Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4205 Y. Rekhter, Ed.
Updates: 3784 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational October 2005
Network Working Group K. Kompella, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4205 Y. Rekhter, Ed.
Updates: 3784 Juniper Networks
Category: Informational October 2005
Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）扩展
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
Abstract
摘要
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS).
本文件规定了IS-IS路由协议扩展的编码，以支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）。
This document specifies extensions to the IS-IS routing protocol in support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to IS-IS are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING]. Support for unnumbered interfaces assumes support for the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [ISIS-3way].
本文件规定了IS-IS路由协议的扩展，以支持承载通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的链路状态信息。[GMPLS-ROUTING]中概述了IS-IS所需的一系列增强功能。支持无编号接口假设支持“点对点三向邻接”IS-IS选项类型[ISIS-3way]。
In this section we define the enhancements to the Traffic Engineering (TE) properties of GMPLS TE links that can be announced in IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Units.
在本节中，我们定义了可以在IS-IS链路状态协议数据单元中公布的GMPLS TE链路的流量工程（TE）特性的增强。
In this document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the extended IS reachability TLV (see [ISIS-TE]) in support of GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs:
在本文中，我们增强了扩展IS可达性TLV的子TLV（参见[ISIS-TE]），以支持GMPLS。具体而言，我们添加了以下子TLV：
Sub-TLV Type Length Name 4 8 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 20 2 Link Protection Type 21 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
子TLV类型长度名称4 8链路本地/远程标识符20 2链路保护类型21可变接口交换能力描述符
We further add one new TLV to the TE TLVs:
我们进一步向TE TLV添加了一个新TLV：
TLV Type Length Name 138 variable Shared Risk Link Group
TLV类型长度名称138变量共享风险链接组
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
A Link Local Interface Identifiers is a sub-TLV of the extended IS reachability TLV. The type of this sub-TLV is 4, and length is eight octets. The value field of this sub-TLV contains four octets of Link Local Identifier followed by four octets of Link Remote Identifier (see Section "Support for unnumbered links" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). If the Link Remote Identifier is unknown, it is set to 0.
链路本地接口标识符是扩展is可达性TLV的子TLV。该子TLV的类型为4，长度为8个八位字节。此子TLV的值字段包含链路本地标识符的四个八位字节，后跟链路远程标识符的四个八位字节（请参阅[GMPLS-ROUTING]的“支持未编号链路”一节）。如果链接远程标识符未知，则将其设置为0。
The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV.
以下说明链路本地/远程标识符子TLV的值字段的编码。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV. If the Link Local/Remote Identifiers sub-TLV occurs more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV, the receiver SHOULD ignore all these sub-TLVs.
链路本地/远程标识符子TLV在扩展IS可达性TLV中不得出现多次。如果链路本地/远程标识符子TLV在扩展IS可达性TLV中出现不止一次，则接收器应忽略所有这些子TLV。
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV (of type 20) of the extended IS reachability TLV, with length two octets.
链路保护类型是扩展is可达性TLV的子TLV（类型20），长度为两个八位字节。
The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Link Protection Type sub-TLV.
以下说明链路保护类型sub TLV的值字段的编码。
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Protection Cap | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Protection Cap | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The first octet is a bit vector describing the protection capabilities of the link (see Section "Link Protection Type" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]). They are:
第一个八位组是描述链路保护能力的位向量（参见[GMPLS-ROUTING]的“链路保护类型”一节）。他们是：
0x01 Extra Traffic
0x01额外流量
0x02 Unprotected
0x02未受保护
0x04 Shared
0x04共享
0x08 Dedicated 1:1
0x08专用1:1
0x10 Dedicated 1+1
0x10专用1+1
0x20 Enhanced
0x20增强型
0x40 Reserved
0x40保留
0x80 Reserved
0x80保留
The second octet SHOULD be set to zero by the sender, and SHOULD be ignored by the receiver.
发送方应将第二个八位组设置为零，接收方应忽略第二个八位组。
The Link Protection Type sub-TLV MUST NOT occur more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV. If the Link Protection Type sub-TLV occurs more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV, the receiver SHOULD ignore all these sub-TLVs.
链路保护类型子TLV在扩展IS可达性TLV中不得出现多次。如果链路保护类型子TLV在扩展IS可达性TLV中出现不止一次，则接收器应忽略所有这些子TLV。
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV (of type 21) of the extended IS reachability TLV. The length is the length of value field in octets. The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV.
