subdomain
can support multiple BitString Lengths.
BFR-id: An optional, unique identifier for a BFR within a BIER
subdomain.
Invalid BFR-id: Unassigned BFR-id. The special value 0 is reserved
for this purpose.
BAR: BIER Algorithm. Used to calculate underlay next hops.
IPA: IGP Algorithm. May be used to modify, enhance, or replace the
calculation of underlay paths as defined by the BAR value.
SPF: Shortest Path First routing calculation based on the IGP link
metric.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Requirements Language</span>
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
<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>] [<a href="./rfc8174" title=""Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words"">RFC8174</a>] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This document adds the following entry to the "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135,
235, 236, and 237" registry.
Value: 32
Name: BIER Info
This document also introduces a new registry for sub-sub-TLVs for the
BIER Info sub-TLV. The registration policy is Expert Review as
defined in [<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>]. The "Sub-sub-TLVs for BIER Info Sub-TLV" has
been created within the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. The defined
value is as follows:
Type Name
---- ----
1 BIER MPLS Encapsulation
IANA has created the "BIER Algorithms" registry within the "Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)" registry. The registration policies
[<a href="./rfc8126" title="">RFC8126</a>] for this registry are:
"Standards Action" for values 0-127
"Specification Required" for values 128-239
"Experimental Use" for values 240-254
The initial values in the "BIER Algorithms" registry are:
0: No BIER-specific algorithm is used
255: Reserved
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Concepts</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.1" href="#section-4.1">4.1</a>. BIER Domains and Subdomains</span>
An IS-IS-signaled BIER domain is aligned with the scope of
distribution of BFR-prefixes that identify the BFRs within IS-IS. In
such a case, IS-IS acts as the supporting BIER underlay.
Within such a domain, the extensions defined in this document
advertise BIER information for one or more BIER subdomains. Each
subdomain is uniquely identified by a subdomain-id (SD). Each
subdomain is associated with a single IS-IS topology (MT) [<a href="./rfc5120" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)"">RFC5120</a>],
which may be any of the topologies supported by IS-IS. Local
configuration controls which <MT,SD> pairs are supported by a router.
The mapping of subdomains to topologies MUST be consistent within the
IS-IS flooding domain used to advertise BIER information.
Each BIER subdomain has as its unique attributes the encapsulation
used and the type of tree it uses to forward BIER frames (currently
always SPF). Additionally, per supported BitString length in the
subdomain, each router will advertise the necessary label ranges to
support it.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-4.2" href="#section-4.2">4.2</a>. Advertising BIER Information</span>
BIER information advertisements are associated with a new sub-TLV in
the extended reachability TLVs. BIER information is always
associated with a host prefix, which MUST be a node address for the
advertising node. If this is not the case, the advertisement MUST be
ignored. Therefore, the following restrictions apply:
o Prefix length MUST be 32 for an IPv4 prefix or 128 for an IPv6
prefix.
o When the Prefix Attributes Flags sub-TLV [<a href="./rfc7794" title=""IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4 and IPv6 Reachability"">RFC7794</a>] is present, the
N flag MUST be set and the R flag MUST NOT be set.
o BIER sub-TLVs MUST be included when a prefix reachability
advertisement is leaked between levels.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Procedures</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Multi-Topology and Subdomain</span>
A given subdomain is supported within one and only one topology. All
routers in the flooding scope of the BIER sub-TLVs MUST advertise the
same subdomain within the same multi-topology. A router receiving an
<MT,SD> advertisement that does not match the locally configured pair
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
MUST report a misconfiguration of the received <MT,SD> pair. All
received BIER advertisements associated with the conflicting <MT,SD>
pair MUST be ignored. Note that in the presence of such a
misconfiguration, this will lead to partitioning of the subdomain.
Example:
The following combination of advertisements are valid: <0,0> <0,1>,
and <2,2>.
