wdiff rfc7180.original rfc7180.txt

TRILL Working Group Donald
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Eastlake
INTERNET-DRAFT Mingui 3rd
Request for Comments: 7180 M. Zhang
Intended status: Proposed Standard Huawei
Updates: 6325, 6327, 6439 Anoop Huawei
Category: Standards Track A. Ghanwani
ISSN: 2070-1721 Dell
Vishwas
V. Manral
Hewlett-Packard
Ayan
Ionos Corp.
A. Banerjee
Cumulus Networks
Expires: January 29, 2013 July 30, 2012

TRILL:
April 2014

Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates
<draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-06.txt>

Abstract

The IETF TRILL (TRansparent Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) Links (TRILL)
protocol provides least cost least-cost pair-wise data forwarding without
configuration in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology and link
technology, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops,
and support for multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic.
TRILL accomplishes this by using IS-IS (Intermediate Intermediate System to Intermediate System) link state
System (IS-IS) link-state routing and by encapsulating traffic using
a header that includes a hop count. Since publication of the TRILL
base protocol was approved in March 2010, July 2011, active development of TRILL has revealed
errata in the original RFC 6325 and some cases that could use clarifications or
updates.

RFC

RFCs 6327 and RFC 6439 provide clarifications and updates with respect to Adjacency
adjacency and Appointed Forwarders. This document provides other
known clarifications, corrections, and updates to RFC RFCs 6325, RFC 6327,
and RFC 6439.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Distribution of this an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is
unlimited. Comments should be sent to the TRILL working group
mailing list <rbridge@postel.org>.

Internet-Drafts are working documents a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7180.

This document is inappropriate subject to use Internet-Drafts 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 reference
material or they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to cite them other than this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as "work described in progress."

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list Section 4.e of Internet-Draft
Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications
the Trust Legal Provisions and Corrections are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................4
1.1 Precedence.............................................4
1.2 Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Precedence .................................................3
1.2. Changes That Are Not Backwards Compatible..............4
1.3 Backward Compatible ...................4
1.3. Terminology and Acronyms...............................5 Acronyms ...................................4
2. Overloaded and/or Unreachable RBridges..................6
2.1 Reachability...........................................6
2.2 RBridges ..........................4
2.1. Reachability ...............................................5
2.2. Distribution Trees.....................................7
2.3 Trees .........................................6
2.3. Overloaded Receipt of TRILL Data Frames................7
2.3.1 Frames ....................6
2.3.1. Known Unicast Receipt................................7
2.3.2 Receipt ...............................6
2.3.2. Multi-Destination Receipt............................8
2.4 Receipt ...........................6
2.4. Overloaded Origination of TRILL Data Frames............8
2.4.1 Frames ................7
2.4.1. Known Unicast Origination............................8
2.4.2 Origination ...........................7
2.4.2. Multi-Destination Origination........................8
2.4.2.1 Origination .......................7
2.4.2.1. An Example Network.................................8
2.4.2.2 Network .........................7
2.4.2.2. Indicating OOMF Support............................9
2.4.2.3 Support ....................8
2.4.2.3. Using OOMF Service................................10 Service .........................8
3. Distribution Trees.....................................11
3.1 Trees ..............................................9
3.1. Number of Distribution Trees..........................11
3.2 Trees ...............................9
3.2. Clarification of Distribution Tree Updates............11
3.3 Updates .................9
3.3. Multicast Pruning Based on IP Address Based Multicast Pruning....................11
3.4 .....................10
3.4. Numbering of Distribution Trees.......................12 Trees ...........................10
4. Nickname Selection.....................................13 Selection .............................................11
5. MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit)........................15
5.1 MTU Related Unit) ................................12
5.1. MTU-Related Errata in RFC 6325........................15
5.1.1 6325 ............................13
5.1.1. MTU PDU Addressing..................................15
5.1.2 Addressing .................................13
5.1.2. MTU PDU Processing..................................16
5.1.3 Processing .................................13
5.1.3. MTU Testing.........................................16
5.2 Testing ........................................13
5.2. Ethernet MTU Values...................................16 Values .......................................14
6. Port Modes.............................................18 Modes .....................................................14
7. The CFI / DEI Bit......................................19 CFI/DEI Bit ................................................15
8. Graceful Restart.......................................20 Restart ...............................................16
9. Updates to RFC 6327....................................21 6327 ............................................16
10. Updates on Appointed Forwarders and Inhibition........22
10.1 Inhibition ................17
10.1. Optional TRILL Hello Reduction.......................22
10.2 Reduction ...........................17
10.2. Overload and Appointed Forwarders....................24 Forwarders ........................19
11. IANA Considerations...................................25 Considerations ...........................................20
12. Security Considerations...............................26
Acknowledgements..........................................26
Change History............................................26 Considerations .......................................20
13. Acknowledgements ..............................................20
14. References ....................................................21
14.1. Normative References......................................28 References .....................................21
14.2. Informative References....................................29

