IETF103 IS-IS V6/MT Deployment Considerations draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-01 Uma Chunduri [Huawei USA] Jeff Tantsura [Apstra] LSR WG,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MPLS Multiple Topology Support draft-zhao-mpls-ldp-multiple-topology-01 draft-zhao-mpls-rsvp-te-multiple-topology-01 IETF 80 – Prague.
Advertisements

OSPF WG - IETF 66 OSPF Protocol Evolution WG Re-Charter Acee Lindem/Cisco Systems.
1 Address Selection, Failure Detection and Recovery in MULTI6 draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt Multi6 Design Team -- Jari Arkko, Marcelo Bagnulo,
PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-01
IPv6 Home Networking Architecture - update IETF homenet WG Interim meeting Philadelphia, 6 th Oct 2011 draft-chown-homenet-arch-00.
TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) March 11 th 2010 David Bond University of New Hampshire: InterOperability.
Protocol Topology Support for IS-IS Kay Noguchi draft-ietf-noguchi-isis-protocol-topology-01.txt 56th IETF San Francisco, CA, USA March 18, 2003.
IGP Multicast Architecture Lucy Yong, Weiguo Hao, Donald Eastlake Andrew Qu, Jon Hudson, Uma Chunduri November 2014 Honolulu USA draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-mutlicast-arch-00.
BGP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
1 IETF 78: NETEXT Working Group IPSec/IKEv2 Access Link Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 IPSec/IKEv2-based Access Link Support in Proxy Mobile IPv6 Sri Gundavelli.
IETF 81: V6OPS Working Group – Proxy Mobile IPv6 – Address Reservations 1 Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifier for Proxy Mobile IPv6 Sri Gundavelli (Cisco)
Guidance for Running Multiple IPv6 Prefixes (draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes-02) Bing Liu, Sheng Jiang (Speaker), Yang Bo IETF91
IPv6 Site-Local Discussion Bob Hinden & Margaret Wasserman IETF 56 San Francisco March 2003.
57 th IETF VIENNA draft-sheng-ppvpn-isis-bgp-mpls vpn-01.txt 57 th IETF meeting IS-IS as the PE/CE Protocol in BGP/MPLS VPN draft-sheng-ppvpn-isis-bgp-mpls-00.txt.
OSPF WG – IETF 67 OSPF WG Document Status or “You can bring a Horse to Water …” Rohit Dube/Consultant Acee Lindem/Cisco Systems.
OSPF WG – IETF 69 - Chicago OSPF WG Document Abhay Roy/Cisco Systems Acee Lindem/Redback Networks.
V6OPS WG – IETF #85 IPv6 for 3GPP Cellular Hosts draft-korhonen-v6ops-rfc3316bis-00 Jouni Korhonen, Jari Arkko, Teemu Savolainen, Suresh Krishnan.
Pseudo-Wire Protection Ping Pan IETF 63.
1 ipv6-node-02.PPT/ 18 November 2002 / John Loughney IETF 55 IPv6 Working Group IPv6 Node Requirements draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-02.txt John Loughney.
Draft-ietf-pim-port-03 wglc. WGLC responses Thomas suggested a long list of changes, mostly editorial –I believe I addressed all Dimitri also had comments.
Multicast Routing Optimization Juan-Carlos Zúñiga Luis M. Contreras Carlos J. Bernardos Seil Jeon Younghan Kim MULTIMOB WG, July
Extended procedures and Considerations for Loop Free Alternatives draft-chunduri-rtgwg-lfa-extended-procedures-01 Uma Chunduri Ericsson Inc. Jeff Tantsura.
OIF Liaison on Routing IETF 75 – Stockholm – Jul ‘09 L. Ong (Ciena)
Draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospf-extension-03 draft-psenak-ospf-segment-routing-ospfv3-extension-00 IETF 88, November 3-8, 2013 P. Psenak, S.Previdi,
Communicating Prefix Cost to Mobile Nodes (draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-01) IETF 93 Prague.
Connecting MPLS-SPRING Islands over IP Networks
Update on Advertising L2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in IS-IS
Zhenbin Li, Li Zhang(Huawei Technologies)
Thierry Ernst (INRIA and WIDE) Hesham Soliman (Ericsson)
Tomohiro Otani Kenji Kumaki Satoru Okamoto Wataru Imajuku
Multi-Instances ISIS Extension draft-ietf-isis-mi-08.txt
IETF 55 IPv6 Working Group IPv6 Node Requirements
Softwire Mesh Solution Framework
Multi Topology Routing (MTR) for OSPF
SDN based DMM ietf Hui Deng.
ISIS Route Tag sub-TLV draft-ietf-isis-admin-tags-02.txt
Dave Thaler A Comparison of Mobility-Related Protocols: MIP6,SHIM6, and HIP draft-thaler-mobility-comparison-01.txt Dave Thaler.
DHCPv6-Shield: Protecting Against Rogue DHCPv6 Servers
LDP and RSVP Extension for MPLS Muti-Topology Support
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in OSPF
LDP Extensions for RMR draft-esale-mpls-ldp-rmr- extensions
Link State on Data Center Fabrics
Explicitly advertising the TE protocols enabled on links in ISIS
Greg Mirsky Jeff Tantsura Mach Chen Ilya Varlashkin
EVPN Interworking with IPVPN
Requirements for IPv6 Routers draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
An Update on Multihoming in IPv6 Report on IETF Activity
Separating Routing Planes using Segment Routing draft-gulkohegde-spring-separating-routing-planes-using-sr-00 IETF 98 – Chicago, USA Shraddha Hegde
DetNet Information Model Consideration
LISP Anonymous EID draft-farinacci-lisp-eid-anonymity-01 Dino Farinacci and Padma Pillay-Esnault LISP WG Meeting IETF98 – 03/30/2017.
IETF-100, MPTCP WG, November 2017
Technical Issues with draft-ietf-mpls-bfd-directed
Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP- based LSPs
RFC4601 Implementation & Deployment Survey
Synonymous Flow Labels
draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-00
draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh
draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa-00
PW Control Word Stitching
ISIS extensions for SRv6 draft-bashandy-isis-srv6-extensions-03
BGP VPN service for SRv6 Plus IETF 105, Montreal
EVPN Interworking with IPVPN
ISIS Extensions for FlexE Link Advertisement
Preferred Path Routing (PPR) Updates
Supporting Flexible Algorithm Prefix SIDs in LSP Ping/Traceroute
BIER Prefix Redistribute draft-zwzw-bier-prefix-redistribute-01
Multicast in the Data Center Overview draft-ietf-mboned-dc-deploy-03
IETF105 IS-IS V6/MT Deployment Considerations draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-mt-deployment-cons-02 Uma Chunduri [Futurewei] Jeff Tantsura [Apstra] Shraddha Hegde.
draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-03
BIER Prefix Redistribute draft-zwzw-bier-prefix-redistribute-00
Presentation transcript:

IETF103 IS-IS V6/MT Deployment Considerations draft-chunduri-lsr-isis-preferred-path-routing-01 Uma Chunduri [Huawei USA] Jeff Tantsura [Apstra] LSR WG, IETF 103, Bangkok Nov, 2018. 1

Background Few folks are seeking “IPv6 only” IS-IS deployments IETF103 Few folks are seeking “IPv6 only” IS-IS deployments This is based on talks with multiple operational folks in Mobile backhaul L3 DC undelays 2

What’s the goal & What can be done IETF103 What’s the goal & What can be done Goal of this document is to lay out the nuances around IS-IS IPv6 Provide various options For transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 For IPv6 only folks Seek inputs from the community if anything more can be done to simplify things here (Sure, nothing can be done w.r.t terminology now) 3

IPv6 in IS-IS 4 IPv6 first introduced in IS-IS through RFC 5308 IETF103 IPv6 in IS-IS IPv6 first introduced in IS-IS through RFC 5308 New Reachability TLV  TLV236 It works in Single Topology Mode Later Multi-Topology IS-IS RFC 5120 Introduces Topology Specific Adjacencies (222), MT aware reachability TLVs (235, 237) Topology specific Decision process …and defined Multi-Topology ID #2 for "Reserved for IPv6 routing topology” Safe alternative to deploy IPv6 on legacy network 4

IETF103 Network Congruency IPv6 with RFC 5308  yes, simple and straight forward But network congruency MUST be maintained, I.e., Network Can be only IPv6 (all links and nodes MUST support) or “All” Links and Nodes MUST support both IPv4 and IPv6 Else one will have routing black holes like below Assume all links metrics are 1; Direct link from Rx to R2 is Shortest Path from Rx to R2 V6 Traffic block hole from R2 to Rx  even though alternate path available (Rx, R1, Ry, R2) This gets fixed Either by enabling V6 on that link (making network congruent) Use RFC 5120, MT-ID #2 5

Topology & Address Family ? IETF103 Topology & Address Family ? It’s complicated .. Terminology is fully intertwined here MT ID #2 is called "Reserved for IPv6 routing topology“ Yes, one can define other MT’s for IPv6 other than above. Tiring conversation !! Want IPv6 only  Use MT ID #2 I don’t want Multi-Topology, just want IPv6 IS-IS  yes, use MT-ID #2 One of the goals of this document is to ease this conversation. 6

Thank you! Next Steps Can we do anything to change here, thoughts?? IETF103 Next Steps Can we do anything to change here, thoughts?? Folks suggested to present in V6ops (may be next IETF) Comments/Feedback from operators? Thank you! 7