IS-IS for IP Internets P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft H. Gredler
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde
Expires: June 3, 2016 Juniper Networks, Inc.
S. Litkowski
B. Decraene
Orange
Z. Li
Huawei Technologies
E. Aries
R. Rodriguez
Facebook
H. Raghuveer
December 1, 2015
Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS
draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-07
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the IS-IS routing protocol to
add an optional operational capability, that allows tagging and
grouping of the nodes in an IS-IS domain. This allows simple
management and easy control over route and path selection, based on
local configured policies.
This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate per-
node administrative tags in IS-IS protocols.
Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 3, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) 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
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Per-Node Administrative Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Per-Node Administrative Tag Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. TLV format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Elements of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Interpretation of Per-Node Administrative Tags . . . . . 5
4.2. Use of Per-Node Administrative Tags . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Processing Per-Node Administrative Tag changes . . . . . 6
5. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
It is useful to assign a per-node administrative tag to a router in
the IS-IS domain and use it as an attribute associated with the node.
The per-node administrative tag can be used in variety of
applications, for example:
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
(a) Traffic-engineering applications to provide different path-
selection criteria.
(b) Prefer or prune certain paths in Loop Free Alternate (LFA)
backup selection via local policies as defined in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability].
This document provides mechanisms to advertise per-node
administrative tags in IS-IS for route and path selection. Route and
path selection functionality applies to both to Traffic
Engineering(TE) and non-TE applications. Hence the new TLV for
carrying per-node administrative tags is included in Router
Capability TLV [RFC4971].
2. Per-Node Administrative Tags
An administrative Tag is a 32-bit integer value that can be used to
identify a group of nodes in the IS-IS domain. An IS-IS router
SHOULD advertise the set of groups it is part of in the specific IS-
IS level. As an example, all PE-nodes may be configured with certain
tag value, whereas all P-nodes are configured with a different tag
value.
3. Per-Node Administrative Tag Sub-TLV
The new sub-TLV defined will be carried inside the IS-IS Router
Capability TLV-242 [RFC4971]) in the Link State PDUs originated by
the router. The new sub-TLV specifies one or more administrative tag
values. TLV 242 can be either specified to be flooded within the
specific level in which the same has been originated, or they can be
specfied to be relayed from originating level to the other levels as
well. Per-node administrative tags that are included in a 'level-
specific' TLV 242 have a 'level-wide' flooding scope associated. On
the other hand, per-node administrative tags included in a 'domain-
wide' TLV 242 have 'domain-wide' flooding scope associated. For
details on how TLV 242 are flooded and relayed in the entire network
please, refer to [RFC4971]. Choosing the flooding scope to be
associated with group tags, is defined by the needs of the operator's
usage and is a matter of local policy or configuration. Operator MAY
choose to advertise a different set of per-node administrative tags
across levels and another set of per-node administrative tags within
the specific level. Alternatively, the operator may use the same
per-node administrative tags both within the 'domain-wide' flooding
scope as well as within one or more 'level-wide' flooding scope.
Implementations SHOULD allow configuring one or more per-node
administrative tags to be advertised from a given device along with
the flooding scope associated with the same. It SHOULD allow
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
provisioning a set of per-node administrative tags having a 'domain-
wide' flooding scope, as well as, a set of per-node administrative
tags with 'level-wide' flooding scope only. A given per-node
administrative tag MAY be advertised within one or more 'level-wide'
flooding scopes and/or within the 'domain-wide' scope.
The format of per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV (see Section 3.1)
does not include a topology identifier. Therefore it is not possible
to indicate a topology specific context when advertising per-node
admin tags. Hence, in deployments using multi-topology routing
[RFC5120], advertising a separate set of per-node administrative tags
for each topology SHOULD NOT be supported.
3.1. TLV format
The new Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV, like other ISIS
Capability sub-TLVs, is formatted as Type/Length/Value (TLV)triplets.
