RFC5316 日本語訳
5316 ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLSand GMPLS Traffic Engineering. M. Chen, R. Zhang, X. Duan. December 2008. (Format: TXT=45408 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
RFC一覧
英語原文
Network Working Group M. Chen
Request for Comments: 5316 R. Zhang
Category: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
X. Duan
China Mobile
December 2008
コメントを求めるワーキンググループM.チェン要求をネットワークでつないでください: 5316年のR.チャンカテゴリ: 標準化過程Huawei技術社、2008年12月のモバイルのLtd X.Duan中国
ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS)
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
相互自律システム(AS) MPLSとGMPLS交通工学を支持したイシスExtensions
Status of This Memo
このメモの状態
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
このドキュメントは、インターネットコミュニティにインターネット標準化過程プロトコルを指定して、改良のために議論と提案を要求します。 このプロトコルの標準化状態と状態への「インターネット公式プロトコル標準」(STD1)の現行版を参照してください。 このメモの分配は無制限です。
Copyright Notice
版権情報
Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
Copyright(c)2008IETF Trustと人々はドキュメントとして作者を特定しました。 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.
事実上、このドキュメントはこのドキュメントの公表の日付にIETF Documents( http://trustee.ietf.org/ ライセンスインフォメーション)へのBCP78とIETF TrustのLegal Provisions Relatingを受けることがあります。 このドキュメントに関して権利と制限について説明するとき、慎重にこれらのドキュメントを再検討してください。
Abstract
要約
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.
このドキュメントは、複数のAutonomous Systems(ASes)のために、Multiprotocol Label Switching(MPLS)とGeneralized MPLS(GMPLS)交通Engineering(TE)を支持するためにイシス(イシス)プロトコルに拡大について説明します。 それは相互ASリンクのTE情報の氾濫のためのイシス-TE拡張子を定義します。相互AS TE経路計算を実行するのにリンクを使用できます。
No support for flooding information from within one AS to another AS is proposed or defined in this document.
1ASから別のASまでの氾濫情報のサポートは、全く本書では提案もされませんし、定義もされません。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[1ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
Table of Contents
目次
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. Problem Statement ...............................................3
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives ...................................4
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination ..............................4
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation ........................6
3. Extensions to ISIS-TE ...........................................7
3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV ..................................7
3.2. TE Router ID ...............................................9
3.3. Sub-TLV Detail .............................................9
3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV ............................9
3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV ........................10
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV ........................11
3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV ..........................11
3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV ..........................12
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links ................................12
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information ..........................14
5. Security Considerations ........................................14
6. IANA Considerations ............................................15
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV .................................15
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV ................15
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV ..............17
7. Acknowledgments ................................................17
8. References .....................................................17
8.1. Normative References ......................................17
8.2. Informative References ....................................17
1. 序論…2 1.1. このドキュメントで中古のコンベンション…3 2. 問題声明…3 2.1. 非目的に関する注…4 2.2. 1ドメインあたりの経路決断…4 2.3. 後方の再帰的な経路計算…6 3. イシス-Teへの拡大…7 3.1. 相互、可到達性TLV…7 3.2. TeルータID…9 3.3. サブTLVの詳細…9 3.3.1. 数のサブTLVとしてリモート…9 3.3.2. IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLV…10 3.3.3. IPv6のリモートASBR IDサブTLV…11 3.3.4. IPv4TeルータIDサブTLV…11 3.3.5. IPv6TeルータIDサブTLV…12 4. 手順、相互、Teはリンクされます…12 4.1. Proxied Te情報の起源…14 5. セキュリティ問題…14 6. IANA問題…15 6.1. 相互、可到達性TLV…15 6.2. サブTLVs、相互、可到達性TLV…15 6.3. サブTLVs、-、ルータ能力TLV…17 7. 承認…17 8. 参照…17 8.1. 標準の参照…17 8.2. 有益な参照…17
1. Introduction
1. 序論
[ISIS-TE] defines extensions to the ISIS protocol [ISIS] to support intra-area Traffic Engineering (TE). The extensions provide a way of encoding the TE information for TE-enabled links within the network (TE links) and flooding this information within an area. The extended IS reachability TLV and traffic engineering router ID TLV, which are defined in [ISIS-TE], are used to carry such TE information. The extended IS reachability TLV has several nested sub-TLVs that describe the TE attributes for a TE link.
[イシス-TE]は、イントラ領域Traffic Engineering(TE)を支持するためにイシスプロトコル[イシス]と拡大を定義します。 拡大は領域の中でネットワーク(TEリンク)と氾濫の中のTEによって可能にされたリンクのためのTE情報をコード化する方法にこの情報を提供します。 広げるのは可到達性TLVです、そして、交通工学ルータID TLV([イシス-TE]で定義される)は、そのようなTE情報を運ぶのに使用されます。 広げるのによる可到達性TLVにはTE属性についてTEリンクに説明する数個の入れ子にされたサブTLVsがあるということです。
[ISIS-TE-V3] and [GMPLS-TE] define similar extensions to ISIS [ISIS] in support of IPv6 and GMPLS traffic engineering, respectively.
[イシス-TE-V3]と[GMPLS-TE]は、それぞれ設計しながら、IPv6とGMPLS交通を支持してイシス[イシス]と同様の拡大を定義します。
Requirements for establishing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that cross multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes) are described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ]. As described in [INTER- AS-TE-REQ], a method SHOULD provide the ability to compute a path spanning multiple ASes. So a path computation entity that may be the
複数のAutonomous Systems(ASes)に交差するMultiprotocol Label Switching(MPLS)TE Label Switched Paths(LSPs)を設立するための要件は[INTER-AS-TE-REQ]で説明されます。 [INTER- AS-TE-REQ]で説明されるように、SHOULDが複数のASesにかかる経路を計算する能力を提供する方法です。 そのように、それが経路計算実体であるかもしれない。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[2ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
head-end Label Switching Router (LSR), an AS Border Router (ASBR), or a Path Computation Element (PCE [PCE]) needs to know the TE information not only of the links within an AS, but also of the links that connect to other ASes.
ギヤエンドLabel Switching Router(LSR)、AS Border Router(ASBR)、またはPath Computation Element(PCE[PCE])が、ASの中のリンクだけではなく、他のASesに接続するリンクのTE情報を知る必要があります。
In this document, a new TLV, which is referred to as the inter-AS reachability TLV, is defined to advertise inter-AS TE information, and three new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV to carry the information about the remote AS number and remote ASBR ID. The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents for inclusion in the extended IS reachability TLV for describing the TE properties of a TE link are applicable to be included in the inter-AS reachability TLV for describing the TE properties of an inter-AS TE link as well. Also, two more new sub- TLVs are defined for inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the TE Router ID when the TE Router ID needs to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain. The extensions are equally applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 as identical extensions to [ISIS-TE] and [ISIS-TE-V3]. Detailed definitions and procedures are discussed in the following sections.
