Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext
Networking Working Group N. Shen
Internet-Draft L. Ginsberg
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: March 5, 2020 S. Thyamagundalu
September 2, 2019
IS-IS Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-spine-leaf-ext-02
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism for routers and switches in a
Spine-Leaf type topology to have non-reciprocal Intermediate System
to Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing relationships between the
leafs and spines. The leaf nodes do not need to have the topology
information of other nodes and exact prefixes in the network. This
extension also has application in the Internet of Things (IoT).
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Spine-Leaf (SL) Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Topology Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Spine-Leaf TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Spine-Leaf TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Leaf-Set TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.2.1. Leaf-Set Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Advertising IPv4/IPv6 Reachability . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.4. Advertising Connection to RF-Leaf Node . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. Pure CLOS Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Implementation and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.1. CSNP PDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5.2. Leaf to Leaf connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.2.1. Local traffic only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.2.2. Transit traffic allowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5.3. Spine Node Hostname . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.4. IS-IS Reverse Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.5. Spine-Leaf Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.6. Other End-to-End Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.5.7. Address Family and Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5.8. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The IS-IS routing protocol defined by [ISO10589] has been widely
deployed in provider networks, data centers and enterprise campus
environments. In the data center and enterprise switching networks,
a Spine-Leaf topology is commonly used. This document describes a
mechanism where IS-IS routing can be optimized for a Spine-Leaf
topology.
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
In a Spine-Leaf topology, normally a leaf node connects to a number
of spine nodes. Data traffic going from one leaf node to another
leaf node needs to pass through one of the spine nodes. Also, the
decision to choose one of the spine nodes is usually part of equal
cost multi-path (ECMP) load sharing. The spine nodes can be
considered as gateway devices to reach destinations on other leaf
nodes. In this type of topology, the spine nodes have to know the
topology and routing information of the entire network, but the leaf
nodes only need to know how to reach the gateway devices to which are
the spine nodes they are uplinked.
This document describes the IS-IS Spine-Leaf extension that allows
the spine nodes to have all the topology and routing information,
while keeping the leaf nodes free of topology information other than
the default gateway routing information. The leaf nodes do not even
need to run a Shortest Path First (SPF) calculation since they have
no topology information.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Motivations
o The leaf nodes in a Spine-Leaf topology do not require complete
topology and routing information of the entire domain since their
forwarding decision is to use ECMP with spine nodes as default
gateways
o The spine nodes in a Spine-Leaf topology are richly connected to
leaf nodes, which introduces significant flooding duplication if
they flood all Link State PDUs (LSPs) to all the leaf nodes. It
saves both spine and leaf nodes' CPU and link bandwidth resources
if flooding is blocked to leaf nodes. For small Top of the Rack
(ToR) leaf switches in data centers, it is meaningful to prevent
full topology routing information and massive database flooding
through those devices.
o When a spine node advertises a topology change, every leaf node
connected to it will flood the update to all the other spine
nodes, and those spine nodes will further flood them to all the
leaf nodes, causing a O(n^2) flooding storm which is largely
redundant.
o Similar to some of the overlay technologies which are popular in
data centers, the edge devices (leaf nodes) may not need to
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
contain all the routing and forwarding information on the device's
control and forwarding planes. "Conversational Learning" can be
utilized to get the specific routing and forwarding information in
the case of pure CLOS topology and in the events of link and node
down.
o Small devices and appliances of Internet of Things (IoT) can be
considered as leafs in the routing topology sense. They have CPU
and memory constrains in design, and those IoT devices do not have
to know the exact network topology and prefixes as long as there
are ways to reach the cloud servers or other devices.
3. Spine-Leaf (SL) Extension
3.1. Topology Examples
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| | | | | |
| Spine1 +----+ Spine2 +- ......... -+ SpineN |
| | | | | |
+-+-+-+-++ ++-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
+------+ | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-----|-|-|------+ | | | | | | |
| | +--|-|-|--------+-|-|-----------------+ | | |
| | | | | | +---+ | | | | |
| | | | | | | +--|-|-------------------+ | |
| | | | | | | | | | +------+ +----+
| | | | | | | | | +--------------|----------+ |
| | | | | | | | +-------------+ | | |
| | | | | +----|--|----------------|--|--------+ | |
| | | | +------|--|--------------+ | | | | |
| | | +------+ | | | | | | | |
++--+--++ +-+-+--++ ++-+--+-+ ++-+--+-+
| Leaf1 |~~~~~~| Leaf2 | ........ | LeafX | | LeafY |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 1: A Spine-Leaf Topology
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
+---------+ +--------+
| Spine1 | | Spine2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-++
| | | | | | | |
| | | +-----------------|-|-|-|-+
| | +------------+ | | | | |
+--------+ +-+ | | | | | |
| +----------------------------+ | | | |
| | | +------------------+ | +----+
| | | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ +-+--+--+ +--+--+-+
| Leaf1 | | Leaf2 | | Leaf3 | | Leaf4 |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 2: A CLOS Topology
3.2. Applicability Statement
This extension assumes the network is a Spine-Leaf topology, and it
should not be applied in an arbitrary network setup. The spine nodes
can be viewed as the aggregation layer of the network, and the leaf
nodes as the access layer of the network. The leaf nodes use a load
sharing algorithm with spine nodes as nexthops in routing and
forwarding.
