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
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Request for Comments: 7775 Cisco Systems
Updates: <a href="./rfc5308">5308</a> S. Litkowski
Category: Standards Track Orange Business Service
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Previdi
Cisco Systems
February 2016
<span class="h1">IS-IS Route Preference for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability</span>
Abstract
In existing specifications, the route preferences for IPv4/IPv6
Extended Reachability TLVs are not explicitly stated. There are also
inconsistencies in the definition of how the up/down bit applies to
route preference when the prefix advertisement appears in Level 2
Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs). This document addresses these
issues.
This document updates <a href="./rfc5308">RFC 5308</a>.
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/rfc7775">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7775</a>.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Use of the Up/Down Bit in Level 2 LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
3. Types of Routes in IS-IS Supported by Extended Reachability
TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Types of Routes Supported by TLVs 135 and 235 . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Types of Routes Supported by TLVs 236 and 237 . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
3.3. Order of Preference for All Types of Routes Supported by
TLVs 135 and 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
3.4. Order of Preference for All Types of Routes Supported by
TLVs 236 and 237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Example Interoperability Issue . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-10">10</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-11">11</a>
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5302">RFC5302</a>] defines the route preference rules as they apply to TLVs
128 and 130. [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] introduced the IP Extended Reachability TLV
135 but did not explicitly adapt the route preference rules defined
in [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>] for the new TLV. [<a href="./rfc5308" title=""Routing IPv6 with IS-IS"">RFC5308</a>] defines the IPv6
Reachability TLV 236 and does include an explicit statement regarding
route preference -- but the statement introduces use of the up/down
bit in advertisements that appear in Level 2 LSPs, which is
inconsistent with statements made in [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>] and [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]. This
document defines explicit route preference rules for TLV 135, revises
the route preference rules for TLV 236, and clarifies the usage of
the up/down bit when it appears in TLVs in Level 2 LSPs. This
document is a clarification (NOT a correction) of [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>] and
[<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]; it is a correction of the route preference rules defined
in [<a href="./rfc5308" title=""Routing IPv6 with IS-IS"">RFC5308</a>] to be consistent with the rules for IPv4. It also makes
explicit that the same rules apply to the Multi-Topology (MT)
equivalent TLVs 235 and 237.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Requirements Language</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>. Use of the Up/Down Bit in Level 2 LSPs</span>
The up/down bit was introduced in support of leaking prefixes
downwards in the IS-IS level hierarchy. Routes that are leaked
downwards have the bit set to 1. Such prefixes MUST NOT be leaked
upwards in the hierarchy. So long as we confine ourselves to a
single IS-IS instance and the current number of supported levels
(two), it is impossible to have a prefix advertised in a Level 2 LSP
and have the up/down bit set to 1. However, because [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>]
anticipated a future extension to IS-IS that might support additional
levels, it allowed for the possibility that the up/down bit might be
set in a Level 2 LSP and supported easy migration in the event such
an extension was introduced. <a href="./rfc5302#section-3.3">Section 3.3 of [RFC5302]</a> states:
...it is RECOMMENDED that implementations ignore the up/down bit
in L2 LSPs, and accept the prefixes in L2 LSPs regardless of
whether the up/down bit is set.
[<a id="ref-RFC5305">RFC5305</a>] addressed an additional case wherein an implementation
included support for multiple virtual routers running IS-IS in
different areas. In such a case, it is possible to redistribute
prefixes between two IS-IS instances in the same manner that prefixes
are redistributed from other protocols into IS-IS. This introduced
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
the possibility that a prefix could be redistributed from Level 1 to
Level 1 (as well as between Level 2 and Level 2), and in the event
the redistributed route was leaked from Level 1 to Level 2, two
different routers in different areas would be advertising the same
prefix into the Level 2 sub-domain. To prevent this, <a href="./rfc5305#section-4.1">Section 4.1 of
[RFC5305]</a> specifies:
If a prefix is advertised from one area to another at the same
level, then the up/down bit SHALL be set to 1.
However, the statement in [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>] that the up/down bit is ignored
in Level 2 LSPs is not altered by [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>].
The conclusion then is that there is no "L2 inter-area route";
indeed, no such route type is defined by [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>]. However,
[<a href="./rfc5308" title=""Routing IPv6 with IS-IS"">RFC5308</a>] ignored this fact and introduced such a route type in
<a href="#section-5">Section 5</a> when it specified a preference for "Level 2 down prefix".
