draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-10.txt		draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-11.txt
	Networking Working Group N. Shen		Networking Working Group N. Shen
	Internet-Draft Cisco Systems		Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
	Intended status: Standards Track S. Amante		Intended status: Standards Track S. Amante
	Expires: August 26, 2018 Apple, Inc.		Expires: January 3, 2019 Apple, Inc.
	M. Abrahamsson		M. Abrahamsson
	T-Systems Nordic		T-Systems Nordic
	February 22, 2018		July 2, 2018
	IS-IS Routing with Reverse Metric		IS-IS Routing with Reverse Metric
	draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-10		draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-11
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes a mechanism to allow IS-IS routing to quickly		This document describes a mechanism to allow IS-IS routing to quickly
	and accurately shift traffic away from either a point-to-point or		and accurately shift traffic away from either a point-to-point or
	multi-access LAN interface during network maintenance or other		multi-access LAN interface during network maintenance or other
	operational events. This is accomplished by signaling adjacent IS-IS		operational events. This is accomplished by signaling adjacent IS-IS
	neighbors with a higher reverse metric, i.e., the metric towards the		neighbors with a higher reverse metric, i.e., the metric towards the
	signaling IS-IS router.		signaling IS-IS router.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on August 26, 2018.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to 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
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 9, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 35 ¶
	The use of Reverse Metric does not alter IS-IS metric parameters		The use of Reverse Metric does not alter IS-IS metric parameters
	stored in a router's persistent provisioning database.		stored in a router's persistent provisioning database.
	Routers that receive a Reverse Metric TLV MAY send a syslog message		Routers that receive a Reverse Metric TLV MAY send a syslog message
	or SNMP trap, in order to assist in rapidly identifying the node in		or SNMP trap, in order to assist in rapidly identifying the node in
	the network that is advertising an IS-IS metric or Traffic		the network that is advertising an IS-IS metric or Traffic
	Engineering parameters different from that which is configured		Engineering parameters different from that which is configured
	locally on the device.		locally on the device.
			When the link TE metric is raised to (2^24 - 1) [RFC5817], either due
			to the reverse-metric mechanism or by explicit user configuration,
			this SHOULD immediately trigger the CSPF re-calculation to move the
			TE traffic away from that link. It is RECOMMENDED also that the CSPF
			does the immediate CSPF re-calculation when the TE metric is raised
			to (2^24 - 2) to be the last resort link.
	It is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a capability to		It is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a capability to
	disable any changes to a node's individual interface default metric		disable any changes to a node's individual interface default metric
	or Traffic Engineering parameters based upon receiving a properly		or Traffic Engineering parameters based upon receiving a properly
	formatted Reverse Metric TLVs.		formatted Reverse Metric TLVs.
	4. Security Considerations		4. Security Considerations
	The enhancement in this document makes it possible for one IS-IS		The enhancement in this document makes it possible for one IS-IS
	router to manipulate the IS-IS default metric and, optionally,		router to manipulate the IS-IS default metric and, optionally,
	Traffic Engineering parameters of adjacent IS-IS neighbors. Although		Traffic Engineering parameters of adjacent IS-IS neighbors. Although
	skipping to change at page 10, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 32 ¶
	Shah, Wes George, Danny McPherson, Ed Crabbe, Russ White, Robert		Shah, Wes George, Danny McPherson, Ed Crabbe, Russ White, Robert
	Razsuk, Tom Petch and Acee Lindem for their comments and		Razsuk, Tom Petch and Acee Lindem for their comments and
	contributions.		contributions.
	This document was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.		This document was produced using Marshall Rose's xml2rfc tool.
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative References		7.1. Normative References
	[I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext]
	Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS
	Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology", draft-shen-isis-spine-
	leaf-ext-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
	[ISO10589]		[ISO10589]
	ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing		ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
	information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with		information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
	the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network		the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
	Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002.		Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
	[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and		[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
	dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,		dual environments", RFC 1195, DOI 10.17487/RFC1195,
	December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.		December 1990, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
	skipping to change at page 11, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 15 ¶
	[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic		[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
	Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October		Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
	2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.		2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	7.2. Informative References		7.2. Informative References
			[I-D.shen-isis-spine-leaf-ext]
			Shen, N., Ginsberg, L., and S. Thyamagundalu, "IS-IS
			Routing for Spine-Leaf Topology", draft-shen-isis-spine-
			leaf-ext-03 (work in progress), March 2017.
	[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP		[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP
	Synchronization", RFC 5443, DOI 10.17487/RFC5443, March		Synchronization", RFC 5443, DOI 10.17487/RFC5443, March
	2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5443>.		2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5443>.
	[RFC5817] Ali, Z., Vasseur, JP., Zamfir, A., and J. Newton,		[RFC5817] Ali, Z., Vasseur, JP., Zamfir, A., and J. Newton,
	"Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic		"Graceful Shutdown in MPLS and Generalized MPLS Traffic
	Engineering Networks", RFC 5817, DOI 10.17487/RFC5817,		Engineering Networks", RFC 5817, DOI 10.17487/RFC5817,
	April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5817>.		April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5817>.
	[RFC5919] Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and B. Thomas,		[RFC5919] Asati, R., Mohapatra, P., Chen, E., and B. Thomas,
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	9 lines changed or deleted		16 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/