This extension works when the spine nodes are inter-connected, and it
works with a pure CLOS or Fat Tree topology based network where the
spines are NOT horizontally interconnected.
Although the example diagram in Figure 1 shows a fully meshed Spine-
Leaf topology, this extension also works in the case where they are
partially meshed. For instance, leaf1 through leaf10 may be fully
meshed with spine1 through spine5 while leaf11 through leaf20 is
fully meshed with spine4 through spine8, and all the spines are
inter-connected in a redundant fashion.
This extension can also work in multi-level spine-leaf topology. The
lower level spine node can be a 'leaf' node to the upper level spine
node. A spine-leaf 'Tier' can be exchanged with IS-IS hello packets
to allow tier X to be connected with tier X+1 using this extension.
Normally tier-0 will be the TOR routers and switches if provisioned.
This extension also works with normal IS-IS routing in a topology
with more than two layers of spine and leaf. For instance, in
example diagrams Figure 1 and Figure 2, there can be another Core
layer of routers/switches on top of the aggregation layer. From an
IS-IS routing point of view, the Core nodes are not affected by this
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
extension and will have the complete topology and routing information
just like the spine nodes. To make the network even more scalable,
the Core layer can operate as a level-2 IS-IS sub-domain while the
Spine and Leaf layers operate as stays at the level-1 IS-IS domain.
This extension assumes the link between the spine and leaf nodes are
point-to-point, or point-to-point over LAN [RFC5309]. The links
connecting among the spine nodes or the links between the leaf nodes
can be any type.
3.3. Spine-Leaf TLVs
This extension introduces two new TLVs, the Spine-Leaf TLV and the
Leaf-Set TLV. The Spine-Leaf TLV may be advertised in IS-IS Hello
(IIH) PDUs; the Leaf-Set TLV may be advertised in IS-IS Circuit
Scoped Link State PDUs (CS-LSP) [RFC7356]. They are used by both
spine and leaf nodes in this Spine-Leaf mechanism.
3.3.1. Spine-Leaf 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 | SL Flag |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of this TLV are defined as follows:
Type: 1 octet Suggested value 151 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 1 octet (2 + length of sub-TLVs).
SL Flags: 16 bits
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tier | Reserved |T|R|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Tier: A value from 0 to 15. It represents the spine-leaf
tier level. The value 15 is reserved to indicate the
tier level is unknown. This value is only valid when
the 'T' bit (see below) is set. If the 'T' bit is
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
clear, this value MUST be set to zero on transmission,
and it MUST be ignored on receipt.
L bit (0x01): Only leaf node sets this bit. If the L bit is
set in the SL flag, the node indicates it is in 'Leaf-
Mode'.
R bit (0x02): Only Spine node sets this bit. If the R bit is
set, the node indicates to the leaf neighbor that it
can be used as the default route gateway.
T bit (0x04): If set, the value in the "Tier" field (see
above) is valid.
3.3.2. Leaf-Set 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 | .. Optional Sub-TLVs
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+....
The Type is suggested value of 152 (to be assigned by IANA). This
TLV and associated Sub-TLVs MAY appear in CS-LSP PDUs. Multiple TLVs
MAY be sent.
3.3.2.1. Leaf-Set Sub-TLVs
If the data center topology is a pure CLOS or Fat Tree, there are no
link connections among the spine nodes. If we also assume there is
not another Core layer on top of the aggregation layer, then the
traffic from one leaf node to another may have a problem if there is
a link outage between a spine node and a leaf node. For instance, in
the diagram of Figure 2, if Leaf1 sends data traffic to Leaf3 through
Spine1 node, and the Spine1-Leaf3 link is down, the data traffic will
be dropped on the Spine1 node.
