<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- $Id$ -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'rfc2629.dtd' [
	  <!ENTITY rfc1195 SYSTEM
	   "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.1195.xml">

	  <!ENTITY rfc2119 SYSTEM
		   "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">

	  <!ENTITY rfc5305 SYSTEM
		   "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5305.xml">

	  <!ENTITY rfc5120 SYSTEM
		   "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5120.xml">

	  <!ENTITY I-D.shen-isis-oper-enhance SYSTEM
		"http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-shen-isis-oper-enhance-00.xml">
	  ]>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="no"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="6"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>


<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std"
     docName="draft-ietf-isis-reverse-metric-00">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="IS-IS Reverse Metric">
      IS-IS Reverse Metric TLV for Network Maintenance Events
    </title>

    <author fullname="Naiming Shen" initials="N."
            surname="Shen">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>225 West Tasman Drive</street>
          <street/>
          <city>San Jose</city>
          <code>95134</code>
          <region>CA</region>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>naiming@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Tony Li" initials="T."
            surname="Li">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>225 West Tasman Drive</street>
          <street/>
          <city>San Jose</city>
          <code>95134</code>
          <region>CA</region>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>tli@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shane Amante" initials="S."
            surname="Amante">
      <organization>Level 3 Communications</organization>
      <address>
	    <postal>
          <street>1025 Eldorado Blvd</street>
          <street/>
          <city>Broomfield</city>
          <code>80021</code>
          <region>CO</region>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>shane@level3.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Mikael Abrahamsson" initials="M."
            surname="Abrahamsson">
      <organization>Tele2</organization>
      <address>
        <email>swmike@swm.pp.se</email>
      </address>
    </author>


    <date year="2011"/>
    <area>Routing</area>

    <workgroup>IS-IS Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
      <t>
	This document describes an improved IS-IS neighbor management
	scheme which can be used to enhance network performance by
	allowing operators to quickly and accurately shift traffic away from
	a point-to-point or multi-access LAN interface by allowing one IS-IS
	router to signal to a second, adjacent IS-IS neighbor to adjust its
	IS-IS metric that should be used to temporarily reach the first
	IS-IS router during network maintenance events.
      </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>


  <middle>

    <section anchor="Intro" title="Introduction">
      <t>
	The IS-IS <xref target='ISO 10589'/> routing protocol has been
	widely used in Internet Service Provider IP/MPLS networks.
	Operational experience with the protocol, combined with ever
	increasing requirements for lossless operations have demonstrated
	some operational issues.  This document describes one issue and
	a new mechanism for improving it.
      </t>
    <section anchor="node-isolation" title="Node Isolation Challenges">
	  <t>
	On rare occasions it is necessary for an operator to perform disruptive
	network maintenance on an entire IS-IS router node, i.e.: major
	software upgrades, power/cooling augments, etc.  In these cases, an
	operator will set the IS-IS Overload Bit (OL-bit) within the Link State
	Protocol Data Units (LSP's) of the IS-IS router about to undergo
	maintenance.  The IS-IS router immediately floods the updated LSP's to
	all IS-IS routers throughout the IS-IS domain.  Upon receipt of the
	updated LSP's, all IS-IS routers recalculate their Shortest Path First
	(SPF) tree excluding IS-IS routers whose LSP's have the OL-bit set.
	This effectively removes the IS-IS router about to undergo maintenance
	from the topology, thus preventing it from forwarding any transit
	traffic during the maintenance period.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	After the maintenance activity is completed, the operator resets the
	IS-IS Overload Bit within the LSP's of the original IS-IS router causing
	it to flood updated IS-IS LSP's throughout the IS-IS domain.  All IS-IS
	routers recalculate their SPF tree and now include the original IS-IS
	router in their topology calculations, allowing it to be used for transit
	traffic again.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	Isolating an entire IS-IS router from the topology can be especially
	disruptive due to the displacement of a large volume of traffic
	through an entire IS-IS router to other, sub-optimal paths, (i.e.: those
	with significantly larger delay).  Thus, in the majority of network
	maintenance scenarios, where only a single link or LAN needs to be
	augmented to increase its physical capacity or is experiencing
	an intermittent failure, it is much more common and desirable
	to gracefully remove just the targeted link or LAN from service,
	temporarily, so that the least amount of user-data traffic is affected 
	while intrusive augment, diagnostic and/or replacement procedures
	are being executed.
	  </t>
	</section> <!-- node-isolation -->