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections References ...................................22

1. Introduction

The IETF TRILL (Transparent Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) Links (TRILL)
protocol [RFC6325] provides optimal pair-wise data frame forwarding
without configuration in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology
and link technology, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary
loops, and support for multipathing of both unicast and multicast
traffic. TRILL accomplishes this by using IS-IS (Intermediate Intermediate System to
Intermediate System) System (IS-IS) [IS-IS] [RFC1195] [RFC6326bis] link state [RFC7176] link-state
routing and encapsulating traffic using a header that includes a hop
count. The design supports VLANs (Virtual Local Area Networks) and
optimization of the distribution of multi-destination frames based on
VLANs and IP derived multicast groups.

In the more than two years since the TRILL base protocol [RFC6325] was approved, the published,
active development of TRILL has revealed five errors in the original
specification document [RFC6325] and cases that could use clarifications or
updates.

[RFC6327] and [RFC6439] provide clarifications with respect to
Adjacency and Appointed Forwarders. This document provides other
known clarifications, corrections, and updates to [RFC6325],
[RFC6327], and [RFC6439].

1.1

1.1. Precedence

In case of conflict between this document and any of [RFC6325],
[RFC6327], or [RFC6439], this document takes precedence. In
addition, Section 1.2 (Normative Content and Precedence) of [RFC6325]
is updated to provide a more complete precedence ordering of the
sections of [RFC6325] as following, where sections to the left take
precedence over sections to their right:

4 > 3 > 7 > 5 > 2 > 6 > 1

1.2

1.2. Changes That Are Not Backwards Backward Compatible

The change made by Section 3.4 below is not backward compatible with
[RFC6325] but has nevertheless been adopted to reduce distribution
tree changes resulting from topology changes.

The several other changes herein that are fixes to previously posted errata for
[RFC6325] Errata -- [Err3002] [Err3003] [Err3004] [Err3052] [Err3053]
[Err3508] -- may not be backward compatible with previous
implementations that conformed to errors in the specification.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

1.3

1.3. Terminology and Acronyms

This document uses the acronyms defined in [RFC6325] and the
following additional acronyms: acronyms and terms:

CFI - Canonical Format Indicator [802]

DEI - Drop Eligibility Indicator [802.1Q-2011]

EISS - Enhanced Internal Sublayer Service

OOMF - Overload Originated Multi-destination Frame

TRILL Switch - An alternative name for an RBridge

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

2. Overloaded and/or Unreachable RBridges

RBridges may be in overload as indicated by the [IS-IS] overload flag
in their LSPs (Link State PDUs (Protocol Data Units)). PDUs). This means that either (1) they are
incapable of holding the entire link state link-state database and thus do not
have a view of the entire topology or (2) they have been configured
to have the overload bit set. Although networks should be engineered
to avoid actual link state link-state overload, it might occur under various
circumstances. For example, if a large campus included one or more
low-end TRILL Switches.