To address this issue spine and leaf nodes may use the sub-TLVs
defined below to obtain more specific reachability information.
Two Leaf-Set sub-TLVs are defined. The Leaf-Neighbors sub-TLV and
the Reachability-Req sub-TLV.
3.3.2.1.1. Leaf-Neighbors Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used by spine nodes to advertise the current set of
Leaf neighbors to Leaf nodes. The fields of this sub-TLV are defined
as follows:
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
Type: 1 octet Suggested value 1 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 1 octet MUST be a multiple of 6 octets.
Leaf-Neighbors A list of IS-IS System-IDs of the leaf node
neighbors of this spine node.
3.3.2.1.2. Reachability-Req Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV is used by leaf nodes to request the advertisement of
more specific prefix information from one or more selected spine
node(s). The list of leaf nodes in this sub-TLV reflects the current
set of leaf-nodes for which not all spine node neighbors have
indicated the presence of connectivity in the Leaf-Neighbors sub-TLV
(See Section 3.3.2.1.1). The fields of this sub-TLV are defined as
follows:
Type: 1 octet Suggested value 2 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 1 octet. It MUST be a multiple of 6 octets.
Leaf Nodes List of IS-IS System-IDs of leaf nodes for which
reachability information is being requested.
3.3.3. Advertising IPv4/IPv6 Reachability
In cases where connectivity between a leaf node and a spine node is
down, the leaf node MAY request reachability information from a spine
node as described in Section 3.3.2.1.2. The spine node utilizes TLVs
135 [RFC5305] and TLVs 236 [RFC5308] to advertise this information.
These TLVs MAY be included in CS-LSPs [RFC7356] sent from the spine
to the requesting leaf node.
3.3.4. Advertising Connection to RF-Leaf Node
For links between Spine and Leaf Nodes on which the Spine Node has
set the R-bit and the Leaf node has set the L-bit in their respective
Spine-Leaf TLVs, spine nodes MAY advertise the link with a bit in the
"link-attribute" sub-TLV [RFC5029] to indicate that this link is not
used for LSP flooding. This bit is named the Connect-to-RF-Leaf Node
bit. This information can be used by nodes computing a flooding
topology e.g., [DYNAMIC-FLOODING], to exclude the RF-Leaf nodes from
the computed flooding topology.
For links between Spine and Leaf Nodes on which the Spine Node has
set the R-bit and the Leaf node has set the L-bit in their respective
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
Spine-Leaf TLVs, leaf nodes MAY advertise the link with a bit in the
"link-attribute" sub-TLV [RFC5029] to indicate that this link is to a
Spine Node neighbor. This bit is named the Connect-to-RF-Spine Node
bit. This information can be used by leaf nodes when deciding
whether a leaf to leaf link can be used as an alternate default path
when a leaf node has no connectivity to any spines. See
Section 3.5.2.
3.4. Mechanism
Leaf nodes in a spine-leaf application using this extension are
provisioned with two attributes:
1)Tier level of 0. This indicates the node is a Leaf Node. The
value 0 is advertised in the Tier field of Spine-Leaf TLV defined
above.
2)Flooding reduction enabled/disabled. If flooding reduction is
enabled the L-bit is set to one in the Spine-Leaf TLV defined above
A spine node does not need explicit configuration. Spine nodes can
dynamically discover their tier level by computing the number of hops
to a leaf node. Until a spine node determines its tier level it MUST
advertise level 15 (unknown tier level) in the Spine-Leaf TLV defined
above. Each tier level can also be statically provisioned on the
node.
When a spine node receives an IIH which includes the Spine-Leaf TLV
with Tier level 0 and 'L' bit set, it labels the point-to-point
interface and adjacency to be a 'Reduced Flooding Leaf-Peer (RF-
Leaf)'. IIHs sent by a spine node on a link to an RF-Leaf include
the Spine-Leaf TLV with the 'R' bit set in the flags field. The 'R'
bit indicates to the RF-Leaf neighbor that the spine node can be used
as a default routing nexthop.
There is no change to the IS-IS adjacency bring-up mechanism for
Spine-Leaf peers.
A spine node blocks LSP flooding to RF-Leaf adjacencies, except for
the LSP PDUs in which the IS-IS System-ID matches the System-ID of
the RF-Leaf neighbor. This exception is needed since when the leaf
node reboots, the spine node needs to forward to the leaf node non-
purged LSPs from the RF-Leaf's previous incarnation.