      <section anchor="link-isolation" title="Link Isolation Challenges">
	<t>
	  Before network maintenance events are performed on individual
	  physical links or LAN's, operators substantially
	  increase the IS-IS metric simultaneously on both devices attached
	  to the same link or LAN.  In doing so, the devices generate new
	  Link State Protocol Data Units (LSP's) that are flooded throughout
	  the network and cause all routers to gradually shift traffic onto
	  alternate paths with very little, to no, disruption to in-flight
	  communications by applications or end-users.  When performed
	  successfully, this allows the operator to confidently perform
	  disruptive augmentation, fault diagnosis or repairs on a link without
	  disturbing ongoing communications in the network.
	</t>
	<t>
	  The challenge with the above solution are as follows.  First, it is
	  quite common to have routers with several hundred interfaces
	  onboard and individual interfaces that are transferring several
	  hundred Gigabits/second to Terabits/second of traffic.  Thus, it is
	  imperative that operators accurately identify the same point-to-point
	  link on two, separate devices in order to increase (and, afterward,
	  decrease) the IS-IS metric appropriately.  Second, the aforementioned
	  solution is very time consuming and even more error-prone to perform
	  when its necessary to temporarily remove a multi-access LAN from the
	  network topology.  Specifically, the operator needs to configure ALL
	  devices's that have interfaces attached to the multi-access LAN with
	  an appropriately high IS-IS metric, (and then decrease the IS-IS
	  metric to its original value afterward).  Finally, with respect to
	  multi-access LAN's, there is currently no method to bidirectionally
	  isolate only a single node's interface on the LAN when performed
	  more fine-grained diagnosis and repairs to the multi-access LAN.
	</t>
	<t>
	  In theory, use of a Network Management System (NMS) could improve the
	  accuracy of identifying the appropriate subset of routers attached to
	  either a point-to-point link or a multi-access LAN as well as
	  signaling from the NMS to those devices, using a network management
	  protocol, to adjust the IS-IS metrics on the pertinent set of
	  interfaces.  The reality is that NMS are, to a very large extent, not
	  used within Service Provider's networks for a variety of reasons.  In
	  particular, NMS do not interoperate very well across different vendors
	  or even separate platform families within the same vendor.
	</t>
	<t>
	  The risks of misidentifying one side of a point-to-point link or
	  one or more interfaces attached to a multi-access LAN and
	  subsequently increasing its IS-IS metric are potentially increased
	  latency, jitter or packet loss.  This is unacceptable given the
	  necessary performance requirements for a variety of applications, the
	  customer perception for near lossless operations and the associated,
	  demanding Service Level Agreement's (SLA's) for all network services.
	</t>
	</section> <!-- link-isolation -->

	<section anchor="reverse-metric-solution"
             title="IS-IS Reverse Metric">
          <t>
	This document proposes that the routing protocol itself be the
	transport mechanism to allow one IS-IS router to advertise to an
	adjacent node on a point-to-point or multi-access LAN link a "reverse
	metric" in a IS-IS Hello (IIH) PDU.  This would allow an operator to
	only configure a single router, set a "reverse metric" on a link and
	have traffic bidirectionally shift away from that link gracefully
	to alternate, viable paths.
	  </t>
	</section> <!-- reverse-metric-solution -->

      <section anchor="Req" title="Specification of Requirements">
	<t>The key words &quot;MUST&quot;, &quot;MUST NOT&quot;,
          &quot;REQUIRED&quot;, &quot;SHALL&quot;,
          &quot;SHALL NOT&quot;, &quot;SHOULD&quot;,
          &quot;SHOULD NOT&quot;, &quot;RECOMMENDED&quot;,
          &quot;MAY&quot;, and &quot;OPTIONAL&quot; in this document
          are to be interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
	</t>
	</section>
	</section> <!-- Intro -->