接口交换能力描述符是扩展is可达性TLV的子TLV（类型21）。长度是值字段的长度（以八位字节为单位）。以下说明了接口交换能力描述符子TLV的值字段的编码。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the following values:
切换能力（切换上限）字段包含以下值之一：
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1) 2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2) 3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3) 4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4) 51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC) 100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM) 150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC) 200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
1个支持分组交换机-1（PSC-1）2个支持分组交换机-2（PSC-2）3个支持分组交换机-3（PSC-3）4个支持分组交换机-4（PSC-4）51个支持第二层交换机（L2SC）100个支持时分多路复用（TDM）150个支持Lambda交换机（LSC）200个支持光纤交换机（FSC）
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section 3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
编码字段包含[GMPLS-SIG]第3.1.1节中规定的值之一。
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in the IEEE floating point format [IEEE], with priority 0 first and priority 7 last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
最大LSP带宽以IEEE浮点格式[IEEE]编码为八个4个八位字段的列表，优先级为0，优先级为7。单位为每秒字节（不是位！）。
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
交换能力特定信息字段的内容取决于交换能力字段的值。
When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4, the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and Interface MTU.
当交换能力字段为PSC-1、PSC-2、PSC-3或PSC-4时，交换能力特定信息字段包括最小LSP带宽和接口MTU。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface MTU |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets integer, and carries the MTU value in the units of bytes.
最小LSP带宽以IEEE浮点格式编码在4个八位字节字段中。单位为每秒字节（不是位！）。接口MTU编码为2个八位整数，并以字节为单位携带MTU值。
When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no Switching Capability specific information field present.
当切换能力字段为L2SC时，不存在特定于切换能力的信息字段。
When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the Switching Capability specific information field includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth and an indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH.
当交换能力字段为TDM时，交换能力特定信息字段包括最小LSP带宽和接口是否支持标准或任意SONET/SDH的指示。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Indication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Minimum LSP Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Indication |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH.
最小LSP带宽以IEEE浮点格式编码在4个八位字节字段中。单位为每秒字节（不是位！）。接口是否支持标准或任意SONET/SDH的指示编码为1个八位字节。如果接口支持标准SONET/SDH，则此八位字节的值为0；如果接口支持任意SONET/SDH，则此八位字节的值为1。
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no Switching Capability specific information field present.
当切换能力字段为LSC时，不存在特定于切换能力的信息字段。
To support interfaces that have more than one Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (see Section "Interface Switching Capability Descriptor" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]) the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV MAY occur more than once within the extended IS reachability TLV.
为了支持具有多个接口交换能力描述符的接口（参见[GMPLS-ROUTING]的“接口交换能力描述符”一节），接口交换能力描述符子TLV可能在扩展IS可达性TLV中出现不止一次。
The SRLG TLV (of type 138) contains a data structure consisting of:
SRLG TLV（138型）包含以下数据结构：
6 octets of System ID 1 octet of Pseudonode Number 1 octet Flag 4 octets of IPv4 interface address or 4 octets of a Link Local Identifier 4 octets of IPv4 neighbor address or 4 octets of a Link Remote Identifier (variable) list of SRLG values, where each element in the list has 4 octets.
系统ID的6个八位字节伪节点号的1个八位字节1个八位字节标志IPv4接口地址的4个八位字节或链路本地标识符的4个八位字节IPv4邻居地址的4个八位字节或SRLG值的链路远程标识符（变量）列表的4个八位字节，其中列表中的每个元素都有4个八位字节。
The following illustrates encoding of the Value field of the SRLG TLV.
以下说明了SRLG TLV值字段的编码。
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID (cont.) | Pseudonode num| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 neighbors address/Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| System ID (cont.) | Pseudonode num| Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 interface address/Link Local Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 neighbors address/Link Remote Identifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The neighbor is identified by its System Id (6-octets), plus one octet to indicate the pseudonode number if the neighbor is on a LAN interface.
邻居通过其系统Id（6个八位字节）加上一个八位字节来标识，如果邻居在LAN接口上，则表示伪节点号。
The Least Significant Bit of the Flag octet indicates whether the interface is numbered (set to 1), or unnumbered (set to 0). All other bits are reserved and should be set to 0.
标志八位字节的最低有效位表示接口是否已编号（设置为1）或未编号（设置为0）。所有其他位均为保留位，应设置为0。
The length of this TLV is 16 + 4 * (number of SRLG values).
该TLV的长度为16+4*（SRLG值的数量）。
This TLV carries the Shared Risk Link Group information (see Section "Shared Risk Link Group Information" of [GMPLS-ROUTING]).