本書では、新しいTLV(相互ASの可到達性TLVと呼ばれる)は相互AS TE情報の広告を出すために定義されます、そして、相互ASの可到達性TLVでの包含がリモートAS番号の、そして、リモートなASBR IDの情報を運ぶように、3新しいサブTLVsが定義されます。 TEについて説明して、TEリンクの特性が含まれるのにおいて適切であるので、また、広げるところの包含が可到達性であるので[イシス-TE]、[イシス-TE-V3]、および他のドキュメントで定義されたサブTLVs TLVは相互AS TEのTEの特性について説明するための相互ASの可到達性TLVでリンクします。 また、2より新しいサブTLVsが包含のために中で定義される、-、TE Router IDであるときにTE Router IDを運ぶルータ能力TLVは、全体のイシス経路ドメインの中のすべてのルータに達する必要があります。 拡大は[イシス-TE]と[イシス-TE-V3]への同じ拡大として等しくIPv4とIPv6に適切です。 以下のセクションで詳細な定義と手順について議論します。
This document does not propose or define any mechanisms to advertise any other extra-AS TE information within ISIS. See Section 2.1 for a full list of non-objectives for this work.
このドキュメントは、イシスの中にいかなる他の余分なAS TE情報も広告を出すためにどんなメカニズムも提案もしませんし、定義もしません。 非目的の完全リストに関してこの仕事に関してセクション2.1を見てください。
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
1.1. 本書では使用されるコンベンション
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].
キーワード“MUST"、「必須NOT」が「必要です」、“SHALL"、「」、“SHOULD"、「「推薦され」て、「5月」の、そして、「任意」のNOTはRFC-2119[RFC2119]で説明されるように本書では解釈されることであるべきですか?
2. Problem Statement
2. 問題声明
As described in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ], in the case of establishing an inter-AS TE LSP that traverses multiple ASes, the Path message [RFC3209] may include the following elements in the Explicit Route Object (ERO) in order to describe the path of the LSP:
[INTER-AS-TE-REQ]、複数のASesを横断する相互AS TE LSPを設立する場合で説明されるように、Pathメッセージ[RFC3209]はLSPの経路について説明するためにExplicit Route Object(ERO)の以下の要素を含むかもしれません:
- a set of AS numbers as loose hops, and/or
- そして/または1セットのゆるいAS同じくらい番号が跳ぶ。
- a set of LSRs including ASBRs as loose hops.
- ゆるいホップとしてASBRsを含むLSRsの1セット。
Two methods for determining inter-AS paths are currently being discussed. The per-domain method [PD-PATH] determines the path one domain at a time. The backward recursive method [BRPC] uses cooperation between PCEs to determine an optimum inter-domain path. The sections that follow examine how inter-AS TE link information could be useful in both cases.
相互AS経路を決定するための2つの方法は現在、議論することです。 1ドメインあたりの方法[PD-PATH]は一度に1つのドメインに経路を決定します。 後方の因果循環法[BRPC]は、最適な相互ドメイン経路を決定するのにPCEsの間の協力を使用します。 従うセクションは相互AS TEリンク情報がどちらの場合もどう役に立つかもしれないかを調べます。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[3ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
2.1. A Note on Non-Objectives
2.1. 非目的に関する注
It is important to note that this document does not make any change to the confidentiality and scaling assumptions surrounding the use of ASes in the Internet. In particular, this document is conformant to the requirements set out in [INTER-AS-TE-REQ].
このドキュメントが秘密性と仮定をスケーリングすることへのインターネットでのASesの使用が囲まれるどんな変更も行わないことに注意するのは重要です。 このドキュメントは[INTER-AS-TE-REQ]を始められた要件への特に、conformantです。
The following features are explicitly excluded:
以下の特徴は明らかに遮断されます:
o There is no attempt to distribute TE information from within one
AS to another AS.
o 1ASから別のASまでTE情報を分配する試みが全くありません。
o There is no mechanism proposed to distribute any form of TE
reachability information for destinations outside the AS.
o ASの外の目的地のためのどんなフォームのTE可到達性情報も分配するために提案されて、メカニズムが全くありません。
o There is no proposed change to the PCE architecture or usage.
o PCE構造か用法への変更案が全くありません。
o TE aggregation is not supported or recommended.
o TE集合は、支持もされませんし、推薦もされません。
o There is no exchange of private information between ASes.
o ASesの間には、個人情報の交換が全くありません。
o No ISIS adjacencies are formed on the inter-AS link.
o イシス隣接番組は全く相互ASリンクに形成されません。
2.2. Per-Domain Path Determination
2.2. 1ドメインあたりの経路決断
In the per-domain method of determining an inter-AS path for an MPLS-TE LSP, when an LSR that is an entry-point to an AS receives a Path message from an upstream AS with an ERO containing a next hop that is an AS number, it needs to find which LSRs (ASBRs) within the local AS are connected to the downstream AS. That way, it can compute a TE LSP segment across the local AS to one of those LSRs and forward the Path message to that LSR and hence into the next AS. See Figure 1 for an example.
ASへのエントリー・ポイントであるLSRがAS番号である次のホップを含むEROと共に上流からのPathメッセージを受け取るときMPLS-TE LSPのために相互AS経路を決定する1ドメインあたりの方法で、それは、地方のASの中のどのLSRs(ASBRs)が川下のASに接続されるかわかる必要があります。 そのように、それは、地方のASの向こう側にTE LSPセグメントをそれらのLSRsの1つまで計算して、そのLSRと、そして、したがって、次のASの中にPathメッセージを転送できます。 例に関して図1を見てください。
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11| | \ | / | | | \ | ---- | | | \ | / | R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12: : <-- AS1-->: <。---- AS2--->: <。--- AS3--->。
Figure 1: Inter-AS Reference Model
図1: 相互、規範モデル
The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3) and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3.
図は3ASes(AS1、AS2、およびAS3)と12LSRs(R1からR12)を示しています。 R3とR4はAS1のASBRsです。 R5、R6、R7、およびR8はAS2のASBRsです。 R9とR10はAS3のASBRsです。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[4ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12, the AS sequence will be: AS1, AS2, AS3.
相互AS TE LSPがR1からR12まで証明されるために計画されていると、AS系列は以下の通りになるでしょう。 AS1、AS2、AS3。
Suppose that the Path message enters AS2 from R3. The next hop in the ERO shows AS3, and R5 must determine a path segment across AS2 to reach AS3. It has a choice of three exit points from AS2 (R6, R7, and R8), and it needs to know which of these provide TE connectivity to AS3, and whether the TE connectivity (for example, available bandwidth) is adequate for the requested LSP.
PathメッセージがR3からAS2に入ると仮定してください。 EROの次のホップはAS3を示しています、そして、R5はAS2の向こう側の経路セグメントがAS3に達することを決定しなければなりません。 それには、AS2(R6、R7、およびR8)からの3つのエキジットポイントの選択があります、そして、これらのどれがTEの接続性をAS3に供給するか、そして、要求されたLSPに、TEの接続性(例えば、利用可能な帯域幅)が適切であるかどうかを知るのが必要です。
Alternatively, if the next hop in the ERO is the entry ASBR for AS3 (say R9), R5 needs to know which of its exit ASBRs has a TE link that connects to R9. Since there may be multiple ASBRs that are connected to R9 (both R7 and R8 in this example), R5 also needs to know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links so that it can select the correct exit ASBR.