It is a common operational practice to set the overload bit in an
[IS-IS] router (such as an RBridge) when performing maintenance on
that router that might affect its ability to correctly forward
frames; this will usually leave the router reachable for maintenance
traffic
traffic, but transit traffic will not be routed through it. (Also,
in some cases, TRILL provides for setting the overload bit in the
pseudonode of a link to stop TRILL Data traffic on an access link
(see Section 4.9.1 of [RFC6325]).)

[IS-IS] and TRILL make a reasonable effort to do what they can even
if some RBridges/routers are in overload. They can do reasonably
well if a few scattered nodes are in overload. However, actual least cost
least-cost paths are no longer assured if any RBridges are in
overload.

For the effect of overload on the appointment of forwarders, see
Section 10.2.

In this Section 2, the term "neighbor" refers only to actual RBridges
and ignores pseudonodes.

2.1

2.1. Reachability

Frames are not least cost least-cost routed through an overloaded TRILL Switch,
although they may originate or terminate at an overloaded TRILL
Switch. In addition, frames will not be least cost least-cost routed over links
with cost 2**24 - 1 [RFC5305]; such links are reserved for traffic traffic-
engineered frames, the handling of which is beyond the scope of this
document.

As a result, a portion of the campus may be unreachable for least least-
cost routed TRILL Data because all paths to it would be through a
link with cost 2**24 - 1 or through an overloaded RBridge. For
example, an RBridge RB1 is not reachable by TRILL Data if all of its
neighbors are connected to RB1 by links with cost 2**24 - 1. Such
RBridges are called "data unreachable".

The link state link-state database at an RBridge RB1 can also contain

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections
information on TRILL Switches that are unreachable by IS-IS link link-
state flooding due to link or RBridge failures. When such failures
partition the campus, the TRILL Switches adjacent to the failure and
on the same side of the failure as RB1 will update their LSPs to show
the lack of connectivity connectivity, and RB1 will receive those updates. As a
result, RB1 will be aware of the partition. Nodes on the far side of
the partition are both "IS-IS unreachable" IS-IS unreachable and data unreachable.
However, LSPs held by RB1 for TRILL Switches on the far side of the
failure will not be updated and may stay around until they time out,
which could be tens of minutes or longer. (The default in [IS-IS] is
twenty minutes.)

2.2

2.2. Distribution Trees

An RBridge in overload cannot be trusted to correctly calculate
distribution trees or correctly perform the RPFC (Reverse Path (Reverse-Path
Forwarding Check). Therefore, it cannot be trusted to forward multi-
destination TRILL Data frames. It can only appear as a leaf node in
a TRILL multi-destination distribution tree. Furthermore, if all the
immediate neighbors of an RBridge are overloaded, then it is omitted
from all trees in the campus and is unreachable by multi-destination
frames.

When an RBridge determines what nicknames to use as the roots of the
distribution trees it calculates, it MUST ignore all nicknames held
by TRILL Switches that are in overload or are data unreachable. When
calculating RPFCs for multi-destination frames, an RBridge RB1 MAY,
to avoid calculating unnecessary RPF check state, ignore any trees
that cannot reach to RB1 even if other RBridges list those trees as
trees those that other TRILL Switches might use. (But see Section 3.)

2.3

2.3. Overloaded Receipt of TRILL Data Frames

The receipt of TRILL Data frames by overloaded RBridge RB2 is
discussed in the subsections below. In all cases, the normal Hop
Count decrement is performed performed, and the TRILL Data frame is discarded
if the result is less than one or if the egress nickname is illegal.