	<section anchor="reverse-metric-tlv"
	         title="IS-IS Reverse Metric TLV">
      <t>
	The Reverse Metric TLV is composed of 1 octet for the Type, 1 octet
	that specifies the number of bytes in the Value field and a
	variable-length Value field.  The Value field starts with a 1 octet
	field of Flags followed by a 3 octet field containing an IS-IS
	Metric and, lastly, a 1 octet Traffic Engineering (TE) sub-TLV
	length field representing the length of a variable number of
	Extended Intermediate System (IS) Reachability sub-TLV's.  If the 'S'
	bit in the Flags field is set to 1, then the Value field MUST also
	contain data of 1 or more Extended IS Reachability sub-TLV's.
      </t>
	  <t>
	The Reverse Metric TLV is optional.  The Reverse Metric TLV may be
	present in any IS-IS Hello PDU.  A sender MUST only transmit a single
	Reverse Metric TLV in a IS-IS Hello PDU.
      </t>
	  <t>
	     <?rfc subcompact="yes"?>
	     <list>
	        <t>TYPE: TBD</t>
	        <t>LENGTH: variable (5 - 255 octets)</t>
	        <t>VALUE:
	           <list>
	           <t>Flags (1 octet)</t>
	           <t>Metric (3 octets)</t>
	           <t>TE sub-TLV length (1 octet)</t>
	           <t>TE sub-TLV data (0 - 250 octets)</t>
               </list>
            </t>
	     </list>
	     <?rfc subcompact="no"?>
	  </t>
	  <t>
      <figure title="Flags" anchor="reverse-metric-tlv-flags">
	  <preamble>Flags</preamble>
	  <artwork type="drawing">
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Reserved  |S|W|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	  </artwork></figure>
          </t>
	  <t>
	The Reverse Metric TLV Type is TBD.  Please refer to IANA
	Considerations, in <xref target='IANA'/>, for more details.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	The Metric field contains a 24-bit unsigned integer of an IS-IS metric
	a neighbor SHOULD add to the existing, configured "default metric"
	contained within its IS Neighbors TLV or Extended IS Reachability TLV's
	for point-to-point links, or Pseudonode LSP by the Designated
	Intermediate System (DIS) for multi-access LAN's, back toward the router
	that originated this Reverse Metric TLV.  Refer to "Elements of
	Procedure", below in <xref target='procedure-elements'/>, for
	details of how an IS-IS router should process the Metric field in a
	Reverse Metric TLV.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	There is currently only two Flag bits defined.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	W bit (0x01): The "Whole LAN" bit is only used in the context of
	multi-access LAN's.  When a Reverse Metric TLV is transmitted from a
	(non-DIS) node to the DIS, if the "Whole LAN" bit is set (1), then a
	DIS SHOULD add the received Metric value in the Reverse Metric TLV
	to each node's existing "default metric" in the Pseudonode LSP.  If
	the "Whole LAN" bit is not set (0), then a DIS SHOULD add the received
	Metric value in the Reverse Metric TLV to the existing "default
	metric" in the Pseudonode LSP for the single node from whom the
	Reverse Metric TLV was received.  Please refer to "Multi-Access LAN
	Procedures", in <xref target="lan-procedures"/>, for additional
	details.  The W bit MUST be unset (0) when a Reverse Metric TLV is
	transmitted in a IIH PDU onto a point-to-point link to an IS-IS neighbor.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	S bit (0x02): The "TE sub-TLV" bit MUST be set (1) when an IS-IS router
	wishes to signal that its neighbor alter parameters contained in the
	neighbor's Traffic Engineering "Extended IS Reachability TLV",
	as defined in <xref target='RFC5305'/>.  This document defines that
	only the "Traffic Engineering Default Metric" sub-TLV, sub-TLV Type 18,
	may be sent toward neighbors in the Reverse Metric TLV, because that is
	used in Constrained Shortest Path First (CSPF) computations.  Upon
	receipt of this TE sub-TLV in a Reverse Metric TLV, a node SHOULD add
	the received TE default metric to its existing, configured TE default
	metric within its Extended IS Reachability TLV.  Use of other sub-TLV's
	is outside the scope of this document.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	The S bit MUST NOT be set (0) when an IS-IS router does not have TE
	sub-TLV's that it wishes to send to its IS-IS neighbor.
	  </t>
    </section> <!-- reverse-metric-tlv -->