あるいはまた、EROの次のホップがAS3のためのエントリーASBR(R9を言う)であるなら、R5は、出口ASBRsのどれがR9に接続するTEリンクを持っているかを知る必要があります。 R9(この例のR7とR8の両方)に接続される複数のASBRsがあるかもしれないので、また、R5は、正しい出口ASBRを選択できるように相互AS TEリンクのTEの特性を知る必要があります。
Once the Path message reaches the exit ASBR, any choice of inter-AS TE link can be made by the ASBR if not already made by the entry ASBR that computed the segment.
Pathメッセージがいったん出口ASBRに達すると、相互AS TEリンクのどんな選択もASBRが作るか、またはセグメントを計算したエントリーASBRは既にすることができます。
More details can be found in Section 4 of [PD-PATH], which clearly points out why advertising of inter-AS links is desired.
[PD-PATH]のセクション4でその他の詳細を見つけることができます。(明確に、]は、相互ASリンクの広告がなぜ望まれているかを指摘します)。
To enable R5 to make the correct choice of exit ASBR, the following information is needed:
R5が出口ASBRの正しい選択をするのを可能にするために、以下の情報が必要です:
o List of all inter-AS TE links for the local AS.
o すべての相互AS TEのリストは地方のASのためにリンクされます。
o TE properties of each inter-AS TE link.
o それぞれの相互AS TEのTEの特性はリンクされます。
o AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE
link.
o 隣接しているASのAS番号は、それぞれの相互AS TEでリンクするために接続しました。
o Identity (TE Router ID) of the neighboring ASBR connected to by
each inter-AS TE link.
o 隣接しているASBRのアイデンティティ(TE Router ID)は、それぞれの相互AS TEでリンクするために接続しました。
In GMPLS networks, further information may also be required to select the correct TE links as defined in [GMPLS-TE].
また、GMPLSネットワークでは、詳細が、[GMPLS-TE]で定義されるように正しいTEリンクを選択するのに必要であるかもしれません。
The example above shows how this information is needed at the entry- point ASBRs for each AS (or the PCEs that provide computation services for the ASBRs). However, this information is also needed throughout the local AS if path computation functionality is fully distributed among LSRs in the local AS, for example to support LSPs that have start points (ingress nodes) within the AS.
上記の例はこの情報がエントリーポイントASBRsでどう各AS(または、計算サービスをASBRsに供給するPCEs)に必要であるかを示しています。 しかしながら、また、経路計算の機能性が例えばASの中にスタートポイント(イングレスノード)を持っているLSPsを支持するために地方のASのLSRsの中で完全に分配されるなら、この情報が地方のAS中で必要です。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[5ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
2.3. Backward Recursive Path Computation
2.3. 後方の再帰的な経路計算
Another scenario using PCE techniques has the same problem. [BRPC] defines a PCE-based TE LSP computation method (called Backward Recursive Path Computation) to compute optimal inter-domain constrained MPLS-TE or GMPLS LSPs. In this path computation method, a specific set of traversed domains (ASes) are assumed to be selected before computation starts. Each downstream PCE in domain(i) returns to its upstream neighbor PCE in domain(i-1) a multipoint-to-point tree of potential paths. Each tree consists of the set of paths from all boundary nodes located in domain(i) to the destination where each path satisfies the set of required constraints for the TE LSP (bandwidth, affinities, etc.).
PCEのテクニックを使用する別のシナリオが同じ問題を持っています。 [BRPC]は最適の相互ドメイン強制的なMPLS-TEかGMPLS LSPsを計算するPCEベースのTE LSP計算方法(Backward Recursive Path Computationと呼ばれる)を定義します。 この経路計算方法で、計算が始まる前に特定のセットの横断されたドメイン(ASes)が選択されると思われます。 ドメイン(i)のそれぞれの川下のPCEは潜在的経路のドメイン(i-1)示す多点木の上流の隣人PCEに戻ります。 各木はドメイン(i)に位置するすべての境界ノードから各経路がTE LSP(帯域幅、親近感など)の必要な規制のセットを満たす目的地までの経路のセットから成ります。
So a PCE needs to select boundary nodes (that is, ASBRs) that provide connectivity from the upstream AS. In order for the tree of paths provided by one PCE to its neighbor to be correlated, the identities of the ASBRs for each path need to be referenced. Thus, the PCE must know the identities of the ASBRs in the remote AS that are reached by any inter-AS TE link, and, in order to provide only suitable paths in the tree, the PCE must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. See the following figure as an example.
それで、PCEは、上流のASから接続性を備える境界ノード(すなわち、ASBRs)を選択する必要があります。 関連するように1PCEによって隣人に提供された経路の木において整然とします、各経路へのASBRsのアイデンティティは参照をつけられる必要があります。 したがって、PCEはどんな相互AS TEリンクでも達しているリモートASのASBRsのアイデンティティを知らなければなりません、そして、適当な経路だけを木に提供するために、PCEは相互AS TEリンクのTEの特性を知らなければなりません。 以下が例として現れるのを見てください。
PCE1<------>PCE2<-------->PCE3
/ : :
/ : :
R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11
| | \ | / |
| | \ | ---- |
| | \ | / |
R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12
: :
<-- AS1 -->:<---- AS2 --->:<--- AS3 --->
PCE1<。------>PCE2<。-------->PCE3/: : / : : R1------R3----R5-----R7------R9-----R11| | \ | / | | | \ | ---- | | | \ | / | R2------R4----R6 --R8------R10----R12: : <-- AS1-->: <。---- AS2--->: <。--- AS3--->。
Figure 2: BRPC for Inter-AS Reference Model
図2: BRPC、相互、規範モデル
The figure shows three ASes (AS1, AS2, and AS3), three PCEs (PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3), and twelve LSRs (R1 through R12). R3 and R4 are ASBRs in AS1. R5, R6, R7, and R8 are ASBRs in AS2. R9 and R10 are ASBRs in AS3. PCE1, PCE2, and PCE3 cooperate to perform inter-AS path computation and are responsible for path segment computation within their own domain(s).