Leaf nodes will perform IS-IS LSP flooding as normal to send the LSPs
over all of its IS-IS adjacencies. In the case of RF-Leafs only
self-originated LSPs will exist in its LSP database, and in the case
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
of leaf-leaf connections, there will be neighbor leaf nodes LSPs in
the LSP database in addition to the self-originated LSPs.
Spine nodes will receive all the LSP PDUs in the network, including
all the spine nodes and leaf nodes. It will perform Shortest Path
First (SPF) as a normal IS-IS node does. There is no change to the
route calculation and forwarding on the spine nodes.
The LSPs of a node only floods north bound towards the upper layer
spine nodes. The default route is generated with loadsharing also
towards the upper layer spine nodes.
RF-Leaf nodes do not have any LSP in the network except for its own.
Therefore there is no need to perform SPF calculation on the RF-Leaf
node. It only needs to download the default route with the nexthops
of those Spine Neighbors which have the 'R' bit set in the Spine-Leaf
TLV in IIH PDUs. IS-IS can perform equal cost or unequal cost load
sharing while using the spine nodes as nexthops. The aggregated
metric of the outbound interface and the 'Reverse Metric' [RFC8500]
can be used for this purpose.
3.4.1. Pure CLOS Topology
In a data center where the topology is pure CLOS or Fat Tree, there
is no interconnection among the spine nodes, and there is not another
Core layer above the aggregation layer with reachability to the leaf
nodes. When flooding reduction to RF-Leafs is in use, if the link
between a spine and a leaf goes down, there is then a possibility of
black holing the data traffic in the network.
As in the diagram Figure 2, if the link Spine1-Leaf3 goes down, there
needs to be a way for Leaf1, Leaf2 and Leaf4 to avoid the Spine1 if
the destination of data traffic is to Leaf3 node.
In the above example, the Spine1 and Spine2 are provisioned to
advertise the Leaf-Set sub-TLV of the Spine-Leaf TLV. Originally
both Spines will advertise Leaf1 through Leaf4 as their Leaf-Set.
When the Spine1-Leaf3 link is down, Spine1 will only have Leaf1,
Leaf2 and Leaf4 in its Leaf-Set. This allows the other leaf nodes to
know that Spine1 has lost connectivity to the leaf node of Leaf3.
Each RF-Leaf node can select another spine node to request for some
prefix information associated with the lost leaf node. In this
diagram of Figure 2, there are only two spine nodes (Spine-Leaf
topology can have more than two spine nodes in general). Each RF-
Leaf node can independently select a spine node for the leaf
information. The RF-Leaf nodes will include the Info-Req sub-TLV in
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
the Spine-Leaf TLV in hellos sent to the selected spine node, Spine2
in this case.
The spine node, upon receiving the request from one or more leaf
nodes, will find the IPv6/IPv4 prefixes advertised by the leaf nodes
listed in the Info-Req sub-TLV. The spine node will use the
mechanism defined in Section 3.3.2 to advertise these prefixes to the
RF-Leaf node. For instance, it will include the IPv4 loopback prefix
of leaf3 based on the policy configured or administrative tag
attached to the prefixes. When the leaf nodes receive the more
specific prefixes, they will install the advertised prefixes towards
the other spine nodes (Spine2 in this example).
For instance in the data center overlay scenario, when any IP
destination or MAC destination uses the leaf3's loopback as the
tunnel nexthop, the overlay tunnel from leaf nodes will only select
Spine2 as the gateway to reach leaf3 as long as the Spine1-Leaf3 link
is still down.
In cases where multiple links or nodes fail at the same time, the RF-
leaf node may need to send the Info-Req to multiple upper layer spine
nodes in order to obtain reachability information for all the
partially connected nodes.
This negative routing is more useful between tier 0 and tier 1 spine-
leaf levels in a multi-level spine-leaf topology when the reduced
flooding extension is in use. Nodes in tiers 1 or greater may have
much richer topology information and alternative paths.
3.5. Implementation and Operation
3.5.1. CSNP PDU
In Spine-Leaf extension, Complete Sequence Number PDUs (CSNP) do not
need to be transmitted over the Spine-Leaf link to an RF-Leaf. Some
IS-IS implementations send periodic CSNPs after the initial adjacency
bring-up over a point-to-point interface. There is no need for this
optimization here since the RF-Leaf does not need to receive any
other LSPs from the network, and the only LSPs transmitted across the
Spine-Leaf link are the leaf node LSPs.
