ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
RFC 5316
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2018-12-20 |
04 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document describes extensions to the ISIS (ISIS) protocol to support Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) for multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes). It defines ISIS-TE extensions for the flooding of TE information about inter-AS links, which can be used to perform inter- AS TE path computation. No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS is proposed or defined in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]') |
2017-05-16 |
04 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Renhai Zhang" to "Renhai Zhang, Mach Chen, Xiaodong Duan" |
2015-10-14 |
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
04 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2010-06-17 |
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD's Statement about IPR related to RFC 5316 | |
2008-12-11 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-11 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5316' added by Cindy Morgan |
2008-12-11 |
04 | (System) | RFC published |
2008-10-31 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2008-10-31 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2008-10-31 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2008-10-30 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-10-30 |
04 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2008-10-30 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This discuss has two parts: First, I am holding this discuss until resolution of the outstanding IANA issues. Second, this is a discuss … [Ballot discuss] This discuss has two parts: First, I am holding this discuss until resolution of the outstanding IANA issues. Second, this is a discuss discuss on an IANA-related issue: This document permits a subset of sub-TLVs from RFC 3784 and [ISSI-TE-V3] "and other documents" to appear in the new top-level TLV "Inter-AS Reachability TLV" (Type 141). The subset is specified implicitly ("sub-TLVs ... for describing the TE link"). The only explicit linkage will be that in the IANA registry, where the sub-TLV will be marked as "May be present on TLV 141". As a non-routing area reader, I think this is a bit confusing. We will have sub-TLVs that may appear in this new TLV, but no RFC anywhere will specify the linkage. I would feel more comfortable if we included the initial list of "May be present on TLV 141" in this document. |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss discuss. I am sending it to the IESG only, since I am not asking for any action, just discussion. … [Ballot discuss] This is a discuss discuss. I am sending it to the IESG only, since I am not asking for any action, just discussion. I will revise or clear on the call depending upon the discussion. This document permits a subset of sub-TLVs from RFC 3784 and [ISSI-TE-V3] "and other documents" to appear in the new top-level TLV "Inter-AS Reachability TLV" (Type 141). The subset is specified implicitly ("sub-TLVs ... for describing the TE link"). The only explicit linkage will be that in the IANA registry, where the sub-TLV will be marked as "May be present on TLV 141". As a non-routing area reader, I think this is a bit confusing. We will have sub-TLVs that may appear in this new TLV, but no RFC anywhere will specify the linkage. I would have felt more comfortable if we included the initial list of "May be present on TLV 141" in this document. Did this bother anyone else? |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-09-25 |
04 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot comment] It would be good to have the usual pointer in Security Considerations: "For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS see [RFC3567bis]" … [Ballot comment] It would be good to have the usual pointer in Security Considerations: "For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS see [RFC3567bis]" (or something like that) |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Ross Callon | The dangling reference (from my previous comment) has been fixed in the RFC editor's note. |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Evaluation question: The IANA Considerations section asks that we combine the new registries for TLV 141 and 222 with the existing registry for TLV … IANA Evaluation question: The IANA Considerations section asks that we combine the new registries for TLV 141 and 222 with the existing registry for TLV 22 and add three columns: "May be present on TLV 22","May be present on TLV 141" and "May be present on TLV 222." However, the IANA Considerations section does not appear to tell us which columns should be filled in for the existing TLV 22 registrations. |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Ross Callon | I added an RFC editor's note to handle the last couple of items from the Sec Dir review. This still has a dangling reference to … I added an RFC editor's note to handle the last couple of items from the Sec Dir review. This still has a dangling reference to [HMAC] that I need to clear up. |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-09-24 |
04 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-09-23 |
04 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward |
2008-09-23 |
04 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2008-09-21 |
04 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-09-18 |
04 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
2008-09-18 |
04 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
2008-09-18 |
04 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-09-18 |
04 | Ross Callon | Telechat date was changed to 2008-09-25 from by Ross Callon |
2008-09-18 |
04 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-09-25 by Ross Callon |
2008-09-05 |
04 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
2008-09-04 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-04.txt |
2008-08-24 |