図は3ASes(AS1、AS2、およびAS3)、3PCEs(PCE1、PCE2、およびPCE3)、および12LSRs(R1からR12)を示しています。 R3とR4はAS1のASBRsです。 R5、R6、R7、およびR8はAS2のASBRsです。 R9とR10はAS3のASBRsです。 PCE1、PCE2、およびPCE3は協力して、相互AS経路計算を実行して、それら自身のドメインの中の経路セグメント計算に責任があります。
If an inter-AS TE LSP is planned to be established from R1 to R12, the traversed domains are assumed to be selected: AS1->AS2->AS3, and the PCE chain is: PCE1->PCE2->PCE3. First, the path computation request originated from the PCC (R1) is relayed by PCE1 and PCE2 along the PCE chain to PCE3. Then, PCE3 begins to compute the path
相互AS TE LSPがR1からR12まで証明されるために計画されているなら、横断されたドメインが選択されると思われます: AS1->、AS2、->AS3、およびPCEチェーンは以下の通りです。 PCE1、-、>PCE2->、PCE3。 まず最初に、PCC(R1)から溯源された経路計算要求はPCEチェーンに沿ってPCE1とPCE2によってPCE3にリレーされます。 そして、PCE3は経路を計算し始めます。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[6ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
segments from the entry boundary nodes that provide connection from AS2 to the destination (R12). But, to provide suitable path segments, PCE3 must determine which entry boundary nodes provide connectivity to its upstream neighbor AS (identified by its AS number), and must know the TE properties of the inter-AS TE links. In the same way, PCE2 also needs to determine the entry boundary nodes according to its upstream neighbor AS and the inter-AS TE link capabilities.
AS2から接続を備えるエントリー境界ノードから目的地(R12)までのセグメント。 しかし、PCE3は、適当な経路セグメントを提供するために、どのエントリー境界ノードが上流の隣人AS(AS番号で、特定される)に接続性を供給するかを決定しなければならなくて、相互AS TEリンクのTEの特性を知らなければなりません。 同様に、また、PCE2は、上流の隣人ASと相互AS TEリンク能力に従ってエントリー境界ノードを決定する必要があります。
Thus, to support Backward Recursive Path Computation, the same information listed in Section 2.2 is required. The AS number of the neighboring AS connected to by each inter-AS TE link is particularly important.
したがって、Backward Recursive Path Computationを支持するために、セクション2.2にリストアップされた同じ情報が必要です。 それぞれの相互AS TEでリンクするために接続された隣接しているASのAS番号は特に重要です。
3. Extensions to ISIS-TE
3. イシス-Teへの拡大
Note that this document does not define mechanisms for distribution of TE information from one AS to another, does not distribute any form of TE reachability information for destinations outside the AS, does not change the PCE architecture or usage, does not suggest or recommend any form of TE aggregation, and does not feed private information between ASes. See Section 2.1.
このドキュメントがTE情報の1ASから別のASまでの分配のためにメカニズムを定義しないで、またASの外の目的地のためのどんなフォームのTE可到達性情報も分配しないで、またPCE構造か用法を変えないで、またどんなフォームのTE集合も示しもしませんし、推薦もしないで、ASesの間の個人情報を与えないことに注意してください。 セクション2.1を見てください。
In this document, for the advertisement of inter-AS TE links, a new TLV, which is referred to as the inter-AS reachability TLV, is defined. Three new sub-TLVs are also defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV to carry the information about the neighboring AS number and the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS link. The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents for inclusion in the extended IS reachability TLV are applicable to be included in the inter-AS reachability TLV for inter-AS TE links advertisement. Also, two other new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the TE Router ID when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain.
本書では、相互AS TEリンクの広告において、新しいTLV(相互ASの可到達性TLVと呼ばれる)は定義されます。 また、相互ASの可到達性TLVでの包含が相互ASリンクの隣接しているAS番号とリモートASBR IDの情報を運ぶように、3新しいサブTLVsが定義されます。 広げるところの包含が可到達性TLVが含まれるのにおいて適切であるということであるので、[イシス-TE]、[イシス-TE-V3]、および他のドキュメントで定義されたサブTLVsは相互AS TEのための相互ASの可到達性TLVで広告をリンクします。 また、他の2新しいサブTLVsが包含のために中で定義される、-、TE Router IDが全体のイシス経路ドメインの中のすべてのルータに達するのに必要であるときにTE Router IDを運ぶルータ能力TLV。
While some of the TE information of an inter-AS TE link may be available within the AS from other protocols, in order to avoid any dependency on where such protocols are processed, this mechanism carries all the information needed for the required TE operations.
相互AS TEリンクのTE情報のいくつかがそのようなプロトコルが処理されるところにおけるどんな依存も避けるためにASの中で他のプロトコルから利用可能であるかもしれない間、このメカニズムは必要なTE操作に必要であるすべての情報を乗せます。
3.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV
3.1. 相互、可到達性TLV
The inter-AS reachability TLV has type 141 (see Section 6.1) and contains a data structure consisting of:
相互ASの可到達性TLVはタイプ141(セクション6.1を見ます)があって、以下から成るデータ構造を含んでいます。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[7ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
o 4 octets of Router ID
o 3 octets of default metric
o 1 octet of control information, consisting of:
- 1 bit of flooding-scope information (S bit)
- 1 bit of up/down information (D bit)
- 6 bits reserved
o 1 octet of length of sub-TLVs
o 0-246 octets of sub-TLVs, where each sub-TLV consists of a
sequence of:
- 1 octet of sub-type
- 1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
- 0-244 octets of value
o 制御情報のデフォルトのメートル法のo1八重奏のRouter ID o3八重奏の4つの八重奏、以下の成ること - 1ビットの氾濫範囲情報(Sに噛み付いた)--1 /に噛み付かれて、情報より倒してください(Dに噛み付きました)--6ビットは○ それぞれのサブTLVが系列から成るサブTLVsのサブTLVs o0-246八重奏の長さの1つの八重奏を控えました: - サブタイプの1つの八重奏--サブTLVの値の分野の長さの1つの八重奏--0-244 価値の八重奏
Compared to the extended reachability TLV, which is defined in [ISIS-TE], the inter-AS reachability TLV replaces the "7 octets of System ID and Pseudonode Number" field with a "4 octets of Router ID" field and introduces an extra "control information" field, which consists of a flooding-scope bit (S bit), an up/down bit (D bit), and 6 reserved bits.
拡張可到達性TLV([イシス-TE]で定義される)と比べて、相互ASの可到達性TLVは「System IDとPseudonode Numberの7つの八重奏」野原を「Router IDの4つの八重奏」分野に取り替えて、余分な「制御情報」野原を挿入します。(それは、氾濫範囲ビット(Sに噛み付いた)、(Dビット)、および予約された6ビット噛み付かれた上/下であるのから成ります)。
The Router ID field of the inter-AS reachability TLV is 4 octets in length, which contains the Router ID of the router who generates the inter-AS reachability TLV. The Router ID MUST be unique within the ISIS area. If the router generates inter-AS reachability TLV with entire ISIS routing domain flooding scope, then the Router ID MUST also be unique within the entire ISIS routing domain. The Router ID could be used to indicate the source of the inter-AS reachability TLV.