Also in the graceful restart case[RFC5306], for the same reason,
there is no need to send the CSNPs over the Spine-Leaf interface to
an RF-Leaf. Spine nodes only need to set the SRMflag on the LSPs
belonging to the RF-Leaf that has restarted.
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
3.5.2. Leaf to Leaf connection
Leaf to leaf node links are useful in host redundancy cases in
switching networks. There are no flooding extensions required in
this case. Leaf node LSPs will be exchanged over this link using the
normal operation of the IS-IS Update process. In the example diagram
Figure 1, Leaf1 will receive Leaf2's LSPs and Leaf2 will receive
Leaf1's LSPs. Each of the Leaf nodes will in turn flood the LSPs
they receive from their leaf node neighbor to their spine neighbors.
Prefix reachability advertisements received from the leaf neighbor
will result in the installation of more specific routes using this
local Leaf-Leaf link. SPF will be performed in this case just like
when the entire network only involves with those two IS-IS nodes.
This does not affect the normal Spine-Leaf mechanism they perform
toward the spine nodes.
Leaf to leaf connections SHOULD be limited to a single leaf neighbor.
Two modes of operation for the Leaf-Leaf link are possible and are
described in the following sub-sections.
3.5.2.1. Local traffic only
The leaf node sets the 'overload' bit in its LSP PDU so that spine
nodes will not send traffic destined for the neighboring leaf node
via its leaf node neighbor. The Leaf-Leaf link will then be used
solely for local traffic between the two Leaf Nodes.
3.5.2.2. Transit traffic allowed
If a leaf node becomes disconnected from all spine nodes, it is
possible for spine nodes to route traffic destined for the
disconnected leaf node via its leaf node neighbor. However the leaf
to leaf link SHOULD be the link of last resort. To support this mode
the leaf nodes do NOT set the overload bit in their LSPs and they
advertise a high metric for the leaf to leaf link((2^24 - 2) is
recommended). This signals to the Spine Nodes that the leaf to leaf
link may be used for transit traffic, but also insures that it will
not be used unless the spine node has no other path to a given leaf
node.
When the leaf node is disconnected from all spine nodes it MAY
install a default route towards its leaf-node neighbor in support of
return traffic to the spine nodes. When doing so the leaf should
validate that its leaf neighbor has at least one spine neighbor.
This can be done by looking for the Connect-to-RF-Spine Node bit in
the Link Attributes sub-TLVs [RFC5029] advertised in the LSPs of its
leaf node neighbor.
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
3.5.3. Spine Node Hostname
This extension creates a non-reciprocal relationship between the
spine node and leaf node. The spine node will receive leaf's LSP and
will know the leaf's hostname, but the leaf does not have spine's
LSP. This extension allows the Dynamic Hostname TLV [RFC5301] to be
optionally included in spine's IIH PDU when sending to a 'Leaf-Peer'.
This is useful in troubleshooting cases.
3.5.4. IS-IS Reverse Metric
This metric is part of the aggregated metric for leaf's default route
installation with load sharing among the spine nodes. When a spine
node is in 'overload' condition, it should use the IS-IS Reverse
Metric TLV in IIH [RFC8500] to set this metric to maximum to
discourage the leaf using it as part of the loadsharing.
In some cases, certain spine nodes may have less bandwidth in link
provisioning or in real-time condition, and it can use this metric to
signal to the leaf nodes dynamically.
In other cases, such as when the spine node loses a link to a
particular leaf node, although it can redirect the traffic to other
spine nodes to reach that destination leaf node, but it MAY want to
increase this metric value if the inter-spine connection becomes over
utilized, or the latency becomes an issue.
3.5.5. Spine-Leaf Traffic Engineering
Besides using the IS-IS Reverse Metric by the spine nodes to affect
the traffic pattern for leaf default gateway towards multiple spine
nodes, the IPv6/IPv4 Info-Advertise sub-TLVs can be selectively used
by traffic engineering controllers to move data traffic around the
data center fabric to alleviate congestion and to reduce the latency
of a certain class of traffic pairs. By injecting more specific leaf
node prefixes, it will allow the spine nodes to attract more traffic
on some underutilized links.
3.5.6. Other End-to-End Services
Losing the topology information will have an impact on some of the
end-to-end network services, for instance, MPLS TE or end-to-end
segment routing. Some other mechanisms such as those described in
PCE [RFC4655] based solution may be used. In this Spine-Leaf
extension, the role of the leaf node is not too much different from
the multi-level IS-IS routing while the level-1 IS-IS nodes only have
the default route information towards the node which has the Attach
Bit (ATT) set, and the level-2 backbone does not have any topology
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
information of the level-1 areas. The exact mechanism to enable
certain end-to-end network services in Spine-Leaf network is outside
the scope of this document.
