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
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Banerjee
Request for Comments: 6165 Cisco Systems
Category: Standards Track D. Ward
ISSN: 2070-1721 Juniper Networks
April 2011
<span class="h1">Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 Systems</span>
Abstract
This document specifies the Intermediate System to Intermediate
System (IS-IS) extensions necessary to support link state routing for
any protocols running directly over Layer-2. While supporting this
concept involves several pieces, this document only describes
extensions to IS-IS. Furthermore, the Type, Length, Value pairs
(TLVs) described in this document are generic Layer-2 additions, and
specific ones as needed are defined in the IS-IS technology-specific
extensions. We leave it to the systems using these IS-IS extensions
to explain how the information carried in IS-IS is used.
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="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6165">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6165</a>.
<span class="grey">Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6165">RFC 6165</a> Layer-2-IS-IS April 2011</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://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.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Overview ........................................................<a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Terminology ................................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS .......................................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Multi-Topology-Aware Port Capability TLV ...................<a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. The MAC-Reachability TLV ...................................<a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Acknowledgements ................................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations .........................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations .............................................<a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References ......................................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References .......................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References .....................................<a href="#page-6">6</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Overview</span>
There are a number of systems (for example, [<a href="#ref-RBRIDGES">RBRIDGES</a>], [<a href="#ref-802.1aq" title=""Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks / Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 8: Shortest Path Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D1.5"">802.1aq</a>],
and [<a href="#ref-OTV" title=""Overlay Transport Virtualization"">OTV</a>]) that use Layer-2 addresses carried in a link state routing
protocol, specifically Intermediate System to Intermediate System
[<a href="#ref-IS-IS" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Information Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)"">IS-IS</a>] [<a href="./rfc1195" title=""Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments"">RFC1195</a>], to provide true Layer-2 routing. In almost all
the technologies mentioned above, classical Layer-2 packets are
encapsulated with an outer header. The outer header format varies
across all these technologies. This outer header is used to route
the encapsulated packets to their destination.
Each Intermediate System (IS) advertises one or more IS-IS Link State
Protocol Data Units (PDUs) with routing information. Each Link State
PDU (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
<span class="grey">Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6165">RFC 6165</a> Layer-2-IS-IS April 2011</span>
commonly known as TLVs. In this document, we specify a set of TLVs
to be added to [<a href="#ref-IS-IS" title=""Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Information Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)"">IS-IS</a>] PDUs, to support these proposed systems. The
TLVs are generic Layer-2 additions, and specific ones, as needed, are
defined in the IS-IS technology-specific extensions. This document
does not propose any new forwarding mechanisms using this additional
information carried within IS-IS.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Terminology</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. TLV Enhancements to IS-IS</span>
This section specifies the enhancements for the TLVs that are needed
in common by Layer-2 technologies.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Multi-Topology-Aware Port Capability TLV</span>
The Multi-Topology-aware Port Capability (MT-PORT-CAP) is IS-IS TLV
type 143 and has the following format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type=MTPORTCAP| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|R|R|R|R| Topology Identifier | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-TLVs (variable bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: TLV Type, set to MT-PORT-CAP TLV 143.
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field,
including the length of the sub-TLVs carried in this TLV.
o R: Reserved 4 bits, MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
o Topology Identifier: MT ID is a 12-bit field containing the MT ID
of the topology being announced. This field when set to zero
implies that it is being used to carry base topology information.
o Sub-TLVs: The MT-PORT-CAP TLV value contains sub-TLVs formatted as
described in [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]. They are defined in the technology-
specific documents.
<span class="grey">Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6165">RFC 6165</a> Layer-2-IS-IS April 2011</span>
The MT-PORT-CAP TLV may occur multiple times and is carried within an
IS-IS Hello (IIH) PDU.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. The MAC-Reachability TLV</span>
The MAC-Reachability (MAC-RI) TLV is IS-IS TLV type 147 and has the
following format:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type= MAC-RI | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Topology-id/Nickname | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Confidence | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESV | VLAN-ID | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (1) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ................. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (N) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: TLV Type, set to 147 (MAC-RI).
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field given
by 5 + 6*n bytes.
o Topology-id/Nickname : Depending on the technology in which it is
used, this carries the topology-id or nickname. When this field
is set to zero, this implies that the Media Access Control (MAC)
addresses are reachable across all topologies or across all
nicknames of the originating IS.
o Confidence: This carries an 8-bit quantity indicating the
confidence level in the MAC addresses being transported. Whether
this field is used, and its semantics if used, are further defined
by the specific protocol using Layer-2 IS-IS. If not used, it
MUST be set to zero on transmission and be ignored on receipt.
o RESV: (4 bits) MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
<span class="grey">Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6165">RFC 6165</a> Layer-2-IS-IS April 2011</span>
o VLAN-ID: This carries a 12-bit VLAN identifier that is valid for
all subsequent MAC addresses in this TLV, or the value zero if no
VLAN is specified.
o MAC(i): This is the 48-bit MAC address reachable from the IS that
is announcing this TLV.
The MAC-RI TLV is carried in a standard Link State PDU (LSP). This
TLV can be carried multiple times in an LSP and in multiple LSPs. It
MUST contain only unicast addresses. The manner in which these TLVs
are generated by the various Layer-2 routing technologies and the
manner in which they are consumed are detailed in the technology-
specific documents.
In most of the technologies, these MAC-RI TLVs will translate to
populating the hardware with these entries and with appropriate next-
hop information as derived from the advertising IS.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Acknowledgements</span>
The authors would like to thank Peter Ashwood-Smith, Donald E.
Eastlake 3rd, Dino Farinacci, Don Fedyk, Les Ginsberg, Radia Perlman,
Mike Shand, and Russ White for their useful comments.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document adds no additional security risks to IS-IS, nor does it
provide any additional security for IS-IS.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
This document specifies the definition of a set of new IS-IS TLVs --
the Port-Capability TLV (type 143) and the MAC-Reachability TLV
(type 147). They are listed in the IS-IS TLV codepoint registry.
IIH LSP SNP
MT-Port-Cap-TLV (143) X - -
MAC-RI TLV (147) - X -
<span class="grey">Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6165">RFC 6165</a> Layer-2-IS-IS April 2011</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-IS-IS">IS-IS</a>] ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Intermediate System
to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Information
Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol
for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
(ISO 8473)", 2002.
[<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>, December 1990.
[<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>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC5305">RFC5305</a>] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", <a href="./rfc5305">RFC 5305</a>, October 2008.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-802.1aq">802.1aq</a>] "Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks /
Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks / Amendment 8:
Shortest Path Bridging, Draft IEEE P802.1aq/D1.5", 2008.
[<a id="ref-OTV">OTV</a>] Grover, H., Rao, D., and D. Farinacci, "Overlay Transport
Virtualization", Work in Progress, October 2010.
[<a id="ref-RBRIDGES">RBRIDGES</a>]
Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification", Work
in Progress, March 2010.
<span class="grey">Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc6165">RFC 6165</a> Layer-2-IS-IS April 2011</span>
Authors' Addresses
Ayan Banerjee
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95138
USA
EMail: ayabaner@cisco.com
David Ward
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1206
USA
Phone: +1-408-745-2000
EMail: dward@juniper.net
Banerjee & Ward Standards Track [Page 7]
</pre>
|