相互ASの可到達性TLVのRouter ID分野は長さが4つの八重奏です。(それは、相互ASの可到達性TLVを発生させるルータのRouter IDを含みます)。 Router IDはイシス領域の中でユニークであるに違いありません。 また、ルータが全体のイシス経路ドメインの氾濫範囲がある相互ASの可到達性TLVを発生させるなら、Router IDも全体のイシス経路ドメインの中でユニークであるに違いありません。 相互ASの可到達性TLVの源を示すのにRouter IDを使用できました。
The flooding procedures for inter-AS reachability TLV are identical to the flooding procedures for the GENINFO TLV, which are defined in Section 4 of [GENINFO]. These procedures have been previously discussed in [ISIS-CAP]. The flooding-scope bit (S bit) SHOULD be set to 0 if the flooding scope is to be limited to within the single IGP area to which the ASBR belongs. It MAY be set to 1 if the information is intended to reach all routers (including area border routers, ASBRs, and PCEs) in the entire ISIS routing domain. The choice between the use of 0 or 1 is an AS-wide policy choice, and configuration control SHOULD be provided in ASBR implementations that support the advertisement of inter-AS TE links.
GENINFO TLVに、相互ASの可到達性TLVのための氾濫手順は氾濫手順と同じです。(GENINFO TLVは[GENINFO]のセクション4で定義されます)。 以前に、[イシス-CAP]でこれらの手順について議論しました。 氾濫範囲は(Sビット)SHOULDに噛み付きました。氾濫範囲がASBRが属するただ一つのIGP領域に制限されるつもりであるなら、0に用意ができてください。 情報がすべてのルータに達することを意図するなら(境界ルータ、ASBRs、およびPCEsを含んでいて)、それは全体のイシス経路ドメインに1に設定されるかもしれません。 0か1の使用の選択はAS全体の政治的選択です、そして、ASBR実現におけるそのサポートであるなら、構成管理SHOULDはそのような政治的選択です。相互AS TEリンクの広告。
The sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents for describing the TE properties of a TE link are also applicable to the inter-AS reachability TLV for describing the TE properties of an inter-AS TE link. Apart from these sub-TLVs, three new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV defined in this document:
また、相互AS TEリンクのTEの特性について説明するのに、TEリンクの[イシス-TE]、[イシス-TE-V3]、およびTEについて説明するための他のドキュメントで定義されたサブTLVs特性も相互ASの可到達性TLVに適切です。 これらのサブTLVsは別として、3新しいサブTLVsが本書では定義された相互ASの可到達性TLVでの包含のために定義されます:
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[8ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
Sub-TLV type Length Name
------------ ------ ---------------------------
24 4 remote AS number
25 4 IPv4 remote ASBR identifier
26 16 IPv6 remote ASBR identifier
サブTLVはLength Nameをタイプします。------------ ------ --------------------------- 24 4のリモートAS No.25 4のIPv4のリモートASBR識別子26 16のIPv6のリモートASBR識別子
The detailed definitions of the three new sub-TLVs are described in Section 3.3.
3新しいサブTLVsの詳細な定義はセクション3.3で説明されます。
3.2. TE Router ID
3.2. TeルータID
The IPv4 TE Router ID TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID TLV, which are defined in [ISIS-TE] and [ISIS-TE-V3] respectively, only have area flooding-scope. When performing inter-AS TE, the TE Router ID MAY be needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain and it MUST have the same flooding scope as the inter-AS reachability TLV does.
IPv4 TE Router ID TLVとIPv6 TE Router ID TLV([イシス-TE]と[イシス-TE-V3]でそれぞれ定義される)には、領域の氾濫範囲があるだけです。 相互AS TEを実行するとき、TE Router IDが全体のイシス経路ドメインの中のすべてのルータに達するのに必要であるかもしれません、そして、それはTLVがする相互ASの可到達性と同じ氾濫範囲を持たなければなりません。
[ISIS-CAP] defines a generic advertisement mechanism for ISIS, which allows a router to advertise its capabilities within an ISIS area or an entire ISIS routing domain. [ISIS-CAP] also points out that the TE Router ID is a candidate to be carried in the IS-IS router capability TLV when performing inter-area TE.
[イシス-CAP]はイシスのために一般的な広告メカニズムを定義します。(彼女は、イシス領域か全体のイシス経路ドメインの中に能力の広告を出すためにルータを許します)。 また、[イシス-CAP]が、TE Router IDが運ばれる候補であると指摘する、-、ルータ能力TLV、相互領域TEを実行するとき。
This document uses such mechanism for TE Router ID advertisement when the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS Routing domain. Two new sub-TLVs are defined for inclusion in the IS-IS router capability TLV to carry the IPv4 and IPv6 TE Router IDs, respectively:
TE Router IDが全体のイシスルート設定ドメインの中のすべてのルータに達するのに必要であるときに、このドキュメントはTE Router ID広告にそのようなメカニズムを使用します。 2新しいサブTLVsが包含のために中で定義される、-、それぞれIPv4とIPv6 TE Router IDを運ぶルータ能力TLV:
Sub-TLV type Length Name
------------ ------ -----------------
11 4 IPv4 TE Router ID
12 16 IPv6 TE Router ID
サブTLVはLength Nameをタイプします。------------ ------ ----------------- 11 4IPv4Te Router ID12 16IPv6Te Router ID
Detailed definitions of the two new sub-TLVs are described in Section 3.3.
2新しいサブTLVsの詳細な定義はセクション3.3で説明されます。
3.3. Sub-TLV Detail
3.3. サブTLVの詳細
3.3.1. Remote AS Number Sub-TLV
3.3.1. 数のサブTLVとして、リモートです。
A new sub-TLV, the remote AS number sub-TLV, is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The remote AS number sub-TLV specifies the AS number of the neighboring AS to which the advertised link connects.
相互ASリンクの広告を出すとき、新しいサブTLV(リモートAS番号サブTLV)は相互ASの可到達性TLVでの包含のために定義されます。 リモートAS番号サブTLVは広告を出しているリンクが接続する隣接しているASのAS番号を指定します。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
チェン、他 規格がRFC5316イシスExtensionsを追跡する、[9ページ]相互、Te2008年12月
The remote AS number sub-TLV is TLV type 24 (see Section 6.2) and is 4 octets in length. The format is as follows:
リモートAS番号サブTLVはTLVタイプ24であり(セクション6.2を見ます)、長さが4つの八重奏です。 形式は以下の通りです:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote AS Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | タイプ| 長さ| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 数として、リモートです。| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Remote AS number field has 4 octets. When only 2 octets are used for the AS number, as in current deployments, the left (high-order) 2 octets MUST be set to 0. The remote AS number sub-TLV MUST be included when a router advertises an inter-AS TE link.
Remote ASナンバーフィールドには、4つの八重奏があります。 2つの八重奏だけがAS番号に現在の展開のように使用されるとき、(高位)左の2つの八重奏を0に設定しなければなりません。 ルータが相互AS TEリンクの広告を出すとき、含まれていて、リモートASはサブTLV MUSTに付番します。
3.3.2. IPv4 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
3.3.2. IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLV
A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub- TLV, is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the IPv4 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This could be any stable and routable IPv4 address of the remote ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the Traffic Engineering router ID TLV [ISIS-TE] is RECOMMENDED.