This is an error that this document corrects. As changing the use of
the up/down bit in TLVs 236 and 237 may introduce interoperability
issues, implementors may wish to support transition mechanisms from
the behavior described in [<a href="./rfc5308" title=""Routing IPv6 with IS-IS"">RFC5308</a>] to the behavior described in this
document.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Types of Routes in IS-IS Supported by Extended Reachability TLVs</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5302">RFC5302</a>] is the authoritative reference for the types of routes
supported by TLVs 128 and 130. However, a number of attributes
supported by those TLVs are NOT supported by TLVs 135, 235, 236, and
237. Distinction between internal/external metrics is not supported.
In the case of IPv4 TLVs (135 and 235), the distinction between
internal and external route types is not supported. However, the
Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV defined in [<a href="#ref-PFXATTR" title=""IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability"">PFXATTR</a>] reintroduces the
distinction between internal and external route types. The
definitions below include references to the relevant attribute bits
from [<a href="#ref-PFXATTR" title=""IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IP and IPv6 Reachability"">PFXATTR</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. Types of Routes Supported by TLVs 135 and 235</span>
This section defines the types of route supported for IPv4 when using
TLV 135 [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>] and/or TLV 235 [<a href="./rfc5120" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)"">RFC5120</a>]. The text follows as
closely as possible the original text from [<a href="./rfc5302" title=""Domain-Wide Prefix Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS"">RFC5302</a>].
L1 intra-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 135 or
TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 0. These IP prefixes are
directly connected to the advertising router. If the Prefix
Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, both the X-Flag and the
R-Flag are set to 0.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
L1 external routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 135 or
TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 0. These IP prefixes are
learned from other protocols and are usually not directly
connected to the advertising router. If the Prefix Attribute
Flags sub-TLV is included, the X-Flag is set to 1, and the R-Flag
is set to 0.
L2 intra-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 135 or
TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 0. These IP prefixes are
directly connected to the advertising router. If the Prefix
Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, both the X-Flag and the
R-Flag are set to 0.
L1->L2 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV
135 or TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 0. These IP prefixes
are learned via L1 routing and were derived during the L1 Shortest
Path First (SPF) computation from prefixes advertised in L1 LSPs
in TLV 135 or TLV 235. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is
included, the R-Flag is set to 1.
L2->L2 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV
135 or TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 1 but is ignored and
treated as if it were set to 0. These IP prefixes are learned
from another IS-IS instance usually operating in another area. If
the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the X-Flag is set
to 1, and the R-Flag is set to 0.
L2 external routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 135 or
TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 0. These IP prefixes are
learned from other protocols and are usually not directly
connected to the advertising router. If the Prefix Attribute
Flags sub-TLV is included, the X-Flag is set to 1, and the R-Flag
is set to 0.
L2->L1 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV
135 or TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 1. These IP prefixes
are learned via L2 routing and were derived during the L2 SPF
computation from prefixes advertised in TLV 135 or TLV 235. If
the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the R-Flag is set
to 1.
L1->L1 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV
135 or TLV 235. The up/down bit is set to 1. These IP prefixes
are learned from another IS-IS instance usually operating in
another area. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included,
the X-Flag is set to 1, and the R-Flag is set to 0.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. Types of Routes Supported by TLVs 236 and 237</span>
This section defines the types of route supported for IPv6 when using
TLV 236 [<a href="./rfc5308" title=""Routing IPv6 with IS-IS"">RFC5308</a>] and/or TLV 237 [<a href="./rfc5120" title=""M-ISIS: Multi Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)"">RFC5120</a>].
L1 intra-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 236 or
TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 0. The external bit is set to
0. These IPv6 prefixes are directly connected to the advertising
router. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the
R-Flag is set to 0.
L1 external routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 236 or
TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 0. The external bit is set to
1. These IPv6 prefixes are learned from other protocols and are
usually not directly connected to the advertising router. If the
Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the R-Flag is set to
0.
L2 intra-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 236 or
TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 0. The external bit is set to
0. These IPv6 prefixes are directly connected to the advertising
router. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the
R-Flag is set to 0.
L1->L2 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV
236 or TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 0. The external bit is
set to 0. These IPv6 prefixes are learned via L1 routing and were
derived during the L1 Shortest Path First (SPF) computation from
prefixes advertised in L1 LSPs in TLV 236 or TLV 237. If the
Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the R-Flag is set to
1.
L2 external routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 236 or
TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 0. The external bit is set to
1. These IPv6 prefixes are learned from other protocols and are
usually not directly connected to the advertising router. If the
Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the R-Flag is set to
0.
L1->L2 external routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV 236
or TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 0. The external bit is set
to 1. These IPv6 prefixes are learned via L1 routing and were
derived during the L1 Shortest Path First (SPF) computation from
L1 external routes advertised in L1 LSPs in TLV 236 or TLV 237.
If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the R-Flag is
set to 1.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
L2->L2 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L2 LSPs, in TLV
236 or TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 1 but is ignored and
treated as if it were set to 0. The external bit is set to 1.
These IP prefixes are learned from another IS-IS instance usually
operating in another area. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV
is included, the R-Flag is set to 0.
L2->L1 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV
236 or TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 1. The external bit is
set to 0. These IPv6 prefixes are learned via L2 routing and were
derived during the L2 SPF computation from prefixes advertised in
TLV 236 or TLV 237. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is
included, the R-Flag is set to 1.