2.3.1

2.3.1. Known Unicast Receipt

RB2 will not usually receive unicast TRILL Data frames unless it is
the egress, in which case it decapsulates and delivers the frames
normally. If RB2 receives a unicast TRILL Data frame for which it is
not the egress, perhaps because a neighbor does not yet know it is in

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections
overload, RB2 MUST NOT discard the frame because the egress is an
unknown nickname as it might not know about all nicknames due to its
overloaded condition. If any neighbor, other than the neighbor from
which it received the frame, is not overloaded overloaded, it MUST attempt to
forward the frame to one of those neighbors. If there is no such
neighbor, the frame is discarded.

2.3.2

2.3.2. Multi-Destination Receipt

If RB2 in overload receives a multi-destination TRILL Data frame, RB2
MUST NOT apply an RPFC since, due to overload, it might not do so
correctly. RB2 decapsulates and delivers the frame locally where it
is Appointed Forwarder for the frame's VLAN, subject to any multicast
pruning. But since, as stated above, RB2 can only be the leaf of a
distribution tree, it MUST NOT forward a multi-destination TRILL Data
frame (except as an egressed native frame where RB2 is Appointed
Forwarder).

2.4

2.4. Overloaded Origination of TRILL Data Frames

Overloaded origination of unicast frames with known egress and of
multi-destination frames are discussed in the subsections below.

2.4.1

2.4.1. Known Unicast Origination

When an overloaded RBridge RB2 ingresses or creates a known
destination unicast TRILL Data frame, it delivers it locally if the
destination MAC Media Access Control (MAC) is local. Otherwise Otherwise, RB2
unicasts it to any neighbor TRILL Switch that is not overloaded. It
MAY use what routing information it has to help select the neighbor.

2.4.2

2.4.2. Multi-Destination Origination

Overloaded RBridge RB2 ingressing or creating a multi-destination
TRILL Data frame is more complex than for a known unicast frame.

2.4.2.1

2.4.2.1. An Example Network

For example, consider the network below in which, for simplicity, end
stations and any bridges are not shown. There is one distribution

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections
tree of which RB4 is the root and which root; it is represented by double lines.
Only RBridge RB2 is overloaded.

+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| RB7 +====+ RB5 +=====+ RB3 +=====+ RB1 |
+-----+ +--+--+ +-++--+ +--+--|
| || |
+---+---+ || |
+------+RB2(ov)|======++ |
| +-------+ || |
| || |
+--+--+ +-----+ ++==++=++ +--+--+
| RB8 +=====+ RB6 +==++ RB4 ++=====+ RB9 |
+-----+ +-----+ ++=====++ +-----+

Since RB2 is overloaded overloaded, it does not know what the distribution tree
or trees are for the network. Thus Thus, there is no way it can provide
normal TRILL Data encapsulation for multi-destination native frames.
So RB2 tunnels the frame to a neighbor that is not overloaded if it
has such a neighbor that has signaled that it is willing to offer
this service. RBridges indicate this in their Hellos as described
below. This service is called OOMF (Overloaded Origination of (Overload Originated Multi-
destination Frame) service.

- The multi-destination frame MUST NOT be locally distributed in
native form at RB2 before tunneling to a neighbor because this
would cause the frame to be delivered twice. For example, if RB2
locally distributed a multicast native frame and then tunneled it
to RB5, RB2 would get a copy of the frame when RB3 transmitted it
as a TRILL Data frame on the multi-access RB2-RB3-RB4 link. Since
RB2 would, in general, not be able to tell that this was a frame
it had tunneled for distribution, RB2 would decapsulate it and
locally distribute it a second time.

- On the other hand, if there is no neighbor of RB2 offering RB2 the
OOMF service, RB2 cannot tunnel the frame to a neighbor. In this
case
case, RB2 MUST locally distribute the frame where it is Appointed
Forwarder for the frame's VLAN and optionally subject to multicast
pruning.