Figure 1 below shows the format of the new sub-TLV.
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 |
+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Tag #1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Tag #2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
// //
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Administrative Tag #N |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type : TBA
Length: A 8-bit field that indicates the length of the value
portion in octets and will be a multiple of 4 octets
dependent on the number of tags advertised.
Value: A sequence of multiple 4 octets defining the
administrative tags.
Figure 1: IS-IS Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV
The 'Per-node Admin Tag' sub-TLV may be generated more than once by
an originating router. This MAY happen if a node carries more than
63 per-node administrative groups and a single sub-TLV does not
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
provide sufficient space. As such occurrence of the 'Per-node Admin
Tag' sub-TLV does not cancel previous announcements, but rather is
cumulative.
4. Elements of Procedure
4.1. Interpretation of Per-Node Administrative Tags
Meaning of the Per-node administrative tags is generally opaque to
IS-IS. Router advertising the per-node administrative tag (or tags)
may be configured to do so without knowing (or even explicitly
supporting) functionality implied by the tag.
Interpretation of tag values is specific to the administrative domain
of a particular network operator. The meaning of a per-node
administrative tag is defined by the network local policy and is
controlled via the configuration. If a receiving node does not
understand the tag value, it ignores the specific tag and floods the
Router Capability TLV without any change as defined in [RFC4971].
The semantics of the tag order has no meaning. There is no implied
meaning to the ordering of the tags that indicates a certain
operation or set of operations that need to be performed based on the
ordering.
Each tag SHOULD be treated as an independent identifier that MAY be
used in policy to perform a policy action. Each tag carried by the
The Per-Node Administrative Tag TLVs should be used to indicate a
characteristic of a node that is independent of the characteristics
indicated by other adminsitrative tags within the same or another
instance of a Per-node Administrative Tag sub-TLV. The list of Per-
node administrative tags carried in a Per-Node Administrative Tag
sub-TLV MUST be considered as an unordered list. Whilst policies may
be implemented based on the presence of multiple tags (e.g., if tag A
AND tag B are present), they MUST NOT be reliant upon the order of
the tags (i.e., all policies should be considered commutative
operations, such that tag A preceding or following tag B does not
change their outcome).
4.2. Use of Per-Node Administrative Tags
The per-node administrative tags are not meant to be extended by
future IS-IS standards. New IS-IS extensions are not expected to
require use of per-node administrative tags or define well-known tag
values. Per-node administrative tags are for generic use and do not
require IANA registry. Future IS-IS extensions requiring well known
values MAY define their own data signalling tailored to the needs of
the feature or MAY use the capability TLV as defined in [RFC4971].
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
Being part of the Router Capability TLV, the per-node administrative
tag sub-TLV MUST be reasonably small and stable. In particular, but
not limited to, implementations supporting the per-node
administrative tags MUST NOT associate advertised tags to changes in
the network topology (both within and outside the IS-IS domain) or
reachability of routes.
4.3. Processing Per-Node Administrative Tag changes
Multiple Per-Node Administrative Tag sub-TLVs MAY appear in a Router
Capability TLV(TLV-242) or Per-Node Administrative Tag sub-TLVs MAY
be contained in different instances of Router Capability TLVs. The
Per-node administrative tags associated with a node that originates
tags for the purpose of any computation or processing at a receiving
node SHOULD be a superset of node administrative tags from all the
TLVs in all the instances of Router Capability TLVs received in the
Link-State PDU(s) advertised by the corresponding IS-IS router. When
an Router Capability TLV is received that changes the set of per-node
administrative tags applicable to any originating node, a receiving
node MUST repeat any computation or processing that makes use of per-
node administrative tags.