该TLV携带共享风险链接组信息（参见[GMPLS-ROUTING]的“共享风险链接组信息”一节）。
The SRLG TLV MAY occur more than once within the IS-IS Link State Protocol Data Units.
在IS-IS链路状态协议数据单元内，SRLG TLV可能会出现多次。
Link Identifiers are exchanged in the Extended Local Circuit ID field of the "Point-to-Point Three-Way Adjacency" IS-IS Option type [ISIS-3way].
链路标识符在“点对点三向邻接”IS-IS选项类型[ISIS-3way]的扩展本地电路ID字段中交换。
The restarting node SHOULD follow the ISIS restart procedures [ISIS-RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
重启节点应遵循ISIS重启程序[ISIS-restart]和RSVP-TE重启程序[GMPLS-RSVP]。
When the restarting node is going to originate its IS-IS Link State Protocol data units for TE links, these Link State Protocol data units SHOULD be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth, Traffic Engineering Default metric set to 0xffffff, and if the link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the amount of unreserved resources taking into account the resources reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the restart, the node SHOULD advertise these resources in its Link State Protocol data units.
当重新启动的节点将为TE链路发起其is-is链路状态协议数据单元时，这些链路状态协议数据单元应以0无保留带宽发起，流量工程默认度量设置为0xffffff，如果链路具有LSC或FSC作为其交换能力，则也应以0作为最大LSP带宽，直到节点能够确定未保留的资源量，同时考虑已建立的LSP保留的资源，这些LSP已在重启过程中保留。在重新启动节点确定未保留资源的数量后，考虑到已建立的LSP保留的资源，这些资源已在重新启动过程中保留，节点应在其链路状态协议数据单元中公布这些资源。
In addition, in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the restarting node SHOULD originate the IS-IS Link State Protocol data units for TE links with 0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth. This would discourage new LSP establishment through the restarting router.
此外，在重新启动之前计划重新启动的情况下，重新启动节点应为无保留带宽为0的TE链路发起IS-IS链路状态协议数据单元，如果链路具有LSC或FSC作为其交换能力，则也应以0作为最大LSP带宽。这将阻止通过重新启动路由器建立新的LSP。
Neighbors of the restarting node SHOULD continue to advertise the actual unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.
重新启动节点的邻居应继续公布从邻居到该节点的TE链路上的实际未保留带宽。
Ayan Banerjee Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138
加利福尼亚州圣何塞法拉利街5853号阿扬·班纳吉·卡里昂网络公司，邮编95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3645
EMail: abanerjee@calient.net
Phone: +1 408 972 3645
EMail: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake Calient Networks 5853 Rue Ferrari San Jose, CA 95138
约翰·德雷克·卡林特网络公司，加利福尼亚州圣何塞法拉利路5853号，邮编95138
Phone: +1 408 972 3720
EMail: jdrake@calient.net
Phone: +1 408 972 3720
EMail: jdrake@calient.net
Greg Bernstein Grotto Networking
格雷格·伯恩斯坦洞穴网络
EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
EMail: gregb@grotto-networking.com
Don Fedyk Nortel Networks Corp. 600 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821
唐·费迪克北电网络公司，地址：马萨诸塞州比尔里卡科技园大道600号，邮编：01821
Phone: +1 978 288 4506
EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Phone: +1 978 288 4506
EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Eric Mannie Independent Consultant
埃里克·曼尼独立顾问
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
EMail: eric_mannie@hotmail.com
Debanjan Saha Tellium Optical Systems 2 Crescent Place P.O. Box 901 Ocean Port, NJ 07757
新泽西州海港901号新月广场2号德班詹萨哈碲光学系统邮政信箱07757
Phone: +1 732 923 4264
EMail: dsaha@tellium.com
Phone: +1 732 923 4264
EMail: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma
维沙尔·夏尔马
EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org
EMail: v.sharma@ieee.org
The authors would like to thank Jim Gibson, Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.
作者要感谢Jim Gibson、Suresh Katukam、Jonathan Lang和Quaizar Vohra对草案的评论。
This document specifies the contents of GMPLS TE TLVs in ISIS. As these TLVs are not used for SPF computation or normal routing, the extensions specified here have no direct effect on IP routing. Tampering with GMPLS TE TLVs may have an effect on the underlying transport (optical and/or SONET-SDH) network. Mechanisms to secure ISIS Link State PDUs and/or the TE TLVs [ISIS-HMAC] can be used to secure the GMPLS TE TLVs as well.