    <section anchor="procedure-elements"
	         title="Elements of Procedure">
	
	<section anchor="metric-changes"
		title="Processing Changes to Default Metric">
	  <t>
	The Metric field, in the Reverse Metric TLV, is a "default metric" that
	will either be in the range of 0 - 63 when a "narrow" IS-IS metric is used
	(IS Neighbors TLV, Pseudonode LSP) <xref target='RFC1195'/> or in the
	range of 0 - (2^24 - 2) when a "wide" Traffic Engineering metric value is
	used, (Extended IS Reachability TLV) <xref target='RFC5305'/>.  It is
	RECOMMENDED that implementations, by default, place the appropriate
	maximum default metric value, 63 or (2^24 - 2), in the Metric field and
	TE Default Metric sub-TLV of the Reverse Metric TLV, since the most
	common use is to remove the link from the topology, except for use as a
	last-resort path.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	In order to ensure that an individual TE link is used as a link of
	last resort during SPF computation, its metric MUST NOT be greater than
	or equal to (2^24 - 1) <xref target='RFC5305'/>.  Therefore, a receiver
	of a Reverse Metric TLV MUST use the numerically smallest value of either
	the sum of its existing default metric and the Metric value in the
	Reverse Metric TLV or (2^24 - 2), as the default metric when updating
	its Extended IS Reachability TLV and TE default-metric sub-TLV's that it
	will then flood throughout the IS-IS domain, using normal IS-IS
	procedures.  Likewise, originators of a Pseudonode LSP or IS Neighbors
	TLV MUST use the numerically smallest value of either the sum of its
	existing default metric and the Metric value it receives in a Reverse
	Metric TLV or 63 when updating the corresponding Pseudonode LSP or IS
	Neighbor TLV before they are flooded.  This also applies when an IS-IS
	router is only configured or capable of sending a "narrow" IS-IS default
	metric, in the range of 0 - 63, but receives a "wide" Metric value in a
	Reverse Metric TLV, in the range of 64 - (2^24 - 2).  In this case, the
	receiving router MUST use the maximum "narrow" IS-IS default metric, 63,
	as its IS-IS default metric value in its updated IS Neighbor TLV or
	Pseudonode LSP that it floods.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	If an IS-IS router is configured to originate a TE Default Metric sub-TLV
	for a link, but receives a Reverse Metric TLV from its neighbor that does
	not contain a TE Default Metric sub-TLV, then the IS-IS router MUST add
	the value in the Metric field of the Reverse Metric TLV to its own
	TE Default Metric sub-TLV for that link.  The IS-IS router should then
	flood the updated Extended IS Reachability TLV, including its updated TE
	Default Metric sub-TLV, using normal IS-IS procedures.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	Routers MUST scan the Metric value and TE sub-TLV's in all subsequently
	received Reverse Metric TLV's.  If changes are observed by a receiver
	of the Reverse Metric TLV in the Metric value or TE Default Metric
	sub-TLV value, the receiving router MUST update its advertised IS-IS
	default metric or Traffic Engineering parameters in the appropriate TLV's,
	recompute its SPF tree and flood new LSP's to other IS-IS routers,
	according to the recommendations outlined in
	<xref target='order-of-operations'/>, Order of Operations, below.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	If the router does not understand the Reverse Metric TLV or is
	explicitly configured to ignore received Reverse Metric TLV's, then it
	MUST NOT update the default metric in its IS Neighbors TLV,
	Extended IS Reachability TLV, TE Default Metric sub-TLV, Multi-Topology
	Intermediate Systems TLV or Pseudonode LSP nor execute other procedures
	that would result from acting on a Reverse Metric TLV, such as
	recomputing its SPF tree.
	  </t>
	</section> <!-- metric-changes -->
	