When there is a change or removal of an administrative affiliation of
a node, the node MUST re-originate the Router Capability TLV(s) with
the latest set of per-node administrative tags. On a receiving
router, on detecting a change in contents (or removal) of existing
Per-Node Administrative Tag sub-TLV(s) or addition of new Per-Node
Administrative Tag sub-TLV(s) in any instance of Router Capability
TLV(s), implementations MUST take appropriate measures to update
their state according to the changed set of per-node administrative
tags. The exact actions needed depend on features working with per-
node administrative tags and is outside of scope of this
specification.
5. Applications
This section lists several examples of how implementations might use
the Per-node administrative tags. These examples are given only to
demonstrate generic usefulness of the router tagging mechanism. An
implementation supporting this specification is not required to
implement any of the use cases. It is also worth noting that in some
described use cases routers configured to advertise tags help other
routers in their calculations but do not themselves implement the
same functionality.
1. Auto-discovery of Services
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
Router tagging may be used to automatically discover group of
routers sharing a particular service.
For example, service provider might desire to establish full mesh
of MPLS TE tunnels between all PE routers in the area of MPLS VPN
network. Marking all PE routers with a tag and configuring
devices with a policy to create MPLS TE tunnels to all other
devices advertising this tag will automate maintenance of the
full mesh. When new PE router is added to the area, all other PE
devices will open TE tunnels to it without the need of
reconfiguring them.
2. Policy-based Fast-Re-Route(FRR)
Increased deployment of Loop Free Alternates (LFA) as defined in
[RFC5286] poses operation and management challenges.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] proposes policies which, when
implemented, will ease LFA operation concerns.
One of the proposed refinements is to be able to group the nodes
in an IGP domain with administrative tags and engineer the LFA
based on configured policies.
(a) Administrative limitation of LFA scope
Service provider access infrastructure is frequently designed
in a layered approach with each layer of devices serving
different purposes and thus having different hardware
capabilities and configured software features. When LFA
repair paths are being computed, it may be desirable to
exclude devices from being considered as LFA candidates based
on their layer.
For example, if the access infrastructure is divided into the
Access, Distribution and Core layers it may be desirable for
a Distribution device to compute LFA only via Distribution or
Core devices but not via Access devices. This may be due to
features enabled on Access routers, due to capacity
limitations or due to the security requirements. Managing
such a policy via configuration of the router computing LFA
is cumbersome and error prone.
With the Per-node administrative tags it is possible to
assign a tag to each layer and implement LFA policy of
computing LFA repair paths only via neighbors which advertise
the Core or Distribution tag. This requires minimal per-node
configuration and network automatically adapts when new links
or routers are added.
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
(b) Optimizing LFA calculations
Calculation of LFA paths may require significant resources of
the router. One execution of Dijkstra algorithm is required
for each neighbor eligible to become next hop of repair
paths. Thus a router with a few hundreds of neighbors may
need to execute the algorithm hundreds of times before the
best (or even valid) repair path is found. Manually
excluding from the calculation neighbors which are known to
provide no valid LFA (such as single-connected routers) may
significantly reduce number of Dijkstra algorithm runs.
LFA calculation policy may be configured so that routers
advertising certain tag value are excluded from LFA
calculation even if they are otherwise suitable.
3. Controlling Remote LFA tunnel termination
[RFC7490] defined method of tunneling traffic after connected
link failure to extend the basic LFA coverage and algorithm to
find tunnel tail-end routers fitting LFA requirement. In most
cases proposed algorithm finds more than one candidate tail-end
router. In real life network it may be desirable to exclude some
nodes from the list of candidates based on the local policy.
This may be either due to known limitations of the per-node (the
router does accept targeted LDP sessions required to implement
Remote LFA tunneling) or due to administrative requirements (for
example, it may be desirable to choose tail-end router among co-
located devices).
The Per-node administrative tag delivers simple and scalable
solution. Remote LFA can be configured with a policy to accept
during the tail-end router calculation as candidates only routers
advertising certain tag. Tagging routers allows to both exclude
nodes not capable of serving as Remote LFA tunnel tail-ends and
to define a region from which tail-end router must be selected.
