Internet Draft Network Working Group Dave Katz INTERNET DRAFT Juniper Networks, Inc. Expiration Date: January 2001 Rajesh Saluja Nortel Networks, Inc. July 2000 Three-Way Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Abstract The IS-IS routing protocol (ISO 10589) requires reliable protocols at the link layer for point-to-point links. As a result, it does not use a three-way handshake when establishing adjacencies on point-to-point media. This paper defines an backward-compatible extension to the protocol that provides for a three-way handshake. It is fully interoperable with systems that do not support the extension. Additionally, the extension allows the robust operation of more than 256 point-to-point links on a single router. This extension has been implemented by multiple router vendors; this paper is provided as information to the Internet community in order to allow interoperable implementations to be built by other vendors. D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 1] Internet Draft draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt July 2000 1.0 Introduction The IS-IS protocol [1] assumes certain requirements stated in ISO 10589 (section 6.7.2) for the operation of IS-IS over point-to-point links and hence provides only a two-way handshake when establishing adjacencies on point-to-point links. The protocol does not operate correctly if these subnetwork requirements for point-to-point links are not met. The basic mechanism defined in the standard is that each side declares the other side to be reachable if a Hello packet is heard from it. Once this occurs, each side then sends a Complete Sequence Number PDU (CSNP) to trigger database synchronization. Three failure modes are known. First, if the link goes down and then comes back up, or one of the systems restarts, and the CSNP packet is lost, and the network has a cut set of one through the link, the link state databases on either side of the link will not synchronize for a full LSP refresh period (up to eighteen hours). A second, more serious failure, is that if the link fails in only one direction, the failure will only be detected by one of the systems. Normally, this is not a serious issue; only one of the two systems will announce the adjacency in its link state packets, and the SPF algorithm will thus ignore the link. However, if there are two parallel links between systems and one of them fails in one direction, SPF will still calculate paths between the two systems, and the system that does not notice the failure will attempt to pass traffic down the failed link (in the direction that does not work). In addition, SONET links bring a third issue, which is that when SONET protection is used, a system may receive packets that are actually destined for a different system (or a different link on the same system). The receiving system may end up thinking that it has an adjacency with the remote system when in fact the remote system is adjacent with a third system. The solution proposed here ensures correct operation of the protocol over unreliable point-to-point links. As part of the solution to the three-way handshaking issue, a method is defined for supporting more than 256 point-to-point interfaces which is more robust than the ad hoc methods currently in use. 2.0 Overview of Extensions 2.1 Handshaking The intent is to provide a three-way handshake for point-to-point adjacency establishment in an backward compatible fashion. This is D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 2] Internet Draft draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt July 2000 done by providing an optional mechanism that allows each system to report its adjacency state; this allows a system to only declare an adjacency to be up if it knows that the other system is receiving its IS-IS Hello (IIH) packets. In addition, the neighbor's system ID and (newly-defined) extended circuit ID are reported in order to detect the case where the same stream is being received by multiple systems (only one of which can talk back). The mechanism is quite similar to the one defined in the Netware Link Services Protocol (NLSP) [2], a variant of IS-IS used for routing IPX traffic. The difference between this mechanism and the one used in NLSP is the location where the information is carried (NLSP uses two of the reserved bits in the IIH header, whereas this solution adds a separate option to the IIH), and the presence of the neighbor's system ID and circuit ID. In theory, using the reserved header bits should be backward compatible, since systems are supposed to ignore them. However, it was felt that this was risky, as the use of untested mechanisms such as this have led to problems in the past in other protocols. New option codes, on the other hand, have been demonstrated to work properly, as the deployment of Integrated IS-IS for IP [3] has done exactly this. It is also worth noting that the encoding used in the NLSP solution does not lend itself to backward compatibility. The new mechanism only comes into play when the remote system includes the new option in its IIH packet; if the option is not present, it is assumed that the system does not support the new mechanism, and so the old procedures are used. 2.2 More Than 256 Interfaces The IS-IS specification has an implicit limit of 256 interfaces, as constrained by the eight bit Circuit ID field carried in various packets. Moderately clever implementors have realized that the only true constraint is that of 256 LAN interfaces, and for that matter only 256 LAN interfaces for which a system is the Designated IS. This is because the only place that the circuit ID is advertised in LSPs is in the pseudonode LSP ID. Implementors have treated the point-to-point Circuit ID number space as being independent from that of the LAN interfaces, since these Circuit IDs appear only in IIH PDUs and are only used for detection of a change in identity at the other end of a link. More than 256 point-to-point interfaces have been supported by sending the same circuit ID on multiple interfaces. This reduces the robustness of the ID change detection algorithm, since it would then be possible to switch links between interfaces on a system without detecting the D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 3] Internet Draft draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt July 2000 change. Since the Circuit ID is an integral part of the new handshaking mechanism, a backward compatible mechanism for expanding the circuit ID number space is included in this specification. 