Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Wei
Request for Comments: 6232 Y. Qin
Updates: 5301, 5304, 5310 Z. Li
Category: Standards Track China Mobile
ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Li
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
May 2011
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) F. Wei
Request for Comments: 6232 Y. Qin
Updates: 5301, 5304, 5310 Z. Li
Category: Standards Track China Mobile
ISSN: 2070-1721 T. Li
Cisco Systems, Inc.
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
May 2011
Purge Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS
IS-IS的清洗发起人标识TLV
Abstract
摘要
At present, an IS-IS purge does not contain any information identifying the Intermediate System (IS) that generates the purge. This makes it difficult to locate the source IS.
目前，IS-IS吹扫不包含任何标识生成吹扫的中间系统（IS）的信息。这使得很难找到源IS。
To address this issue, this document defines a TLV to be added to purges to record the system ID of the IS generating it. Since normal Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP) flooding does not change LSP contents, this TLV should propagate with the purge.
为了解决这个问题，本文档定义了要添加到purges的TLV，以记录正在生成它的系统ID。由于正常链路状态协议数据单元（LSP）泛洪不会更改LSP内容，所以此TLV应随清除一起传播。
This document updates RFC 5301, RFC 5304, and RFC 5310.
本文档更新了RFC 5301、RFC 5304和RFC 5310。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6232.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6232.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2011 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Language ...........................................3
3. The Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV ...................3
4. Using the Dynamic Hostname TLV in Purges ........................3
5. Security Considerations .........................................4
6. IANA Considerations .............................................4
7. Acknowledgments .................................................4
8. Normative References ............................................4
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Requirements Language ...........................................3
3. The Purge Originator Identification (POI) TLV ...................3
4. Using the Dynamic Hostname TLV in Purges ........................3
5. Security Considerations .........................................4
6. IANA Considerations .............................................4
7. Acknowledgments .................................................4
8. Normative References ............................................4
The IS-IS [ISO-10589] routing protocol has been widely used in large-scale IP networks because of its strong scalability and fast convergence.
IS-IS[ISO-10589]路由协议以其强大的可扩展性和快速收敛性在大规模IP网络中得到了广泛的应用。
The IS-IS protocol floods purges throughout an area, regardless of which IS initiated the purge. If a network operator would like to investigate the cause of the purge, it is difficult to determine the origin of the purge. At present, the IS-IS protocol has no mechanism to locate the originator of a purge. To address this problem, this document defines a TLV to be added to purges to record the system ID of the IS generating the purge.
IS-IS协议会在整个区域内进行洪水式清洗，而不管哪个区域启动了清洗。如果网络运营商希望调查吹扫的原因，则很难确定吹扫的来源。目前，IS-IS协议没有定位清除发起人的机制。为了解决此问题，本文档定义了要添加到清除中的TLV，以记录正在生成清除的系统ID。
Field experience has shown several circumstances where an IS can improperly generate a purge. These are all due to implementation deficiencies or implementations that predate [ISO-TC1] and generate a purge when they receive a corrupted Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSP).
现场经验表明，在多种情况下，IS可能会不正确地产生吹扫。这些都是由于实施缺陷或在[ISO-TC1]之前的实施，并在接收到损坏的链路状态协议数据单元（LSP）时生成清除。
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This document defines a TLV to be included in purges. If an IS generates a purge, it SHOULD include this TLV in the purge with its own system ID. If an IS receives a purge that does not include this TLV, then it SHOULD add this TLV with both its own system ID and the system ID of the IS from which it received the purge. This allows ISs receiving purges to log the system ID of the originator, or the upstream source of the purge. This makes it much easier for the network administrator to locate the origin of the purge and thus the cause of the purge. Similarly, this TLV is helpful to developers in lab situations.
本文件定义了清洗中包含的TLV。如果IS生成清除，则应在清除中包含此TLV及其自己的系统ID。如果IS接收到不包含此TLV的清除，则应添加此TLV及其自己的系统ID和接收清除的IS的系统ID。这允许ISs接收清除记录发起人或清除上游来源的系统ID。这使得网络管理员更容易找到清除的来源，从而找到清除的原因。类似地，此TLV对实验室环境中的开发人员也很有帮助。
The POI TLV is defined as:
POI TLV定义为：
CODE - 13
代码-13
LENGTH - total length of the value field.
LENGTH—值字段的总长度。
VALUE -
价值观-
Number of system IDs carried in this TLV (1 octet) -- only the values 1 and 2 are defined.
此TLV中携带的系统ID数（1个八位字节）——仅定义值1和2。
System ID of the Intermediate System that inserted this TLV.
插入此TLV的中间系统的系统ID。
System ID of the Intermediate System from which the purge was received (optional).
接收净化的中间系统的系统ID（可选）。
The POI TLV SHOULD be found in all purges and MUST NOT be found in LSPs with a non-zero Remaining Lifetime.