相互ASリンクの広告を出すとき、新しいサブTLV(IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLVと呼ばれる)は相互ASの可到達性TLVでの包含のために定義されます。 IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLVは広告を出している相互ASリンクが接続するリモートASBRに関するIPv4識別子を指定します。 これは、リモートASBRのどんなうまやとroutable IPv4アドレスであるかもしれません。 Traffic EngineeringルータID TLV[イシス-TE]の指定されるとしてのTE Router IDの使用はRECOMMENDEDです。
The IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 25 (see Section 6.2) and is 4 octets in length. The format of the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is as follows:
IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLVはTLVタイプ25であり(セクション6.2を見ます)、長さが4つの八重奏です。 IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLVの形式は以下の通りです:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | タイプ| 長さ| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 遠く離れたASBR ID| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv4 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv4 address (not even an IPv4 TE Router ID), the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an extended IS reachability TLV.
IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLV MUST、隣接しているASBRにIPv4アドレスがあるなら、含められてください。 IPv4アドレス(IPv4 TE Router IDでないさえ)、IPv6のリモートASBR IDサブTLV MUSTが隣接しているASBRが代わりに含ませていないなら。 IPv4のリモートASBR IDサブTLVとTLV MAYのIPv6のリモートASBR IDサブ両方、存在している、広げられているのは、可到達性TLVです。
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
3.3.3. IPv6 Remote ASBR ID Sub-TLV
A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub- TLV, is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This could be any stable and routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering router ID TLV [ISIS-TE-V3] is RECOMMENDED.
A new sub-TLV, which is referred to as the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub- TLV, is defined for inclusion in the inter-AS reachability TLV when advertising inter-AS links. The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV specifies the IPv6 identifier of the remote ASBR to which the advertised inter-AS link connects. This could be any stable and routable IPv6 address of the remote ASBR. Use of the TE Router ID as specified in the IPv6 Traffic Engineering router ID TLV [ISIS-TE-V3] is RECOMMENDED.
The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 26 (see Section 6.2) and is 16 octets in length. The format of the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub- TLV is as follows:
The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV is TLV type 26 (see Section 6.2) and is 16 octets in length. The format of the IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub- TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Remote ASBR ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote ASBR ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote ASBR ID (continued) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote ASBR ID (continued) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Remote ASBR ID (continued) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv6 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv6 address, the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an extended IS reachability TLV.
The IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included if the neighboring ASBR has an IPv6 address. If the neighboring ASBR does not have an IPv6 address, the IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV and IPv6 remote ASBR ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an extended IS reachability TLV.
3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV
3.3.4. IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV
The IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 11 (see Section 6.3) and is 4 octets in length. The format of the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is as follows:
The IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 11 (see Section 6.3) and is 4 octets in length. The format of the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TE Router ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS Router capability TLV MUST be included in its LSP. If an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for IPv4 and if the ASBR has an IPv4 TE Router ID, the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST be included. If the ASBR does not have an IPv4 TE Router ID, the IPv6 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an IS-IS router capability TLV.
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS Router capability TLV MUST be included in its LSP. If an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for IPv4 and if the ASBR has an IPv4 TE Router ID, the IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST be included. If the ASBR does not have an IPv4 TE Router ID, the IPv6 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an IS-IS router capability TLV.
3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV
3.3.5. IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV
The IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 12 (see Section 6.3) and is 4 octets in length. The format of the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is as follows:
The IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is TLV type 12 (see Section 6.3) and is 4 octets in length. The format of the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV is as follows:
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 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TE Router ID (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TE Router ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TE Router ID (continued) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TE Router ID (continued) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | TE Router ID (continued) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS router capability TLV MUST be included in its LSP. If an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for IPv6 and if the ASBR has an IPv6 TE Router ID, the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST be included. If the ASBR does not have an IPv6 TE Router ID, the IPv4 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an IS-IS router capability TLV.
When the TE Router ID is needed to reach all routers within an entire ISIS routing domain, the IS-IS router capability TLV MUST be included in its LSP. If an ASBR supports Traffic Engineering for IPv6 and if the ASBR has an IPv6 TE Router ID, the IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MUST be included. If the ASBR does not have an IPv6 TE Router ID, the IPv4 TE Router sub-TLV MUST be included instead. An IPv4 TE Router ID sub-TLV and IPv6 TE Router ID sub-TLV MAY both be present in an IS-IS router capability TLV.
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links
4. Procedure for Inter-AS TE Links
When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for ISIS-TE [ISIS-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the link, the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the available bandwidth changes), the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link but MUST take precautions against excessive re-advertisements.
When TE is enabled on an inter-AS link and the link is up, the ASBR SHOULD advertise this link using the normal procedures for ISIS-TE [ISIS-TE]. When either the link is down or TE is disabled on the link, the ASBR SHOULD withdraw the advertisement. When there are changes to the TE parameters for the link (for example, when the available bandwidth changes), the ASBR SHOULD re-advertise the link but MUST take precautions against excessive re-advertisements.
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged over the inter-AS link, and consequently, an ISIS adjacency MUST NOT be formed.
Hellos MUST NOT be exchanged over the inter-AS link, and consequently, an ISIS adjacency MUST NOT be formed.
The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.
The information advertised comes from the ASBR's knowledge of the TE capabilities of the link, the ASBR's knowledge of the current status and usage of the link, and configuration at the ASBR of the remote AS number and remote ASBR TE Router ID.
Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are able to ignore it because they do not know the new TLV and sub-TLVs that are defined in Section 3 of this document. They will continue to flood the LSP, but will not attempt to use the information received.
Legacy routers receiving an advertisement for an inter-AS TE link are able to ignore it because they do not know the new TLV and sub-TLVs that are defined in Section 3 of this document. They will continue to flood the LSP, but will not attempt to use the information received.
In the current operation of ISIS TE, the LSRs at each end of a TE link emit LSAs describing the link. The databases in the LSRs then have two entries (one locally generated, the other from the peer) that describe the different 'directions' of the link. This enables Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) to do a two-way check on the link when performing path computation and eliminate it from consideration unless both directions of the link satisfy the required constraints.
In the current operation of ISIS TE, the LSRs at each end of a TE link emit LSAs describing the link. The databases in the LSRs then have two entries (one locally generated, the other from the peer) that describe the different 'directions' of the link. This enables Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) to do a two-way check on the link when performing path computation and eliminate it from consideration unless both directions of the link satisfy the required constraints.
In the case we are considering here (i.e., of a TE link to another AS), there is, by definition, no IGP peering and hence no bidirectional TE link information. In order for the CSPF route computation entity to include the link as a candidate path, we have to find a way to get LSAs describing its (bidirectional) TE properties into the TE database.
In the case we are considering here (i.e., of a TE link to another AS), there is, by definition, no IGP peering and hence no bidirectional TE link information. In order for the CSPF route computation entity to include the link as a candidate path, we have to find a way to get LSAs describing its (bidirectional) TE properties into the TE database.
This is achieved by the ASBR advertising, internally to its AS, information about both directions of the TE link to the next AS. The ASBR will normally generate an LSA describing its own side of a link; here we have it 'proxy' for the ASBR at the edge of the other AS and generate an additional LSA that describes that device's 'view' of the link.
