Difference between revisions of "RFC6233"

From RFC-Wiki
imported>Admin
(Created page with " Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Li Request for Comments: 6233 L. Ginsberg Updates: 3563, 5304, 53...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                            T. Li
 
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                            T. Li
 
Request for Comments: 6233                                  L. Ginsberg
 
Request for Comments: 6233                                  L. Ginsberg
Line 10: Line 4:
 
Category: Standards Track                                      May 2011
 
Category: Standards Track                                      May 2011
 
ISSN: 2070-1721
 
ISSN: 2070-1721
 
  
 
               IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges
 
               IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges
  
Abstract
+
'''Abstract'''
  
 
IANA maintains the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.  This registry
 
IANA maintains the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry.  This registry
Line 23: Line 16:
 
are permissible in purges and updates the rules for generating and
 
are permissible in purges and updates the rules for generating and
 
processing purges in the presence of authentication.  This document
 
processing purges in the presence of authentication.  This document
updates [[RFC3563|RFC 3563]], [[RFC5304|RFC 5304]], and [[RFC5310|RFC 5310]].
+
updates RFC 3563, RFC 5304, and RFC 5310.
  
Status of This Memo
+
'''Status of This Memo'''
  
 
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Line 33: Line 26:
 
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of [[RFC5741|RFC 5741]].
+
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
  
 
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
Line 39: Line 32:
 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233.
 
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233.
  
Copyright Notice
+
'''Copyright Notice'''
  
 
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
 
document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
document authors.  All rights reserved.
  
This document is subject to [[BCP78|BCP 78]] and the IETF Trust's Legal
+
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
 
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
 
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
 
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Line 53: Line 46:
 
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 
described in the Simplified BSD License.
 
described in the Simplified BSD License.
 
 
 
 
  
 
== Introduction ==
 
== Introduction ==
Line 70: Line 59:
 
carried within the LSP.
 
carried within the LSP.
  
Subsequent enhancements to IS-IS, such as [RFC5304] [RFC5310], amend
+
Subsequent enhancements to IS-IS, such as [[[RFC5304]]] [[[RFC5310]]], amend
 
the process of generating a purge and allow the inclusion of certain
 
the process of generating a purge and allow the inclusion of certain
 
TLVs in purges.
 
TLVs in purges.
Line 78: Line 67:
 
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
document are to be interpreted as described in [[[RFC2119]]].
  
 
== Registry Changes ==
 
== Registry Changes ==
  
 
This document extends the current "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry,
 
This document extends the current "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry,
defined in [RFC3563], to record the set of TLVs that MAY be found in
+
defined in [[[RFC3563]]], to record the set of TLVs that MAY be found in
 
purges.  All other TLVs MUST NOT appear in purges.  This will serve
 
purges.  All other TLVs MUST NOT appear in purges.  This will serve
 
as an aid to subsequent documents, which can then refer to the
 
as an aid to subsequent documents, which can then refer to the
Line 92: Line 81:
 
The purge status defined for a given TLV applies to all sub-TLVs
 
The purge status defined for a given TLV applies to all sub-TLVs
 
defined for that TLV.
 
defined for that TLV.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
== Purges and Authentication ==
 
== Purges and Authentication ==
  
Previous documents on authentication [RFC5304] [RFC5310] required
+
Previous documents on authentication [[[RFC5304]]] [[[RFC5310]]] required
 
that an IS only accept a purge if it only contained the
 
that an IS only accept a purge if it only contained the
 
Authentication TLV.
 
Authentication TLV.
Line 112: Line 93:
 
in a purge.  An implementation MUST NOT accept a purge that contains
 
in a purge.  An implementation MUST NOT accept a purge that contains
 
a TLV not listed in the registry unless the purge also contains the
 
a TLV not listed in the registry unless the purge also contains the
Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV [RFC6232].  Purges that are
+
Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV [[[RFC6232]]].  Purges that are
 
accepted MUST be propagated without removal of TLVs.  If multiple
 
accepted MUST be propagated without removal of TLVs.  If multiple
 
purges are received for the same LSP, then the implementation MAY
 
purges are received for the same LSP, then the implementation MAY
Line 147: Line 128:
  
 
This document introduces no new security issues.
 
This document introduces no new security issues.
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
== Normative References ==
 
== Normative References ==
Line 162: Line 137:
 
             ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
 
             ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
  
[RFC2119]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+
[[[RFC2119]]]    Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", [[BCP14|BCP 14]], [[RFC2119|RFC 2119]], March 1997.
+
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
  
[RFC3563]    Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
+
[[[RFC3563]]]    Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF
 
             and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
 
             and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
 
             (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
 
             (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
             [[RFC3563|RFC 3563]], July 2003.
+
             RFC 3563, July 2003.
  