POI TLV应在所有清洗中找到，且不得在剩余寿命非零的LSP中找到。
This document also extends the use of the Dynamic hostname TLV (type 137) [RFC5301] to further aid in the rapid identification of the system that generated the purge. This TLV MAY be included in purges. Implementations SHOULD include one instance of the Dynamic hostname TLV if the POI TLV is included. Only the local hostname should be inserted.
本文件还扩展了动态主机名TLV（137型）[RFC5301]的使用，以进一步帮助快速识别生成清除的系统。该TLV可包括在清洗中。如果包含POI TLV，则实现应包含动态主机名TLV的一个实例。只应插入本地主机名。
Use of the extensions defined here, with authentication as defined in [RFC5304] or [RFC5310], will result in the discarding of purges by legacy systems that are in strict conformance with either of those RFCs. This may compromise the correctness/consistency of the routing database unless all ISs in the network support these extensions. Therefore, all implementations in a domain implementing authentication MUST be upgraded to receive the POI TLV before any IS is allowed to generate a purge with the POI TLV.
使用此处定义的扩展，以及[RFC5304]或[RFC5310]中定义的身份验证，将导致严格遵守这些RFC的遗留系统放弃清除。这可能会损害路由数据库的正确性/一致性，除非网络中的所有ISs都支持这些扩展。因此，必须升级域中实现身份验证的所有实现，以接收POI TLV，然后才能允许任何实现使用POI TLV生成清除。
More interactions between the POI TLV, the Dynamic hostname TLV, and the Authentication TLV are described in [RFC6233].
[RFC6233]中描述了POI TLV、动态主机名TLV和身份验证TLV之间的更多交互。
IANA has assigned code point 13 for the 'Purge Originator Identification' TLV from the IS-IS 'TLV Codepoints' registry. The additional values for this TLV should be IIH:n, LSP:y, SNP:n, and Purge:y.
IANA已从IS-IS“TLV代码点”注册表中为“清除发起人标识”TLV分配代码点13。该TLV的附加值应为IIH:n、LSP:y、SNP:n和Purge:y。
Many thanks to Adrian Farrel and Daniel King for their comments to improve this document and move it forward.
非常感谢Adrian Farrel和Daniel King对改进本文档并将其向前推进所作的评论。
The first version of this document was mainly composed by Lianyuan Li.
本文件第一版主要由李连元撰写。
Acknowledgments are given to the discussion in the mailing list. Some improvements to this document are based on the discussion.
邮件列表中给出了对讨论的确认。本文件的一些改进基于讨论。
[ISO-10589] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002.
[ISO-10589]ISO，“与提供无连接模式网络服务协议（ISO 8473）一起使用的中间系统到中间系统域内路由信息交换协议”，ISO/IEC 10589:2002。
[ISO-TC1] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473) -- Technical Corrigendum 1", ISO/IEC 10589:1992/ Cor.1:1993.
[ISO-TC1]ISO，“与提供无连接模式网络服务协议一起使用的中间系统到中间系统域内路由信息交换协议（ISO 8473）——技术勘误1”，ISO/IEC 10589:1992/Cor.1:1993。
[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。
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, October 2008.
[RFC5301]McPherson，D.和N.Shen，“IS-IS的动态主机名交换机制”，RFC 5301，2008年10月。
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[RFC5304]Li，T.和R.Atkinson，“IS-IS加密认证”，RFC 5304，2008年10月。
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009.
[RFC5310]Bhatia，M.，Manral，V.，Li，T.，Atkinson，R.，White，R.，和M.Fanto，“IS-IS通用密码认证”，RFC 53102009年2月。
[RFC6233] Li, T. and L. Ginsberg, "IS-IS Registry Extension for Purges", RFC 6233, May 2011.
[RFC6233]Li，T.和L.Ginsberg，“清洗的IS-IS注册扩展”，RFC 6233，2011年5月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Fang Wei China Mobile No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District Beijing 100032 P.R. China
中国北京市西城区金融街29号方伟中国移动100032
EMail: weifang@chinamobile.com
EMail: weifang@chinamobile.com
Yue Qin China Mobile No. 29, Financial Street, Xicheng District Beijing 100032 P.R. China
中国北京市西城区金融街29号乐勤中国移动100032
EMail: qinyue@chinamobile.com
EMail: qinyue@chinamobile.com
Zhenqiang Li China Mobile Unit2, Dacheng Plaza, No. 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave., Xuanwu District Beijing 100053 P.R. China
中国北京市宣武区宣武门西路28号大成广场2号振强里中国移动100053
EMail: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
EMail: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
Tony Li Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Tony Li Cisco Systems，Inc.170 W.Tasman博士，加利福尼亚州圣何塞，美国95134
EMail: tony.li@tony.li
EMail: tony.li@tony.li
Jie Dong Huawei Technologies KuiKe Building, No. 9 Xinxi Rd., Haidian District Beijing 100085 P.R. China
中国北京市海淀区新西路9号杰东华为技术魁克大厦100085
EMail: dongjie_dj@huawei.com
EMail: dongjie_dj@huawei.com