本文件规定了ISIS中GMPLS TE TLV的内容。由于这些TLV不用于SPF计算或正常路由，因此此处指定的扩展对IP路由没有直接影响。篡改GMPLS TE TLV可能会对底层传输（光学和/或SONET-SDH）网络产生影响。保护ISIS链路状态PDU和/或TE TLV[ISIS-HMAC]的机制也可用于保护GMPLS TE TLV。
This document defines the following new ISIS TLV type that needs to be reflected in the ISIS TLV code-point registry:
本文件定义了需要反映在ISIS TLV代码点注册表中的以下新ISIS TLV类型：
Type Description IIH LSP SNP
---- ---------------------- --- --- ---
138 Shared Risk Link Group n y n
Type Description IIH LSP SNP
---- ---------------------- --- --- ---
138 Shared Risk Link Group n y n
This document also defines the following new sub-TLV types of top-level TLV 22 that need to be reflected in the ISIS sub-TLV registry for TLV 22:
本文件还定义了需要在TLV 22的ISIS子TLV注册表中反映的顶级TLV 22的以下新子TLV类型：
Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ --------
4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 8
20 Link Protection Type 2
21 Interface Switching Capability variable
Descriptor
Type Description Length
---- ------------------------------ --------
4 Link Local/Remote Identifiers 8
20 Link Protection Type 2
21 Interface Switching Capability variable
Descriptor
References
工具书类
Normative References
规范性引用文件
[GMPLS-ROUTING] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, October 2005.
[GMPLS-ROUTING]Kompella，K.，Ed.，和Y.Rekhter，Ed.，“支持通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）的路由扩展”，RFC 4202，2005年10月。
[GMPLS-RSVP] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[GMPLS-RSVP]Berger，L.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令资源预留协议流量工程（RSVP-TE）扩展”，RFC 3473，2003年1月。
[GMPLS-SIG] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January 2003.
[GMPLS-SIG]Berger，L.“通用多协议标签交换（GMPLS）信令功能描述”，RFC 3471，2003年1月。
[IEEE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593- 7653-8).
[IEEE]IEEE，“二进制浮点运算的IEEE标准”，标准754-19851985（ISBN 1-5593-7653-8）。
[ISIS-3way] Katz, D. and R. Saluja, "Three-Way Handshake for Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 3373, September 2002.
[ISIS-3way]Katz，D.和R.Saluja，“中间系统对中间系统（IS-IS）点对点邻接的三向握手”，RFC 3373，2002年9月。
[ISIS-RESTART] Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)", RFC 3847, July 2004.
[ISIS-RESTART]Shand，M.和L.Ginsberg，“中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）的重启信令”，RFC 3847，2004年7月。
[ISIS-TE] Smit, H. and T. Li, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions for Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 3784, June 2004.
[ISIS-TE]Smit，H.和T.Li，“交通工程（TE）的中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）扩展”，RFC 37842004年6月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[ISIS-HMAC] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 3567, July 2003.
[ISIS-HMAC]Li，T.和R.Atkinson，“中间系统到中间系统（IS-IS）密码认证”，RFC 3567，2003年7月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Kireeti Kompella Juniper Networks，Inc.加利福尼亚州桑尼维尔市马蒂尔达大道北1194号，邮编94089
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
EMail: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks, Inc. 1194 N. Mathilda Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Yakov Rekhter Juniper Networks，Inc.加利福尼亚州桑尼维尔市马蒂尔达大道北1194号，邮编94089
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
EMail: yakov@juniper.net
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2005年）。
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
本文件受BCP 78中包含的权利、许可和限制的约束，除其中规定外，作者保留其所有权利。
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件及其包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，贡献者、他/她所代表或赞助的组织（如有）、互联网协会和互联网工程任务组不承担任何明示或暗示的担保，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Intellectual Property
知识产权
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
IETF对可能声称与本文件所述技术的实施或使用有关的任何知识产权或其他权利的有效性或范围，或此类权利下的任何许可可能或可能不可用的程度，不采取任何立场；它也不表示它已作出任何独立努力来确定任何此类权利。有关RFC文件中权利的程序信息，请参见BCP 78和BCP 79。
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
向IETF秘书处披露的知识产权副本和任何许可证保证，或本规范实施者或用户试图获得使用此类专有权利的一般许可证或许可的结果，可从IETF在线知识产权存储库获取，网址为http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
IETF邀请任何相关方提请其注意任何版权、专利或专利申请，或其他可能涵盖实施本标准所需技术的专有权利。请将信息发送至IETF的IETF-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。