This is achieved by the ASBR advertising, internally to its AS, information about both directions of the TE link to the next AS. The ASBR will normally generate an LSA describing its own side of a link; here we have it 'proxy' for the ASBR at the edge of the other AS and generate an additional LSA that describes that device's 'view' of the link.
Only some essential TE information for the link needs to be advertised; i.e., the Interface Address, the remote AS number, and the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS TE link.
Only some essential TE information for the link needs to be advertised; i.e., the Interface Address, the remote AS number, and the remote ASBR ID of an inter-AS TE link.
Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS through another TE link. Such paths would constitute extremely rare occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the path.
Routers or PCEs that are capable of processing advertisements of inter-AS TE links SHOULD NOT use such links to compute paths that exit an AS to a remote ASBR and then immediately re-enter the AS through another TE link. Such paths would constitute extremely rare occurrences and SHOULD NOT be allowed except as the result of specific policy configurations at the router or PCE computing the path.
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information
4.1. Origin of Proxied TE Information
Section 4 describes how an ASBR advertises TE link information as a proxy for its neighbor ASBR, but does not describe where this information comes from.
Section 4 describes how an ASBR advertises TE link information as a proxy for its neighbor ASBR, but does not describe where this information comes from.
Although the source of this information is outside the scope of this document, it is possible that it will be a configuration requirement at the ASBR, as are other local properties of the TE link. Further, where BGP is used to exchange IP routing information between the ASBRs, a certain amount of additional local configuration about the link and the remote ASBR is likely to be available.
Although the source of this information is outside the scope of this document, it is possible that it will be a configuration requirement at the ASBR, as are other local properties of the TE link. Further, where BGP is used to exchange IP routing information between the ASBRs, a certain amount of additional local configuration about the link and the remote ASBR is likely to be available.
We note further that it is possible, and may be operationally advantageous, to obtain some of the required configuration information from BGP. Whether and how to utilize these possibilities is an implementation matter.
We note further that it is possible, and may be operationally advantageous, to obtain some of the required configuration information from BGP. Whether and how to utilize these possibilities is an implementation matter.
5. Security Considerations
5. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the existing ISIS security mechanisms (e.g., using the cleartext passwords or Hashed Message Authentication Codes - Message Digest 5 (HMAC-MD5) algorithm, which are defined in [ISIS] and [RFC5304], respectively).
The protocol extensions defined in this document are relatively minor and can be secured within the AS in which they are used by the existing ISIS security mechanisms (e.g., using the cleartext passwords or Hashed Message Authentication Codes - Message Digest 5 (HMAC-MD5) algorithm, which are defined in [ISIS] and [RFC5304], respectively).
There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to the ISIS security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since no ISIS adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no requirement for ISIS security between the ASes.
There is no exchange of information between ASes, and no change to the ISIS security relationship between the ASes. In particular, since no ISIS adjacency is formed on the inter-AS links, there is no requirement for ISIS security between the ASes.
Some of the information included in these new advertisements (e.g., the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID) is obtained manually from a neighboring administration as part of a commercial relationship. The source and content of this information should be carefully checked before it is entered as configuration information at the ASBR responsible for advertising the inter-AS TE links.
Some of the information included in these new advertisements (e.g., the remote AS number and the remote ASBR ID) is obtained manually from a neighboring administration as part of a commercial relationship. The source and content of this information should be carefully checked before it is entered as configuration information at the ASBR responsible for advertising the inter-AS TE links.
It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering, a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and that this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration (e.g., the administration that originally supplied the information may be lying, or some manual mis-configurations or mistakes may be made by the operators). For example, if a different remote AS number is received in a BGP OPEN [BGP] from that locally configured to ISIS-TE, as we describe here, then local policy SHOULD be applied to determine whether to alert the operator to a potential mis-
It is worth noting that in the scenario we are considering, a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) peering may exist between the two ASBRs and that this could be used to detect inconsistencies in configuration (e.g., the administration that originally supplied the information may be lying, or some manual mis-configurations or mistakes may be made by the operators). For example, if a different remote AS number is received in a BGP OPEN [BGP] from that locally configured to ISIS-TE, as we describe here, then local policy SHOULD be applied to determine whether to alert the operator to a potential mis-
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
configuration or to suppress the ISIS advertisement of the inter-AS TE link. Note further that if BGP is used to exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP session SHOULD be secured using mechanisms as described in [BGP] to provide authentication and integrity checks.
configuration or to suppress the ISIS advertisement of the inter-AS TE link. Note further that if BGP is used to exchange TE information as described in Section 4.1, the inter-AS BGP session SHOULD be secured using mechanisms as described in [BGP] to provide authentication and integrity checks.
For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS, see [RFC5304].
For a discussion of general security considerations for IS-IS, see [RFC5304].
6. IANA Considerations
6. IANA Considerations
IANA has made the following allocations from registries under its control.
IANA has made the following allocations from registries under its control.
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV
6.1. Inter-AS Reachability TLV
This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type, described in Section 3.1, which has been registered in the ISIS TLV codepoint registry:
This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type, described in Section 3.1, which has been registered in the ISIS TLV codepoint registry:
Type Description IIH LSP SNP
---- ---------------------- --- --- ---
141 inter-AS reachability n y n
information
Type Description IIH LSP SNP ---- ---------------------- --- --- --- 141 inter-AS reachability n y n information
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV
6.2. Sub-TLVs for the Inter-AS Reachability TLV
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types (described in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3) of top-level TLV 141 (see Section 6.1 above), which have been registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 141. Note that these three new sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT appear in TLV 22 (or TLV 222) and MUST be ignored in TLV 22 (or TLV 222).
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types (described in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3) of top-level TLV 141 (see Section 6.1 above), which have been registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 141. Note that these three new sub-TLVs SHOULD NOT appear in TLV 22 (or TLV 222) and MUST be ignored in TLV 22 (or TLV 222).
Type Description
---- ------------------------------
24 remote AS number
25 IPv4 remote ASBR Identifier
26 IPv6 remote ASBR Identifier
Type Description ---- ------------------------------ 24 remote AS number 25 IPv4 remote ASBR Identifier 26 IPv6 remote ASBR Identifier
As described above in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents for describing the TE properties of a TE link are applicable to describe an inter-AS TE link and MAY be included in the inter-AS reachability TLV when adverting inter-AS TE links.
As described above in Section 3.1, the sub-TLVs defined in [ISIS-TE], [ISIS-TE-V3], and other documents for describing the TE properties of a TE link are applicable to describe an inter-AS TE link and MAY be included in the inter-AS reachability TLV when adverting inter-AS TE links.
IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 141, and 222". Three new columns have been added to the registry to show in which TLVs the
IANA has updated the registry that was specified as "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22" to be named "Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 141, and 222". Three new columns have been added to the registry to show in which TLVs the
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
sub-TLVs may be present. All sub-TLVs currently defined may be present in all three TLVs, hence the registry (with the definition of the new sub-TLVs defined here) should read as follows.
sub-TLVs may be present. All sub-TLVs currently defined may be present in all three TLVs, hence the registry (with the definition of the new sub-TLVs defined here) should read as follows.