	<section anchor="mt-isis-metric-changes"
		title="Processing Changes to Default Metric for Multi-Topology IS-IS">
	  <t>
	The Reverse Metric TLV is applicable to Multi-Topology IS-IS (M-ISIS)
	<xref target='RFC5120'/> capable point-to-point links.  If an IS-IS
	router is configured for M-ISIS it MUST send only a single Reverse
	Metric TLV in IIH PDU's toward its neighbor(s) on the designated
	link that is about to undergo maintenance.  When an M-ISIS router
	receives a Reverse Metric TLV it MUST add the received Metric value to
	its default metric in all Extended IS Reachability TLV's for all
	topologies.  If an M-ISIS router receives a Reverse Metric TLV with a
	TE Default Metric sub-TLV, then the M-ISIS router MUST add the received
	TE Default Metric value to each of its TE Default Metric sub-TLV's in
	all of its MT Intermediate Systems TLV's.  If an M-ISIS router is
	configured to advertise TE Default Metric sub-TLV's for one or more
	topologies, but does not receive a TE Default Metric sub-TLV in a
	Reverse Metric TLV, then the M-ISIS router MUST add the value in Metric
	field of the Reverse Metric TLV to each of the TE Default Metric
	sub-TLV's for all topologies.  The M-ISIS should flood its newly
	updated MT IS TLV's and recompute its SPF/CSPF accordingly.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	Multi-Topology IS-IS <xref target='RFC5120'/> specifies there is no
	change to construction of the Pseudonode LSP, regardless of the
	Multi-Topology capabilities of a multi-access LAN.  If any MT capable
	node on the LAN advertises the Reverse Metric TLV to the DIS, the DIS
	should act according to the "Multi-Access LAN Procedures" in
	<xref target='lan-procedures'/> to update, as appropriate, the
	default metric contained in the Pseudonode LSP.  If the DIS updates
	the default metric in and floods a new Pseudonode LSP, those default
	metric values will be applied to all topologies during Multi-Topology
	SPF calculations.
	  </t>
	</section> <!-- mt-isis-metric-changes -->

	<section anchor="lan-procedures"
             title="Multi-Access LAN Procedures">
	  <t>
	On a Multi-Access LAN, only the DIS SHOULD act upon information
	contained in a received Reverse Metric TLV.  All non-DIS nodes MUST
	silently ignore a received Reverse Metric TLV.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	In the case of multi-access LAN's, the "W" Flags bit is used to
	signal from a non-DIS to the DIS whether to change the metric and
	optionally Traffic Engineering parameters for all nodes in the
	Pseudonode LSP or a single node on the LAN, (the originator of the
	Reverse Metric TLV).
	  </t>
	  <t>
	A non-DIS node, e.g.: Router B, attached to a multi-access LAN will
	send a Reverse Metric TLV with the W bit set to 0 to the DIS, when
	Router B wishes the DIS to add the Metric value to the default metric
	contained in the Pseudonode LSP specific to just Router B.  Other
	non-DIS nodes, i.e.: Routers C and D, may simultaneously send a
	Reverse Metric TLV with the W bit set to 0 to request the DIS add
	their own Metric value to their default metric contained in the
	Pseudonode LSP.  When the DIS receives a properly formatted Reverse
	Metric TLV with the W bit set to 0, the DIS MUST only add the
	default metric contained in its Pseudonode LSP for the specific neighbor
	that sent the Reverse Metric TLV.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	It is possible for one node, Router A, to signal to the DIS with the
	W bit set to 1, in which case the DIS would add the Metric value in
	the Reverse Metric TLV to all neighbor adjacencies in the Pseudonode
	LSP and transmit a new Pseudonode LSP to all nodes in the IS-IS domain.
	Later, a second node on the LAN, Router B, could signal to the DIS with
	the W bit also set to 1.  In this case, the DIS MUST use the highest
	source MAC address from IIH PDU's containing Reverse Metric TLV's it
	receives as the tie-breaker to determine the sole Reverse Metric TLV
	used as the source for the Metric value that will be added to the
	default metric for all nodes in the Pseudonode LSP.  If the source MAC
	address was highest in IIH PDU's containing a Reverse Metric TLV
	received from Router B, then the DIS MUST add the Metric value to the
	default metric of all neighbors in its Pseudonode LSP and flood the LSP
	to all nodes in the IS-IS domain.  On the other hand, if the DIS
	determines that Router A's IIH PDU's, containing Reverse Metric TLV's,
	have the highest source MAC address, then the DIS will ignore Router B's
	Reverse Metric TLV and continue to use the Metric value found in Router
	A's Reverse Metric TLV to add to the default metric of all neighbors in
	the Pseudonode LSP.  When this occurs, the DIS MAY send a single syslog
	message or SNMP trap indicating that it has received a Reverse Metric TLV
	from a neighbor, but is ignoring it due to it being received from a
	neighbor with a lower MAC address.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	Another scenario is that one node, Router A, may signal the DIS with
	the W bit set to 1.  The DIS would add the Metric value to the default
	metric for all neighbors in the Pseudonode LSP and flood the LSP.
	Later, a second node on the LAN, Router B, could signal the DIS with
	the W bit set to 0, which indicates to the DIS that Router B is
	requesting the DIS only add the Metric value in the Reverse Metric TLV
	from Router B to the default metric for Router B in the Pseudonode LSP.
	The DIS MUST honor a neighbor's Reverse Metric TLV to update its
	individual default metric in the Pseudonode LSP even if the DIS receives
	prior or later requests to assert a Whole LAN metric from other nodes on
	the same LAN.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	In all cases above, the DIS is MUST use 0 as the base default-metric
	value for each neighbor contained in the Pseudonode LSP to which the DIS
	will add the Metric value in the Reverse Metric TLV(s) it receives from
	neighbors on the LAN.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	Local configuration on the DIS to adjust the default metric(s)
	contained in the Pseudonode LSP, as documented in
	<xref target="I-D.shen-isis-oper-enhance"/> MUST take precedence over
	received Reverse Metric TLV's.
	  </t>
    </section> <!-- lan-procedures -->

