1 / 4

Enhancing IS-IS Protocol with Node Administrative Tagging for Path Constraints

This document outlines the proposed enhancements to the IS-IS protocol through the introduction of node administrative tags. Node colors will be utilized to effectively describe path constraints, such as MPLS and IP paths. The aim is to impose specific routing restrictions based on node properties, such as hardware capabilities, vendor equipment, and software versions. Through dedicated Tag-Length-Value (TLV) structures, the proposal addresses community feedback on conserving TLV space while maintaining consistent tagging mechanisms across protocols.

makara
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing IS-IS Protocol with Node Administrative Tagging for Path Constraints

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Advertising Per-nodeAdmin Tags in IS-ISdraft-psarkar-isis-node-admin-tag-00 PushpasisSarkarpsarkar@juniper.net ShraddhaHegdeshraddha@juniper.net Harish Raghuveerhraghuveer@juniper.net Hannes Gredler hannes@juniper.net StephaneLitkowskistephane.litkowski@orange.com Bruno Decraenebruno.decraene@orange.com

  2. Rationale • Node color is used for describing path constraints • IP paths • MPLS paths • there is a category of path constraints which requires that a certain path should or should not be routed over a node with specific properties. • go over the packet-optical super-core • don't go over any other PE router • don't go over any other ASBR (hot potato) • don't go over equipment from vendor X • don’t go over nodes with limited hardware capabilities (e.g. LB) • don't go over equipment which is running software version x.y.z • de-prefer nodes which have not good hardware based latency measurements

  3. Per-Node Admin Tag TLV 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Tag #1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Tag #2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Administrative Tag #N | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ • Dedicated TLV • Unbound List of 32-Bit node colors • Received community feedback that for conserving TLV # space, this should go under Router-Cap TLV #242.

  4. What about re-using existing protocols ? • Prefix tags as per RFC5130 ? • No bijectionbetween a node (router-ID) and some prefix (which carries the tags) • In fact those are different name-spaces • What about L1L2 case for Prefix leaking ? • How to differentiate leaked prefixes vs. self-originated prefixes ? • No prefix tagging mechanism for OSPF yet • Looking for consistency across protocols • For MPLS paths most implementations of Traffic Engineering Database (TED) schema support • Nodes • Links • But not Prefixes

More Related