2.4.2.2

2.4.2.2. Indicating OOMF Support

An RBridge RB3 indicates its willingness to offer the OOMF service to
RB2 in the TRILL Neighbor TLV in RB3's TRILL Hellos by setting a bit
associated with the SNPA (SubNetwork (Subnetwork Point of Attachment, also known
as MAC address) of RB2 on the link. (See Section 11.) Overloaded
RBridge RB2 can only distribute multi-destination TRILL Data frames
to the campus if a neighbor of RB2 not in overload offers RB2 the

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections
OOMF service. If RB2 does not have OOMF service available to it, RB2
can still receive multi-destination frames from non-overloaded
neighbors and, if RB2 should originate or ingress such a frame, it
distributes it locally in native form.

2.4.2.3

2.4.2.3. Using OOMF Service

If RB2 sees this OOMF (Overloaded Origination of (Overload Originated Multi-destination Frame)
service advertised for it by any of its neighbors on any link to
which RB2 connects, it selects one such neighbor by a means beyond
the scope of this document. Assuming RB2 selects RB3 to handle multi-
destination
multi-destination frames it originates. originates, RB2 MUST advertise in its LSP
that it might use any of the distribution trees that RB3 advertises
so that the RPFC will work in the rest of the campus. Thus,
notwithstanding its overloaded state, RB2 MUST retain this
information from RB3 LSPs, which it will receive as it is directly
connected to RB3.

RB2 then encapsulates such frames as TRILL Data frames to RB3 as
follows: M bit = 0, Hop Count = 2, ingress nickname = a nickname held
by RB2, and, since RB2 cannot tell what distribution tree RB3 will
use, egress nickname = a special nickname indicating an OOMF frame
(see Section 11). RB2 then unicasts this TRILL Data frame to RB3.
(Implementation of Item 4 in Section 4 below provides reasonable
assurance that, notwithstanding its overloaded state, the ingress
nickname used by RB2 will be unique within at least the portion of
the campus that is IS-IS reachable from RB2.)

On receipt of such a frame, RB3 does the following:

- change changes the egress nickname Egress Nickname field to designate a distribution tree
that RB3 normally uses,
- set sets the M bit to one,
- change changes the Hop Count to the value it would normally use if it
were the ingress, and
- forward forwards the frame on that tree.

RB3 MAY rate limit the number of frames for which it is providing
this service by discarding some such frames from RB2. The provision
of even limited bandwidth for OOMFs by RB3, perhaps via the slow
path, may be important to the bootstrapping of services at RB2 or at
end stations connected to RB2, such as supporting DHCP and ARP/ND. ARP/ND
(Address Resolution Protocol / Neighbor Discovery). (Everyone
sometimes needs a little OOMF (pronounced oomph) "oomph") to get off the
ground.)

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

3. Distribution Trees

A correction,

Two corrections, a clarification, and two updates related to
distribution trees appear in the subsections below. See also
Section 2.2.

3.1

3.1. Number of Distribution Trees

In [RFC6325], Section 4.5.2, page 56, Point 2, 4th paragraph, the
parenthetical "(up to the maximum of {j,k})" is incorrect [Err3052].
It should read "(up to k if j is zero or the minimum of (j, k) if j
is non-zero)".

3.2

3.2. Clarification of Distribution Tree Updates

When a link state link-state database change causes a change in the distribution
tree(s), there are several possibilities. If a tree root remains a
tree root but the tree changes, then local forwarding and RPFC
entries for that tree should be updated as soon as practical.
Similarly, if a new nickname becomes a tree root, forwarding and RPFC
entries for the new tree should be installed as soon as practical.
However, if a nickname ceases to be a tree root and there is
sufficient room in local tables, the forwarding and RPFC entries for
the former tree MAY be retained so that any multi-destination TRILL
Data frames already in flight on that tree have a higher probability
of being delivered.

3.3 IP Address Based

3.3. Multicast Pruning Based on IP Address

The TRILL base protocol specification [RFC6325] provides for and
recommends the pruning of multi-destination frame distribution trees
based on the location of IP multicast routers and listeners; however,
multicast listening is identified by derived MAC addresses as
communicated in the Group MAC Address sub-TLV [RFC6326bis]. [RFC7176].