L2->L1 external routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV 236
or TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 1. The external bit is set
to 1. These IPv6 prefixes are learned via L2 routing and were
derived during the L2 SPF computation from prefixes advertised in
TLV 236 or TLV 237. If the Prefix Attribute Flags sub-TLV is
included, the R-Flag is set to 1.
L1->L1 inter-area routes: These are advertised in L1 LSPs, in TLV
236 or TLV 237. The up/down bit is set to 1. The external bit is
set to 1. These IP prefixes are learned from another IS-IS
instance usually operating in another area. If the Prefix
Attribute Flags sub-TLV is included, the R-Flag is set to 0.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Order of Preference for All Types of Routes Supported by TLVs 135</span>
<span class="h3"> and 235</span>
This document defines the following route preferences for IPv4 routes
advertised in TLVs 135 or 235. Note that all types of routes listed
for a given preference are treated equally.
1. L1 intra-area routes; L1 external routes
2. L2 intra-area routes; L2 external routes; L1->L2 inter-area
routes; L2-L2 inter-area routes
3. L2->L1 inter-area routes; L1->L1 inter-area routes
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Order of Preference for All Types of Routes Supported by TLVs 236</span>
<span class="h3"> and 237</span>
This document defines the following route preferences for IPv6 routes
advertised in TLVs 236 or 237. Note that all types of routes listed
for a given preference are treated equally.
1. L1 intra-area routes; L1 external routes
2. L2 intra-area routes; L2 external routes; L1->L2 inter-area
routes; L1-L2 external routes; L2-L2 inter-area routes
3. L2->L1 inter-area routes; L2->L1 external routes; L1->L1 inter-
area routes
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document raises no new security considerations. Security
considerations for the IS-IS protocol are covered in [<a href="#ref-ISO10589" title=""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)"">ISO10589</a>],
[<a href="./rfc5304" title=""IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC5304</a>], and [<a href="./rfc5310" title=""IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication"">RFC5310</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-ISO10589">ISO10589</a>] International Organization for Standardization,
"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)",
ISO Standard 10589, 2002.
[<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="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</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="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC5302">RFC5302</a>] Li, T., Smit, H., and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix
Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", <a href="./rfc5302">RFC 5302</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5302, October 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5302">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5302</a>>.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
[<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="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304">http://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="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305">http://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="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308">http://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="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-PFXATTR">PFXATTR</a>] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and
U. Chunduri, "IS-IS Prefix Attributes for Extended IP and
IPv6 Reachability", Work in Progress, <a href="./draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-04">draft-ietf-isis-</a>
<a href="./draft-ietf-isis-prefix-attributes-04">prefix-attributes-04</a>, January 2016.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Example Interoperability Issue</span>
This example documents a real-world interoperability issue that
occurs because implementations from different vendors have
interpreted the use of the up/down bit in Level 2 LSPs
inconsistently.
L2 L2 L2 L2|L2 L2
10/8 - R0 ----- R1 ----- R2 ----- R3 ----- R4 ---- 10/8
|
Figure 1
In Figure 1, both R0 and R4 are advertising the prefix 10/8. Two IS-
IS Level 2 instances are running on R3 to separate the network into
two areas. R3 is performing route leaking and advertises prefixes
from R4 to the other Level 2 process. The network is using extended
metrics (TLV 135 defined in [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>]). R0 advertises 10/8 with
metric 2000, and R3 advertises 10/8 with metric 100. All links have
a metric of 1. When advertising 10/8 in its Level 2 LSP, R3 sets the
down bit as specified in [<a href="./rfc5305" title=""IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering"">RFC5305</a>].
R1, R2, and R3 are from three different vendors (R1->Vendor1,
R2->Vendor2, R3->Vendor3). During interoperability testing, routing
loops are observed in this scenario.
o R2 has two possible paths to reach 10/8: Level 2 route with metric
2002 and up/down bit set to 0 (from R0) and Level 2 route with
metric 101 and up/down bit set to 1 (from R3). R2 selects R1 as
the next hop to 10/8 because it prefers the route that does NOT
have the up/down bit set.
o R3 has two possible paths to reach 10/8: Level 2 route with metric
2003 and up/down bit set to 0 (from R0) and Level 2 route with
metric 101 and up/down bit set to 0 (from R4). R3 selects R4 as
the next hop due to lowest metric.
o R1 has two possible paths to reach 10/8: Level 2 route with metric
2001 and up/down bit set to 0 (from R0) and Level 2 route with
metric 102 and up/down bit set to 1 (from R3). R1 selects R2 as
the next hop due to lowest metric.
When R1 or R2 try to send traffic to 10/8, packets loop due to
inconsistent routing decisions between R1 and R2.
<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="./rfc7775">RFC 7775</a> IS-IS Route Preference February 2016</span>
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Ahmed Bashandy for his insightful review.
Authors' Addresses
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
United States
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Stephane Litkowski
Orange Business Service
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Via Del Serafico 200
Rome 0144
Italy
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Ginsberg, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
</pre>
|