The following combination of advertisements are invalid: <0,0> <0,1>,
and <2,0>. Advertisements associated with <0,0> and <2,0> must be
ignored.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. BFR-id Advertisements</span>
If a BFER/BFIR is configured with a BFR-id, then it advertises this
value in its BIER advertisements. If no BFR-id is configured, then
the value "Invalid BFR-id" is advertised. A valid BFR-id MUST be
unique within the flooding scope of the BIER advertisements. All
BFERs/BFIRs MUST detect advertisement of duplicate valid BFR-IDs for
a given <MT,SD>. When such duplication is detected, all of the
routers advertising duplicates MUST be treated as if they did not
advertise a valid BFR-id. This implies they cannot act as BFER or
BFIR in that <MT,SD>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>. Logging Misconfiguration</span>
Whenever an advertisement is received that violates any of the
constraints defined in this document, the receiving router MUST
support logging this occurrence. Logging SHOULD be dampened to avoid
excessive output.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>. Flooding Reduction</span>
It is expected that changes in the BIER domain information that is
advertised by IS-IS occur infrequently. If this expectation is not
met for an extended period of time (more than a few seconds of
burstiness), changes will increase the number of Link State PDU (LSP)
updates and negatively impact performance in the network.
Implementations SHOULD protect against this possibility by, for
example, dampening updates if they occur over an extended period of
time.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. Packet Formats</span>
All IS-IS BIER information is carried within the TLVs 235, 237,
[<a href="./rfc5120" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)"">RFC5120</a>], 135 [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>], or 236 [<a href="./rfc5308" title=""Routing IPv6 with IS-IS"">RFC5308</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. BIER Info Sub-TLV</span>
This sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER subdomains that the
router participates in as a BFR. This sub-TLV MAY appear multiple
times in a given prefix-reachability TLV -- once for each subdomain
supported in the associated topology.
The sub-TLV advertises a single <MT,SD> combination followed by
optional sub-sub-TLVs as described in the following sections.
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BAR | IPA | subdomain-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BFR-id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-sub-TLVs (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: As indicated in the IANA section.
Length: Variable
BAR: BIER Algorithm. Specifies a BIER-specific algorithm used to
calculate underlay paths to reach BFERs. Values are allocated
from the "BIER Algorithms" registry. 1 octet.
IPA: IGP Algorithm. Specifies an IGP Algorithm to either modify,
enhance, or replace the calculation of underlay paths to reach
BFERs as defined by the BAR value. Values are from the IGP
Algorithm registry. 1 octet.
subdomain-id: Unique value identifying the BIER subdomain. 1 octet.
BFR-id: A 2-octet field encoding the BFR-id, as documented in
[<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>]. If no BFR-id has been assigned, the value of this
field is set to "Invalid BFR-id", which is defined as illegal in
[<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>].
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
The use of non-zero values in either the BAR field or the IPA field
is outside the scope of this document. If an implementation does not
support the use of non-zero values in these fields but receives a
BIER Info sub-TLV containing non-zero values in these fields, it
SHOULD treat the advertising router as incapable of supporting BIER
(one way of handling incapable routers is documented in <a href="./rfc8279#section-6.9">Section 6.9
of [RFC8279]</a> and additional methods may be defined in the future).
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. BIER MPLS Encapsulation Sub-sub-TLV</span>
This sub-sub-TLV carries the information for the BIER MPLS
encapsulation including the label range for a specific BitString
length for a certain <MT,SD>. It is advertised within the BIER Info
sub-TLV (<a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>). This sub-sub-TLV MAY appear multiple times
within a single BIER Info sub-TLV.
If the same BitString length is repeated in multiple sub-sub-TLVs
inside the same BIER Info sub-TLV, the BIER Info sub-TLV MUST be
ignored.
Label ranges within all BIER MPLS Encapsulation sub-sub-TLVs across
all BIER Info sub-TLVs advertised by the same BFR MUST NOT overlap.
If overlap is detected, the advertising router MUST be treated as if
it did not advertise any BIER sub-TLVs.
Label values MUST NOT match any of the reserved values defined in
[<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>].
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max SI |BS Len | Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: Value of 1 indicating MPLS encapsulation.
Length: 4
Max SI: Maximum Set Identifier (<a href="./rfc8279#section-1">Section 1 of [RFC8279]</a>) used in the
encapsulation for this BIER subdomain for this BitString length, 1
octet. Each SI maps to a single label in the label range. The
first label is for SI=0, the second label is for SI=1, etc. If
the label associated with the Maximum Set Identifier exceeds the
20-bit range, the sub-sub-TLV MUST be ignored.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
Local BitString Length (BS Len): Encoded BitString length as per
[<a href="./rfc8296" title=""Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks"">RFC8296</a>]. 4 bits.