TRILL Switches MAY communicate multicast listeners and prune
distribution trees based on the actual IPv4 or IPv6 multicast
addresses involved. Additional Group Address sub-TLVs are provided
in
[RFC6326bis] [RFC7176] to carry this information. A TRILL Switch that is only
capable of pruning based on derived MAC address SHOULD calculate and
use such derived MAC addresses from multicast listener IPv4/IPv6
address information it receives.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

3.4

3.4. Numbering of Distribution Trees

Section 4.5.1 of [RFC6325] specifies that, when building distribution
tree number j, node (RBridge) N that has multiple possible parents in
the tree is attached to possible parent number j mod p. Trees are
numbered starting with 1 1, but possible parents are numbered starting
with 0. As a result, if there are two trees and two possible
parents, in tree 1 1, parent 1 will be selected selected, and in tree 2 2, parent
0 will be selected.

This is changed so that the selected parent MUST be (j-1) mod p. As
a result, in the case above, tree 1 will select parent 0 0, and tree 2
will select parent 1. This change is not backwards backward compatible with
[RFC6325]. If all RBridges in a campus do not determine distribution
trees in the same way then, way, then for most topologies, the reverse path
forwarding checking RPFC will drop
many multi-destination frames before they have been properly
delivered.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

4. Nickname Selection

Nickname selection

3.5. Link Cost Directionality

Distribution tree construction, like other least-cost aspects of
TRILL, works even if link costs are asymmetric, so the cost of the
hop from RB1 to RB2 is covered by Section 3.7.3 different from the cost of [RFC6325]. the hop from RB2 to
RB1. However, it is essential that all RBridges calculate the following should be noted:

1. The second sentence same
distribution trees, and thus, all must either use the cost away from
the tree root or the cost towards the tree root. As corrected in
[Err3508], the second bullet item text in Section 4.5.1 of [RFC6325] is incorrect. It
says:

In other words, the set of potential parents for N, for the tree
rooted at R, consists of those that give equally minimal cost
paths from N to R and ...

but the text should say "from R to N":

In other words, the set of potential parents for N, for the tree
rooted at R, consists of those that give equally minimal cost
paths from R to N and ...

4. Nickname Selection

Nickname selection is covered by Section 3.7.3 of [RFC6325].
However, the following should be noted:

1. The second sentence in the second bullet item in Section 3.7.3 of
[RFC6325] on page 25 is erroneous [Err3002] and is corrected as
follows:

1.a

o The occurrence of "IS-IS ID (LAN ID)" is replaced with
"priority".

1.b

o The occurrence of "IS-IS System ID" is replaced with "seven "seven-
byte IS-IS ID (LAN ID)".

The resulting corrected [RFC6325] sentence in [RFC6325] reads as follows: "If

If RB1 chooses nickname x, and RB1 discovers, through receipt
of an LSP for RB2 at any later time, that RB2 has also chosen
x, then the RBridge or pseudonode with the numerically higher
priority keeps the nickname, or if there is a tie in priority,
the RBridge with the numerically higher seven byte seven-byte IS-IS ID
(LAN ID) keeps the nickname, and the other RBridge MUST select
a new nickname." nickname.

2. In examining the link state link-state database for nickname conflicts,
nicknames held by IS-IS unreachable TRILL Switches MUST be ignored
ignored, but nicknames held by IS-IS reachable TRILL Switches
MUST NOT be ignored even if they are data unreachable.

3. An RBridge may need to select a new nickname, either initially
because it has none or because of a conflict. When doing so, the
RBridge MUST consider as available all nicknames that do not
appear in its link state link-state database or that appear to be held by IS-
IS
IS-IS unreachable TRILL Switches; however, it SHOULD give
preference to selecting new nicknames that do not appear to be
held by any TRILL Switch in the campus, reachable or unreachable,
so as to minimize conflicts if IS-IS unreachable TRILL Switches
later become reachable.