TLV TLV TLV
Type Description 22 141 222 Reference
------- ------------------------------------ --- --- --- ---------
0 Unassigned y y y
1 Unassigned y y y
2 Unassigned y y y
3 Administrative group (color) y y y [RFC5305]
4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers y y y
[RFC4205][RFC5307]
5 Unassigned y y y
6 IPv4 interface address y y y [RFC5305]
7 Unassigned y y y
8 IPv4 neighbor address y y y [RFC5305]
9 Maximum link bandwidth y y y [RFC5305]
10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth y y y [RFC5305]
11 Unreserved bandwidth y y y [RFC5305]
12 Unassigned y y y
13 Unassigned y y y
14 Unassigned y y y
15 Unassigned y y y
16 Unassigned y y y
17 Unassigned y y y
18 TE Default metric y y y [RFC5305]
19 Link-attributes y y y [RFC5029]
20 Link Protection Type y y y
[RFC4205][RFC5307]
21 Interface Switching Capability Desc y y y
[RFC4205][RFC5307]
22 Bandwidth Constraints y y y [RFC4124]
23 Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV y y y [RFC5330]
24 remote AS number n y n [RFC5316]
25 IPv4 remote ASBR identifier n y n [RFC5316]
26 IPv6 remote ASBR identifier n y n [RFC5316]
27-249 Unassigned
250-254 Reserved for Cisco-specific exts
255 Reserved for future expansion
TLV TLV TLV Type Description 22 141 222 Reference ------- ------------------------------------ --- --- --- --------- 0 Unassigned y y y 1 Unassigned y y y 2 Unassigned y y y 3 Administrative group (color) y y y [RFC5305] 4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers y y y [RFC4205][RFC5307] 5 Unassigned y y y 6 IPv4 interface address y y y [RFC5305] 7 Unassigned y y y 8 IPv4 neighbor address y y y [RFC5305] 9 Maximum link bandwidth y y y [RFC5305] 10 Maximum reservable link bandwidth y y y [RFC5305] 11 Unreserved bandwidth y y y [RFC5305] 12 Unassigned y y y 13 Unassigned y y y 14 Unassigned y y y 15 Unassigned y y y 16 Unassigned y y y 17 Unassigned y y y 18 TE Default metric y y y [RFC5305] 19 Link-attributes y y y [RFC5029] 20 Link Protection Type y y y [RFC4205][RFC5307] 21 Interface Switching Capability Desc y y y [RFC4205][RFC5307] 22 Bandwidth Constraints y y y [RFC4124] 23 Unconstrained TE LSP Count (sub-)TLV y y y [RFC5330] 24 remote AS number n y n [RFC5316] 25 IPv4 remote ASBR identifier n y n [RFC5316] 26 IPv6 remote ASBR identifier n y n [RFC5316] 27-249 Unassigned 250-254 Reserved for Cisco-specific exts 255 Reserved for future expansion
Further sub-TLVs may be defined in the future for inclusion in any of the TLVs 22, 141, or 222. The re-naming of the registry as above ensures that there is no accidental overlap of sub-TLV codepoints. The introduction of the columns within the registry clarify the use of the sub-TLVs.
Further sub-TLVs may be defined in the future for inclusion in any of the TLVs 22, 141, or 222. The re-naming of the registry as above ensures that there is no accidental overlap of sub-TLV codepoints. The introduction of the columns within the registry clarify the use of the sub-TLVs.
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV
6.3. Sub-TLVs for the IS-IS Router Capability TLV
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, of top-level TLV 242 (which is defined in [ISIS-CAP]) that have been registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 242:
This document defines the following new sub-TLV types, described in Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, of top-level TLV 242 (which is defined in [ISIS-CAP]) that have been registered in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 242:
Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ --------
11 IPv4 TE Router ID 4
12 IPv6 TE Router ID 16
Type Description Length ---- ------------------------------ -------- 11 IPv4 TE Router ID 4 12 IPv6 TE Router ID 16
7. Acknowledgments
7. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux, Christian Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler for their review and comments on this document.
The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Jean-Louis Le Roux, Christian Hopps, Les Ginsberg, and Hannes Gredler for their review and comments on this document.
8. References
8. References
8.1. Normative References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T.,
Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE:
Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209,
December 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[ISIS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP
and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[ISIS-CAP] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal,
Ed., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router
Information", RFC 4971, July 2007.
[ISIS-CAP] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Shen, N., Ed., and R. Aggarwal, Ed., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Advertising Router Information", RFC 4971, July 2007.
8.2. Informative References
8.2. Informative References
[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang, R., Ed., and J.-P. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS
Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005.
[INTER-AS-TE-REQ] Zhang, R., Ed., and J.-P. Vasseur, Ed., "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC 4216, November 2005.
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
[PD-PATH] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang,
"A Per-Domain Path Computation Method for
Establishing Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering (TE)
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152, February
2008.
[PD-PATH] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ayyangar, A., Ed., and R. Zhang, "A Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5152, February 2008.
[BRPC] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., JL. Le
Roux, "A Backward Recursive PCE-Based Computation
(BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Inter-Domain
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", Work in
Progress, April 2008.
[BRPC] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., JL. Le Roux, "A Backward Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", Work in Progress, April 2008.
[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC
4655, August 2006.
[PCE] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[ISIS-TE] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[ISIS-TE] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[ISIS-TE-V3] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and Bartlett, M., "IPv6
Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", Work in Progress,
June 2008.
[ISIS-TE-V3] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and Bartlett, M., "IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS", Work in Progress, June 2008.
[GMPLS-TE] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS
Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[GMPLS-TE] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, October 2008.
[BGP] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed.,
"A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
January 2006.
[BGP] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[GENINFO] L. Ginsberg., Previdi, S., and M. Shand,
"Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS", Work in
Progress, June 2008.
[GENINFO] L. Ginsberg., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "Advertising Generic Information in IS-IS", Work in Progress, June 2008.
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 5316 ISIS Extensions for Inter-AS TE December 2008
Authors' Addresses
Authors' Addresses
Mach (Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd. Hai-Dian District Beijing, 100085 P.R. China
Mach (Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd. Hai-Dian District Beijing, 100085 P.R. China
EMail: mach@huawei.com
EMail: mach@huawei.com
Renhai Zhang Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd. Hai-Dian District Beijing, 100085 P.R. China
Renhai Zhang Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd. Hai-Dian District Beijing, 100085 P.R. China
EMail: zhangrenhai@huawei.com
EMail: zhangrenhai@huawei.com
Xiaodong Duan China Mobile 53A, Xibianmennei Ave. Xunwu District Beijing, China
Xiaodong Duan China Mobile 53A, Xibianmennei Ave. Xunwu District Beijing, China
EMail: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com
EMail: duanxiaodong@chinamobile.com
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
Chen, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