3.5.7. Address Family and Topology
IPv6 Address families[RFC5308], Multi-Topology (MT)[RFC5120] and
Multi-Instance (MI)[RFC8202] information is carried over the IIH PDU.
Since the goal is to simplify the operation of IS-IS network, for the
simplicity of this extension, the Spine-Leaf mechanism is applied the
same way to all the address families, MTs and MIs.
3.5.8. Migration
For this extension to be deployed in existing networks, a simple
migration scheme is needed. To support any leaf node in the network,
all the involved spine nodes have to be upgraded first. So the first
step is to migrate all the involved spine nodes to support this
extension, then the leaf nodes can be enabled with 'Leaf-Mode' one by
one. No flag day is needed for the extension migration.
4. IANA Considerations
Two new TLV codepoint is defined in this document and needs to be
assigned by IANA from the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints" registry. They are
referred to as the Spine-Leaf TLV and the suggested value is 151, and
Leaf-Set TLV and suggested value is 152. The Spine-Leaf TLV is only
to be optionally inserted in the IIH PDU, and the Leaf-Set TLV is
only to be optionally inserted in Circuit Flooding Scoped LSP PDU.
IANA is also requested to maintain the SL-flag bit values in the
Spine-Leaf TLV, and 0x01, 0x02 and 0x04 bits are defined in this
document.
Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge CS-LSP
----- --------------------- --- --- --- ----- -------
151 Spine-Leaf y n n n n
152 Leaf-Set n n n n y
This document also proposes to have the Dynamic Hostname TLV, already
assigned as code 137, to be allowed in IIH PDU.
Value Name IIH LSP SNP Purge
----- --------------------- --- --- --- -----
137 Dynamic Name y y n y
This documents requests IANA to create a new registry under the IS-IS
TLV Codepoints registry. The suggested name of the registry is "Sub-
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
TLVs for TLV 152 (Leaf-Set TLV)". Initial contents of the new
registry is defined below:
Value Name
----- ---------------------
0 Reserved
1 Leaf Neighbors
2 Reachability Req
3-255 Unassigned
This document also requests that IANA allocate from the registry of
link-attribute two new bit values for sub-TLV 19 of TLV 22 (Extended
IS reachability TLV).
Value Name Reference
----- ----- ----------
0x4 Connect to RF-Leaf Node This document
0x8 Connect to RF-Spine Node This document
5. Security Considerations
Security concerns for IS-IS are addressed in [ISO10589], [RFC5304],
[RFC5310], and [RFC7602]. This extension does not raise additional
security issues.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tony Przygienda and Lukas Krattiger
for their discussion and contributions. The authors also would like
to thank Acee Lindem, Russ White, Christian Hopps and Aijun Wang for
their review and comments of this document.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ISO10589]
ISO "International Organization for Standardization",
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC
10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
[RFC5029] Vasseur, JP. and S. Previdi, "Definition of an IS-IS Link
Attribute Sub-TLV", RFC 5029, DOI 10.17487/RFC5029,
September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5029>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301,
October 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5301>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5306] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS",
RFC 5306, DOI 10.17487/RFC5306, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5306>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[RFC7602] Chunduri, U., Lu, W., Tian, A., and N. Shen, "IS-IS
Extended Sequence Number TLV", RFC 7602,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7602, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7602>.
[RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IS-IS SL Extension September 2019
[RFC8500] Shen, N., Amante, S., and M. Abrahamsson, "IS-IS Routing
with Reverse Metric", RFC 8500, DOI 10.17487/RFC8500,
February 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8500>.
7.2. Informative References
[DYNAMIC-FLOODING]
Li, T., "Dynamic Flooding on Dense Graphs", draft-li-
dynamic-flooding (work in progress), 2018.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5309] Shen, N., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Point-to-Point Operation
over LAN in Link State Routing Protocols", RFC 5309,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5309, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5309>.
Authors' Addresses
Naiming Shen
Cisco Systems
560 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
US
Email: naiming@cisco.com
Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
821 Alder Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
US
Email: ginsberg@cisco.com
Sanjay Thyamagundalu
Email: tsanjay@gmail.com
Shen, et al. Expires March 5, 2020 [Page 17]