4. An RBridge, even after it has acquired a nickname for which there
appears to be no conflicting claimant, MUST continue to monitor
for conflicts with the nickname or nicknames it holds. It does
so by checking in LSPs LSP PDUs it receives that should update its link state
link-state database for the following: any occurrence of any of
its nicknames held with higher priority by
another some other TRILL
Switch that is IS-IS reachable. reachable from it. If it finds such a
conflict, it MUST select a new nickname, even when in overloaded
state. (It is possible to receive an LSP that should update the
link state
link-state database but does not due to overload.)

5. In the very unlikely case that an RBridge is unable to obtain a
nickname because all valid RBridge nicknames (0x0001 through

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections
0xFFBF inclusive) are in use with higher priority by IS-IS
reachable TRILL Switches, it will be unable to act as an ingress,
egress, or tree root but will still be able to function as a
transit TRILL Switch. Although it cannot be a tree root, such an
RBridge is included in distribution trees computed for the campus
unless all its neighbors are overloaded. It would not be
possible to send a unicast RBridge Channel message specifically
to such a TRILL Switch [Channel]; [RFC7178]; however, it will receive
unicast Channel messages sent by a neighbor to the Any-RBridge
egress nickname and will receive appropriate multi-destination
Channel messages.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

5. MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit)

MTU values in TRILL key off the originatingL1LSPBufferSize value
communicated in the IS-IS originatingLSPBufferSize TLV [IS-IS]. The
campus-wide value Sz, as described in [RFC6325] Section 4.3.1, 4.3.1 of [RFC6325], is
the minimum value of originatingL1LSPBufferSize for the RBridges in a
campus, but not less than 1470. The MTU testing mechanism and
limiting LSPs to Sz assures that the LSPs can be flooded by IS-IS and
thus that IS-IS can operate properly.

If nothing is known about the MTU of the links or the
originatingL1LSPBufferSize of other RBridges in a campus, the
originatingL1LSPBufferSize for an RBridge should default to the
minimum of the LSP size that its TRILL IS-IS software can handle and
the minimum MTU of the ports that it might use to receive or transmit
LSPs. If an RBridge does have knowledge of link MTUs or other
RBridge
originatingL1LSPBufferSize originatingL1LSPBufferSize, then, to avoid the necessity to
regenerate the local LSPs using a different maximum size, the
RBridge's originatingL1LSPBufferSize SHOULD be configured to the
minimum of (1) the smallest value that other RBridges are or will be
announcing as their originatingL1LSPBufferSize and (2) a value small
enough that the campus will not partition due to a significant number
of links with limited MTU. However, as provided in [RFC6325], in no
case can originatingL1LSPBufferSize be less than 1470. In a well well-
configured campus, to minimize any LSP regeneration due to re-sizing,
it is desirable for all RBridges to be configured with the same
originatingL1LSPBufferSize.

Section 5.1 below corrects errata in [RFC6325] [RFC6325], and Section 5.2
clarifies the meaning of various MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) limits for TRILL Ethernet links.

5.1 MTU Related

5.1. MTU-Related Errata in RFC 6325

Three MTU related MTU-related errata in [RFC6325] are corrected in the
subsections below.

5.1.1

5.1.1. MTU PDU Addressing

Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325] incorrectly states that multi-destination
MTU-probe and MTU-ack TRILL IS-IS PDUs are sent on Ethernet links
with the All-RBridges multicast address as the Outer.MacDA [Err3004].
As TRILL IS-IS PDUs, when multicast on an Ethernet link, they MUST be
sent to the All-IS-IS-RBridges multicast address.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

5.1.2

5.1.2. MTU PDU Processing

As discussed in [RFC6325] and, in more detail, in [RFC6327], MTU-
probe and MTU-ack PDUs MAY be unicast; however, Section 4.6 of
[RFC6325] erroneously does not allow for this possibility [Err3003].
It is corrected by replacing Item numbered "1" in Section 4.6.2 of
[RFC6325] with the following quoted text to which TRILL Switches MUST
conform:

"1. If the Ethertype is L2-IS-IS and the Outer.MacDA is either All-
IS-IS-RBridges or the unicast MAC address of the receiving
RBridge port, the frame is handled as described in
Section 4.6.2.1"

The reference to "Section 4.6.2.1" in the above quoted text is to
that Section section in [RFC6325].