Label: First label of the range, 20 bits. The labels are as defined
in [<a href="./rfc8296" title=""Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non- MPLS Networks"">RFC8296</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [<a href="./rfc5304" title=""IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC5304</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5310" title=""IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC5310</a>].
The Security Considerations section of [<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>] discusses the
possibility of performing a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack by setting
too many bits in the BitString of a BIER-encapsulated packet.
However, this sort of DoS attack cannot be initiated by modifying the
IS-IS BIER advertisements specified in this document. A BFIR decides
which systems are to receive a BIER-encapsulated packet. In making
this decision, it is not influenced by the IS-IS control messages.
When creating the encapsulation, the BFIR sets one bit in the
encapsulation for each destination system. The information in the
IS-IS BIER advertisements is used to construct the forwarding tables
that map each bit in the encapsulation into a set of next hops for
the host that is identified by that bit, but it is not used by the
BFIR to decide which bits to set. Hence, an attack on the IS-IS
control plane cannot be used to cause this sort of DoS attack.
While a BIER-encapsulated packet is traversing the network, a BFR
that receives a BIER-encapsulated packet with n bits set in its
BitString may have to replicate the packet and forward multiple
copies. However, a given bit will only be set in one copy of the
packet. This means that each transmitted replica of a received
packet has fewer bits set (i.e., is targeted to fewer destinations)
than the received packet. This is an essential property of the BIER-
forwarding process as defined in [<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>]. While a failure of this
process might cause a DoS attack (as discussed in the Security
Considerations of [<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>]), such a failure cannot be caused by an
attack on the IS-IS control plane.
Further discussion of BIER-specific security considerations can be
found in [<a href="./rfc8279" title=""Multicast Using Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)"">RFC8279</a>].
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.1" href="#section-8.1">8.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC1195">RFC1195</a>] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", <a href="./rfc1195">RFC 1195</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
December 1990, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3032">RFC3032</a>] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5120">RFC5120</a>] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", <a href="./rfc5120">RFC 5120</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5304">RFC5304</a>] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", <a href="./rfc5304">RFC 5304</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5305">RFC5305</a>] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", <a href="./rfc5305">RFC 5305</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5308">RFC5308</a>] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", <a href="./rfc5308">RFC 5308</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5310">RFC5310</a>] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", <a href="./rfc5310">RFC 5310</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7794">RFC7794</a>] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IPv4
and IPv6 Reachability", <a href="./rfc7794">RFC 7794</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7794,
March 2016, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7794</a>>.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC8174">RFC8174</a>] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc2119">2119</a> Key Words", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc8174">RFC 8174</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8279">RFC8279</a>] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
Explicit Replication (BIER)", <a href="./rfc8279">RFC 8279</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC8296">RFC8296</a>] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", <a href="./rfc8296">RFC 8296</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-8.2" href="#section-8.2">8.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-OPSFv2BIER">OPSFv2BIER</a>]
Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, I., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Zhang, Z., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
Extensions for BIER", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18">draft-ietf-bier-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-18">ospf-bier-extensions-18</a>, June 2018.
[<a id="ref-RFC8126">RFC8126</a>] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp26">BCP 26</a>,
<a href="./rfc8126">RFC 8126</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126</a>>.
Acknowledgements
This RFC is aligned with "OSPFv2 Extensions for BIER" [<a href="#ref-OPSFv2BIER">OPSFv2BIER</a>]
document as far as the protocol mechanisms overlap.
Many thanks for comments from (in no particular order) Hannes
Gredler, IJsbrand Wijnands, Peter Psenak, and Chris Bowers.
Special thanks to Eric Rosen.
<span class="grey">Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc8401">RFC 8401</a> BIER Support via IS-IS June 2018</span>
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg (editor)
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
United States of America
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks
Email: prz@juniper.net
Sam Aldrin
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA
United States of America
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Juniper Networks, Inc.
10 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
United States of America
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
</pre>
|