4. Mobile back-haul network service deployment
The topology of mobile back-haul networks usually adopts ring
topology to save fiber resource and it is divided into the
aggregate network and the access network. Cell Site
Gateways(CSGs) connects the eNodeBs and RNC(Radio Network
Controller) Site Gateways(RSGs)connects the RNCs. The mobile
traffic is transported from CSGs to RSGs. The network takes a
typical aggregate traffic model that more than one access rings
will attach to one pair of aggregate site gateways(ASGs) and more
than one aggregate rings will attach to one pair of RSGs.
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
----------------
/ \
/ \
/ \
+------+ +----+ Access +----+
|eNodeB|---|CSG1| Ring 1 |ASG1|-------------
+------+ +----+ +----+ \
\ / \
\ / +----+ +---+
\ +----+ |RSG1|----|RNC|
-------------| | Aggregate +----+ +---+
|ASG2| Ring |
-------------| | +----+ +---+
/ +----+ |RSG2|----|RNC|
/ \ +----+ +---+
/ \ /
+------+ +----+ Access +----+ /
|eNodeB|---|CSG2| Ring 2 |ASG3|------------
+------+ +----+ +----+
\ /
\ /
\ /
-----------------
Figure 2: Mobile Backhaul Network
A typical mobile back-haul network with access rings and
aggregate links is shown in figure above. The mobile back-haul
networks deploy traffic engineering due to the strict Service
Level Agreements(SLA). The TE paths may have additional
constraints to avoid passing via different access rings or to get
completely disjoint backup TE paths. The mobile back-haul
networks towards the access side change frequently due to the
growing mobile traffic and addition of new LTE Evolved NodeBs
(eNodeB). It's complex to satisfy the requirements using cost,
link color or explicit path configurations. The per-node
administrative tag defined in this document can be effectively
used to solve the problem for mobile back-haul networks. The
nodes in different rings can be assigned with specific tags. TE
path computation can be enhanced to consider additional
constraints based on per-node administrative tags.
5. Policy-based Explicit Routing
A partially meshed network provides multiple paths between any
two nodes in the network. In a data centre environment, the
topology is usually highly symmetric with many/all paths having
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
equal cost. In a long distance network, this is usually less the
case, for a variety of reasons (e.g. historic, fibre availability
constraints, different distances between transit nodes, different
roles ...). Hence between a given source and destination, a path
is typically preferred over the others, while between the same
source and another destination, a different path may be
preferred.
+----------------------+ +----------------+
| \ / |
| +-----------------+ x +---------+ |
| | \/ \/ | |
| | +-T-10-T | |
| | / | /| | |
| | / 100 / | | |
| | / | | 100 | |
| | / +-+-+ | | |
| | / / | | | |
| | / / R-18-R | |
| | 10 10 /\ /\ | |
| | / / / \ / \ | |
| | / / / x \ | |
| | / / 10 10 \ \ | |
| | / / / / 10 10 | |
| | / / / / \ \ | |
| | A-25-A A-25-A A-25-A | |
| | | | \ \ / / | |
| | | | 201 201 201 201 | |
| | | | \ \ / / | |
| | 201 201 \ x / | |
| | | | \ / \ / | |
| | | | \/ \/ | |
| | I-24-I I-24-I 100 100
| | / / | | | |
| +-+ / | +-----------+ |
+---------+ +---------------------+
Figure 3: Explicit Routing topology
In the above topology, operator may want to enforce the following
high level explicit routing policies:
1. - Traffic from A nodes to A nodes should preferably go
through R or T nodes (rather than through I nodes).
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
2. - Traffic from A nodes to I nodes must not go through R and T
nodes.
