Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-03

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lsr WG)
Last updated 2020-09-16 (latest revision 2020-07-26)
Replaces draft-ginsberg-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Christian Hopps
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-02-13)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48-DONE
Details
LSR Working Group                                            L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft                                                  P. Wells
Updates: 5305 6232 (if approved)                           Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                                   T. Li
Expires: January 27, 2021                                Arista Networks
                                                           T. Przygienda
                                                                S. Hegde
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                           July 26, 2020

                     Invalid TLV Handling in IS-IS
                   draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv-03

Abstract

   Key to the extensibility of the Intermediate System to Intermediate
   System (IS-IS) protocol has been the handling of unsupported and/or
   invalid Type/Length/Value (TLV) tuples.  Although there are explicit
   statements in existing specifications, deployment experience has
   shown that there are inconsistencies in the behavior when a TLV which
   is disallowed in a particular Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is received.

   This document discusses such cases and makes the correct behavior
   explicit in order to ensure that interoperability is maximized.

   This document updates RFC5305 and RFC6232.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

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

Ginsberg, et al.        Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       draft-ietf-lsr-isis-invalid-tlv           July 2020

   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 January 27, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  TLV Codepoints Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  TLV Acceptance in PDUs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Handling of Disallowed TLVs in Received PDUs other than
           LSP Purges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Special Handling of  Disallowed TLVs in Received LSP
           Purges  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Applicability to sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Correction to POI TLV Registry Entry  . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  TLV Validation and LSP Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocol
   [ISO10589] utilizes Type/Length/Value (TLV) encoding for all content
   in the body of Protocol Data Units (PDUs).  New extensions to the
   protocol are supported by defining new TLVs.  In order to allow
   protocol extensions to be deployed in a backwards compatible way an
   implementation is required to ignore TLVs that it does not

Ginsberg, et al.        Expires January 27, 2021                [Page 2]
Show full document text