	<section anchor="order-of-operations"
		     title="Order of Operations">
	  <t>
	When an IS-IS router starts or stops generating a Reverse Metric TLV,
	it will go through a process of updating its own IS-IS metric and
	optionally Traffic Engineering parameters in its IS Neighbors TLV,
	Extended IS Reachbaility TLV or Pseudonode LSP, flooding updated LSP's
	(using normal IS-IS mechanisms), recompute its SPF/CSPF tree plus
	corresponding metrics to IP prefixes, update its FIB and begin
	advertising the Reverse Metric TLV in IIH PDU's toward its
	corresponding neighbor(s) on the appropriate link or LAN.  Likewise, when
	IS-IS neighbor(s) start or stop receiving a Reverse Metric TLV,
	they will go through a similar process.  It is critical that devices
	which implement the Reverse Metric TLV conduct this process in a
	deterministic order that minimizes the possibilities to generate
	temporary micro forwarding loops during a metric increase and decrease.
	  </t>
	
	</section>
	<section anchor="ops-guidelines"
		title="Operational Guidelines">
	  <t>
	A router MUST advertise a Reverse Metric TLV toward a 
	neighbor only for the period during which it wants a neighbor to 
	temporarily update its IS-IS metric or TE parameters.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	During the period when a Reverse Metric TLV is used, IS-IS routers
	that are generating and receiving a Reverse Metric TLV MUST NOT change
	their existing IS-IS metric or Traffic Engineering parameters in their
	stored (e.g.: hard disk, etc.) configurations, since those parameters
	are carefully derived from off-line capacity planning tools and are
	difficult to restore to their original values.
	  </t>	
	  <t>
	Routers that receive a Reverse Metric TLV MAY send a syslog message or
	SNMP trap, in order to assist in rapidly identifying the node in the
	network that is asserting an IS-IS metric or Traffic Engineering
	parameters different from that which is configured locally on the 
	device.
	  </t>
	  <t>
	It is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a capability to disable
	any changes to a node's, or individual interfaces of the node, default
	metric or Traffic Engineering parameters based upon receipt of properly
	formatted Reverse Metric TLV's.
	  </t>
	</section>
	
	</section> <!-- procedure-elements -->

    <section anchor="example-use-cases"
             title="Reverse Metric TLV Example Use Cases">