With node admin tags, tag A (resp. I, R, T) can be configured on
all A (resp. I, R, T) nodes to advertise their role. The first
policy is about preferring one path over another. Given the
chosen metrics, it is achieved with regular SPF routing. The
second policy is about prohibiting (pruning) some paths. It
requires an explicit routing policy. With the use of node tags,
this may be achieved with a generic CSPF policy configured on A
nodes: for destination nodes having the tag "A" runs a CSPF with
the exclusion of nodes having the tag "I".
6. Security Considerations
Node administrative tags may be used by operators to indicate
geographical location or other sensitive information. The
information carried in node administrative tags could be leaked to an
IGP snooper. This document does not introduce any new security
issues. Security concerns for IS-IS are already addressed in
[ISO10589], [RFC5304], and [RFC5310] and are applicable to the
mechanisms described in this document. Extended authentication
mechanisms described in [RFC5304] or [RFC5310] SHOULD be used in
deployments where attackers have access to the physical networks and
nodes included in the IS-IS domain are vulnerable.
Advertisement of tag values for one administrative domain into
another invloves the risk mis-interpretation of the tag values (if
the two domains have assigned different meanings to the same values),
which may have undesirable and unanticipated side effects.
7. Operational Considerations
Operators can assign meaning to the per-node administrative tags
which is local to the operator's administrative domain. The
operational use of per-node administrative tags is analogical to the
IS-IS prefix tags [RFC5130] and BGP communities [RFC1997].
Operational discipline and procedures followed in configuring and
using BGP communities and ISIS Prefix tags is also applicable to the
usage of per-node administrative tags.
Defining language for local policies is outside the scope of this
document. As in case of other policy applications, the pruning
policies can cause the path to be completely removed from forwarding
plane,and hence have the potential for more severe operational impact
(e.g., node unreachability due to path removal) by comparison to
preference policies that only affect path selection.
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
8. Manageability Considerations
Per-node administrative tags are configured and managed using routing
policy enhancements. YANG data definition language is the latest
model to describe and define configuration for network devices. IS-
IS YANG data model is described in [I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg] and
routing policy configuration model is described in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model]. These two documents will be enhanced
to include the node administrative tag related configurations.
9. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the registry for the Router Capability sub-TLVs. IS-
IS Administrative Tags will require new type code for the following
new sub-TLV defined in this document.
i) Per-Node-Admin-Tag Sub-TLV, Type: TBD
10. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Les Ginsberg, Dhruv Dhody, Uma Chunduri and Chris
Bowers for providing useful inputs.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[ISO10589]
"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/IEC
10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4971] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed.,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)
Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4971, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4971>.
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg]
Litkowski, S., Yeung, D., Lindem, A., Zhang, J., and L.
Lhotka, "YANG Data Model for IS-IS protocol", draft-ietf-
isis-yang-isis-cfg-07 (work in progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational management of
Loop Free Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-
manageability-11 (work in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-policy-model]
Shaikh, A., rjs@rob.sh, r., D'Souza, K., and C. Chase,
"Routing Policy Configuration Model for Service Provider
Networks", draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-00 (work in
progress), September 2015.
[RFC1997] Chandra, R., Traina, P., and T. Li, "BGP Communities
Attribute", RFC 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC1997, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1997>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5130] Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy
Control Mechanism in IS-IS Using Administrative Tags",
RFC 5130, DOI 10.17487/RFC5130, February 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5130>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
Authors' Addresses
Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra, Exora Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560103
India
Email: psarkar@juniper.net; pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@gredler.at
Shraddha Hegde
Juniper Networks, Inc.
Electra, Exora Business Park
Bangalore, KA 560103
India
Email: shraddha@juniper.net
Stephane Litkowski
Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS December 2015
Li Zhenbin
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld. No.156 Beiqing Rd
Beijing, KA 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Ebben Aries
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
Email: exa@dscp.org
Rafael Rodriguez
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
Email: rafael@fb.com
Harish Raghuveer
Email: harish.r.prabhu@gmail.com
Sarkar, et al. Expires June 3, 2016 [Page 15]