[RFC5304]    Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
+
[[[RFC5304]]]    Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
             Authentication", [[RFC5304|RFC 5304]], October 2008.
+
             Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
  
[RFC5310]    Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
+
[[[RFC5310]]]    Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
 
             and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
 
             and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
             Authentication", [[RFC5310|RFC 5310]], February 2009.
+
             Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009.
  
[RFC6232]    Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge
+
[[[RFC6232]]]    Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge
             Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", [[RFC6232|RFC 6232]],
+
             Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232,
 
             May 2011.
 
             May 2011.
  
Line 190: Line 165:
  
  
 
  
 
Les Ginsberg
 
Les Ginsberg
Line 199: Line 173:
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
[[Category:Standards Track]]
 
[[Category:Standards Track]]

Revision as of 07:53, 1 October 2020

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Li Request for Comments: 6233 L. Ginsberg Updates: 3563, 5304, 5310 Cisco Systems, Inc. Category: Standards Track May 2011 ISSN: 2070-1721

              IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges

Abstract

IANA maintains the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. This registry documents which TLVs can appear in different types of IS-IS Protocol Data Units (PDUs), but does not document which TLVs can be found in zero Remaining Lifetime Link State PDUs (LSPs), a.k.a. purges. This document extends the existing registry to record the set of TLVs that are permissible in purges and updates the rules for generating and processing purges in the presence of authentication. This document updates RFC 3563, RFC 5304, and RFC 5310.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6233.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2011 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.

Introduction

The IS-IS [ISO-10589] routing protocol maintains a link state database of the topology of its routing domain by flooding a set of Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs). When the protocol no longer needs the information stored in an LSP, it uses the purge mechanism to cause the Intermediate Systems (ISs) in its domain to discard the information contained in the LSP. The process for generating purges can be found in Section 7.3.16.4 of [ISO-10589]. This process retains only the LSP header, discarding any TLVs that had been carried within the LSP.

Subsequent enhancements to IS-IS, such as [[[RFC5304]]] [[[RFC5310]]], amend the process of generating a purge and allow the inclusion of certain TLVs in purges.

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 [[[RFC2119]]].

Registry Changes

This document extends the current "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry, defined in [[[RFC3563]]], to record the set of TLVs that MAY be found in purges. All other TLVs MUST NOT appear in purges. This will serve as an aid to subsequent documents, which can then refer to the registry as the definitive list of the TLVs allowed in purges. This will also act as an aid to implementers, providing them with an easily accessible compendium of allowable TLVs.

The purge status defined for a given TLV applies to all sub-TLVs defined for that TLV.

Purges and Authentication

Previous documents on authentication [[[RFC5304]]] [[[RFC5310]]] required that an IS only accept a purge if it only contained the Authentication TLV.

This document updates and generalizes that behavior as follows: an implementation that implements authentication MUST NOT accept a purge that contains any TLV listed in the registry that is not acceptable in a purge. An implementation MUST NOT accept a purge that contains a TLV not listed in the registry unless the purge also contains the Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV [[[RFC6232]]]. Purges that are accepted MUST be propagated without removal of TLVs. If multiple purges are received for the same LSP, then the implementation MAY propagate any one of the purges.

If an implementation that implements authentication accepts a purge that does not include the POI TLV and it chooses to insert the POI TLV, it MUST also recompute authentication.

ISs MUST NOT accept LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime that contain the POI TLV.

Purge generation is updated as follows: an implementation that implements authentication generates a purge by first removing any TLVs that are not listed in the registry as being acceptable in purges. The POI TLV MUST be added. Then any other TLVs that MAY be in purges, as shown by the registry, MAY be added. Finally, authentication, if any, is added.

IANA Considerations

IANA has modified the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry by adding a column in the registry for 'Purge'. A 'y' in this column indicates that the TLV for this row MAY be found in a purge. An 'n' in this column indicates that the TLV for this row MUST NOT be found in a purge.

The 'Purge' column should initially contain a 'y' for TLV type 10 (Authentication) and for TLV type 137 (Dynamic hostname). All other entries in this column should have an 'n'. Other additions to this registry should explicitly specify their value for this column.

Security Considerations

This document introduces no new security issues.

Normative References

[ISO-10589] ISO, "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.

[[[RFC2119]]] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate

            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[[[RFC3563]]] Zinin, A., "Cooperative Agreement Between the ISOC/IETF

            and ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1/Sub Committee 6
            (JTC1/SC6) on IS-IS Routing Protocol Development",
            RFC 3563, July 2003.

[[[RFC5304]]] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic

            Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.

[[[RFC5310]]] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,

            and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
            Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009.

[[[RFC6232]]] Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge

            Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232,
            May 2011.

Authors' Addresses

Tony Li Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 USA

EMail: [email protected]

Les Ginsberg Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 USA

EMail: [email protected]