	  <t>
	The following is a brief example illustrating one use case of the
	Reverse Metric TLV.  In order to isolate a point-to-point link from
	the IS-IS network, an operator would configure one router, Router A,
	attached to a point-to-point link with a "Reverse Metric".  This
	should not affect the configuration of the existing IS-IS default
	metric previously configured on the router's interface.  Assuming
	Router A is using IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering
	<xref target='RFC5305'/>, this should trigger Router A to update its
	Traffic Engineering Default Metric sub-TLV in its own Extended IS
	Reachability TLV, recompute its SPF tree and corresponding metrics to
	IP prefixes in the IS-IS domain and begin the process of flooding a
	new LSP throughout the network.  Router A would also begin
	transmitting a Reverse Metric TLV, with an appropriate Metric
	value, in an IIH PDU, to its adjacent neighbor, Router B.  Upon receipt
	of the Reverse Metric TLV, Router B would add the received Metric or
	TE default metric sub-TLV value to its own Traffic Engineering Default
	Metric sub-TLV, recalculate its SPF tree and associated route
	topology as well as start flooding a new LSP containing the updated
	Extended IS Reachability TLV throughout the network.  As nodes in the
	network receive the associated LSP's from Router A and B and recalculate
	a new SPF tree, and route topology, traffic should gracefully shift onto
	alternate paths away from the A-B link; ultimately, after all nodes in
	the network recompute their SPF tree link A-B should only be used
	as a link of last-resort.  The operator can inspect traffic counters on
	the A-B interface to determine if the link was successfully isolated
	from the topology and proceed with necessary fault diagnosis or
	maintenance of the associated link.
	   </t>
	   <t>
	When the maintenance activity is complete, the operator would remove
	the reverse metric configuration from Router A, which would cease
	advertisement of the Reverse Metric TLV in IIH PDU's to Router B.
	Both routers would revert to their originally configured IS-IS
	metric, recompute new SPF trees and corresponding metrics to IP prefixes
	and originate new LSP's.  As the new LSP's are received and
	SPF is recalculated by nodes in the IS-IS domain, traffic should
	gradually shift back onto link A-B.
	   </t>
	</section> <!-- EO example-use-cases -->


	<section anchor="Oper"
             title="Operational Considerations">
	   <t>
	Since the Reverse Metric TLV may not be recognized by adjacent IS-IS
	neighbors, operators should inspect input and output traffic throughput
	counters on the local router to ensure that traffic has bidirectionally
	shifted away from a link before starting any maintenance activities.
       </t>
	</section> <!-- EO Oper -->


    <section anchor="Security"
             title="Security Considerations">
	  <t>
	The enhancement in this document makes it possible for one
	IS-IS router to manipulate the IS-IS default metric or optionally
	Traffic Engineering parameters of adjacent IS-IS neighbors.  Although
	IS-IS routers within a single Autonomous System nearly always reside
	under the control of a single administrative authority, it is
	highly RECOMMENDED that operators configure authentication of IS-IS
	PDU's to mitigate use of the Reverse Metric TLV as a potential attack
	vector, particularly on multi-access LAN's.
	  </t>


    </section> <!-- EO Security -->

    <section anchor="IANA"
             title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>
	This document requests that IANA allocate from the IS-IS TLV Codepoints
	Registry a new TLV, referred to as the "Reverse Metric" TLV, with the
	following attributes: IIH = y, LSP = n, SNP = n, Purge = n.
      </t>

    </section> <!-- EO IANA -->



    <section anchor="Acknowledgements"
             title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>
	The authors would like to thank Mike Shand, Dave Katz, Guan Deng,
	Ilya Varlashkin, Jay Chen, Les Ginsberg and Peter Ashwood-Smith,
	Jonathan Harrison, Dave Ward, Himanshu Shah and Wes George for their
	contributions.
      </t>

    </section> <!-- Ack -->


  </middle>
  <back>

    <references title="Normative References">

      <reference anchor="ISO 10589">
	<front>
          <title>
	    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)
	  </title> 
          <author fullname="ISO">
	    <organization >ISO</organization>
	  </author>
	</front>
        <seriesInfo name="ISO/IEC" value="10589:2002"/>
      </reference>

      &rfc1195;
      &rfc2119;
      &rfc5120;
      &rfc5305;

    </references>

    <references title="Informative References">
	
	   &I-D.shen-isis-oper-enhance;
	
    </references>

  </back>
</rfc>