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2008-08-24 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-03.txt |
2008-08-21 |
04 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
2008-07-18 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
2008-07-14 |
04 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-07-07 |
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: IANA has a question: - You don't ask IANA to create a registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 141. This is required … IANA Last Call comments: IANA has a question: - You don't ask IANA to create a registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 141. This is required by your requests in section 6.2. Action 1: IESG Note: Expert Review Required Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints sub-registry "TLV Codepoints Registry" Name Value IIH LSP SNP Status/Reference ------------------------------------ ----- ---- --- ---- ---------------- Inter-AS reachability information TBD(141) n y n [RFC-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02] Action 2: [[[ Create sub-TLVs for TLV 141 and insert values from 6.2 ]]] Action 3: IESG Note: Expert Review Required Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IS-IS TLVs" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV 242" Value Description Reference ----- ------------------------------ --------- TBD(11) IPv4 TE Router ID [RFC-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02] TBD(12) IPv6 TE Router ID [RFC-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
2008-07-01 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2008-07-01 |
04 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
2008-06-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-06-30 |
04 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-06-30 |
04 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
2008-06-30 |
04 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
2008-06-30 |
04 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-06-30 |
04 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-06-30 |
04 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-04-14 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt Intended status : Standards Track This draft may be considered in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- interas-te-extension-05.txt, but it is *not* required to process … Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt Intended status : Standards Track This draft may be considered in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf- interas-te-extension-05.txt, but it is *not* required to process the I-Ds in parallel. > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? I-D has had a good level of discussions and review in CCAMP and in the ISIS working group. In particular, it received considerable input from IS-IS experts in its early stages. Document Shepherd believes reviews to have been adequate. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? Consensus is good. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? IANA section checked. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such formal language is used. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. Traffic engineering extensions to IS-IS have been defined and are used in support of MPLS-TE and GMPLS. The extensions provide a way of encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network and flooding this information within an IS-IS area. When establishing inter-AS MPLS-TE or GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) a path is computed one AS at a time. This path may be computed using conventional techniques at the first ASBR of each AS, or by using Path Computation Elements (PCEs) as specified by the PCE working group. In either case, if two ASes are connected by more than one inter-AS TE link, it is helpful for the computation point to know the capabilities of the available TE links in order to select a suitable path. This document describes extensions to IS-IS to flood TE information about inter-AS links. A new IS-IS top-level TLV is defined for this purpose in order to support transparent backward compatibility and to support the potential use of separate IS-IS flooding instances. This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise any other extra-AS TE information. This means that there is no proposal to distribute TE information from one AS within another AS. Nor is there any mechanism proposed to define or distribute "TE reachability" information. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? WG has good consensus. Two points arose during working group discussions that are worth noting. Both points were resolved satisfactorily. 1. Separate IS-IS Instances The original proposal in this I-D used extensions to the existing IS-IS top-level TLV used for TE information distribution. This has been changed after requests from the ISIS working group to use a different top-level TLV enabling easier backward compatibility and more flexible transition to multi-instance IS-IS in the future. 2. No Change to Scaling/Flooding Paradigm Many people within CCAMP expressed a concern that the I-D might indicate the intention to distribute TE information from one AS into another AS. This would obviously break the as-based scaling and confidentiality paradigms of IGP routing. The authors were very clear that this was not the intention and have added a specific section to cover non-objectives. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? There is a known implementation of the extensions. There was also good support for the work from other vendors with the same objectives. Document review by the IS-IS working group deserves special mention for its care and thoroughness. |
2008-04-14 |
04 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2008-04-14 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-02.txt |
2008-04-10 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-01.txt |
2008-02-03 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-00.txt |