3.0 Details 3.1 Syntax A new IS-IS Option type, "Point-to-Point Adjacency State", is defined: Type = 0xF0 (decimal 240) Length = 5 to 17 octets Value: Adjacency State (one octet): 0 = Up 1 = Initializing 2 = Down Extended Local Circuit ID (four octets) Neighbor System ID if known (zero to eight octets) Neighbor Extended Local Circuit ID (four octets, if Neighbor System ID is present) Any system that supports this mechanism shall include this option in its Point-to-Point IIH packets. Any system that does not understand this option will ignore it, and (of course) will not include it in its own IIH packets. Any system that is able to process this option shall follow the procedures below. 3.2 Elements of Procedure The new handshake procedure is added to the IS-IS point-to-point IIH state machine after the PDU acceptance tests have been performed. The existing procedures are only executed if the neighbor is in the proper state for the adjacency to come up. Although the extended circuit ID is only used in the context of the three-way handshake, it is worth noting that it effectively protects against the unlikely event where a link is moved to another interface on a system that has the same local circuit ID, as the received PDUs will be ignored (via the checks defined below) and the existing D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 4] Internet Draft draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt July 2000 adjacency will fail. Add a clause e) to the end of section 8.2.3: The IS shall include the Point-to-Point Adjacency State option in the transmitted Point-to-Point IIH PDU. The current state of the adjacency with its neighbor on the link (as defined in section 8.2.4.1.1) shall be reported in the Adjacency State field. If no adjacency exists, the state shall be reported as Down. The Extended Local Circuit ID field shall contain a value assigned by this IS when the circuit is created. This value shall be unique among all the circuits of this Intermediate System. The value is not necessarily related to that carried in the Local Circuit ID field of the IIH PDU. If the system ID and Extended Local Circuit ID of the neighboring system are known (in state Initializing or Up), the neighbor's system ID shall be reported in the Neighbor System ID field, and the neighbor's Extended Local Circuit ID shall be reported in the Neighbor Extended Local Circuit ID field. Add a section 8.2.4.1.1, Three-Way Handshake, immediately prior to section 8.2.4.2: A received Point-to-Point IIH PDU may or may not contain the Point-to-Point Adjacency State option. If it does not, the link is assumed to be functional in both directions, and the procedures described in section 8.2.4.2 are followed. If the option is present, the Neighbor System ID and Neighbor Extended Local Circuit ID fields, if present, shall be examined. If they are present, and the system ID contained therein does not match the local system's ID, or the extended circuit ID does not match the local system's extended circuit ID, the PDU shall be discarded and no further action is taken. If the Neighbor System ID and Neighbor Extended Local Circuit ID fields match those of the local system, or are not present, the procedures described in section 8.2.4.2 are followed with following changes: a) In section 8.2.4.2 a and b, the action "Up" from state tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 may create new adjacency but the state of the adjacency will be Down. D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 5] Internet Draft draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt July 2000 b) If the action taken from section 8.2.4.2 a or b is "Up" or "Accept", the IS shall perform the action indicated by the new state table below, based on the current adjacency state and the received state value from the option. (Note that the procedure works properly if neither field is ever included. This provides backward compatibility to an earlier version of this option.) Received State Down Initializing Up ------------------------------------------------- Down | Initialize Up Down | Adj Initializing | Initialize Up Up State | Up | Initialize Accept Accept If the new action is "Down", an adjacencyStateChange(Down) event is generated with the reason "Neighbor restarted" and the adjacency shall be deleted. If the new action is "Initialize", the adjacency state shall be set to "Initializing". If the new action is "Up", an adjacencyStateChange(Up) event is generated. c) Skip section 8.2.4.2 c and d. d) If the new action is "Initialize", "Up" or "Accept", follow section 8.2.4.2 e. 4.0 References [1] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)," ISO/IEC 10589:1992. [2] "Netware Link Services Protocol Specification, Version 1.0", Novell, Inc., February 1994. [3] Callon, R., "OSI IS-IS for IP and Dual Environment," RFC 1195, December 1990. D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 6] Internet Draft draft-ietf-isis-3way-03.txt July 2000 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Tony Li, Henk Smit, Naiming Shen, Dave Ward, and Jeff Learman for their contributions to this document. Author's Addresses: Dave Katz Juniper Networks 385 Ravendale Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 USA Phone: +1 650 526 8073 Email: dkatz@juniper.net Rajesh Saluja Nortel Networks 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 USA Phone: +1 978 288 7791 Email: rsaluja@nortelnetworks.com D. Katz, R. Saluja Expires January 2001 [Page 7]