5.1.3

5.1.3. MTU Testing

The last two sentences of Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325] have errors
[Err3053]. They currently read:

If X is not greater than Sz, then RB1 sets the "failed minimum MTU
test" flag for RB2 in RB1's Hello. If size X succeeds, and X >
Sz, then RB1 advertises the largest tested X for each adjacency in
the TRILL Hellos RB1 sends on that link, and RB1 MAY advertise X
as an attribute of the link to RB2 in RB1's LSP.

They should read:

If X is not greater than or equal to Sz, then RB1 sets the "failed
minimum MTU test" flag for RB2 in RB1's Hello. If size X
succeeds, and X >= Sz, then RB1 advertises the largest tested X
for each adjacency in the TRILL Hellos RB1 sends on that link, and
RB1 MAY advertise X as an attribute of the link to RB2 in RB1's
LSP.

5.2

5.2. Ethernet MTU Values

originatingL1LSPBufferSize is the maximum permitted size of LSPs
starting with the 0x83 Intradomain Routeing Protocol Discriminator
byte. In layer Layer 3 IS-IS, originatingL1LSPBufferSize defaults to 1492
bytes. (This is because, in its previous life as DECnet Phase V, IS-
IS
IS-IS was encoded using the SNAP SAP [RFC5342] format (Subnetwork Access Protocol
Service Access Point) [RFC7042] format, which takes 8 bytes of
overhead and 1492 + 8 = 1500, the classic Ethernet maximum. When
standardized by ISO/IEC [IS-IS] to use LLC Logical Link Control (LLC)
encoding, this default could have been increased by a few bytes but
was not.)

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

In TRILL, originatingL1LSPBufferSize defaults to 1470 bytes. This
allows 27 bytes of headroom or safety margin to accommodate legacy
devices with the classic Ethernet maximum MTU despite headers such as
an Outer.VLAN. This safety margin is called "Margin" below.

Assuming the campus wide campus-wide minimum link MTU is Sz, RBridges on Ethernet
links MUST limit most TRILL IS-IS PDUs so that PDUz (the length of
the PDU starting just after the L2-IS-IS Ethertype and ending just
before the Ethernet frame FCS) Frame Check Sequence (FCS)) does not to exceed
Sz. The PDU exceptions are TRILL Hello PDUs, which MUST NOT exceed
1470 bytes, and MTU-probe and MTU-ack PDUs that are padded, depending
on the size being tested (which may exceed Sz).

Sz does not limit TRILL Data frames. They are only limited by the
MTU of the devices and links that they actually pass through;
however, links that can accommodate IS-IS PDUs up to Sz would
accommodate, with a generous safety margin, TRILL Data frame payloads, payloads
of (Sz - 24) bytes, starting after the Inner.VLAN and ending just
before the FCS, of Sz - 24
bytes. FCS. Most modern Ethernet equipment has ample headroom
for frames with extensive headers and is sometimes engineered to
accommodate 9K byte jumbo frames.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

6. Port Modes

Section 4.9.1 of [RFC6325] specifies four mode bits for RBridge ports
but may not be completely clear on the effects of various
combinations of bits.

The table below explicitly indicates the effect of all possible
combinations of the TRILL port mode bits. "*" in one of the first
four columns indicates that the bit can be either zero or one. The
following columns indicate allowed frame types. The Disable bit
normally disables all frames frames, but, as an implementation choice, some
or all low level low-level Layer 2 control frames (as specified in [RFC6325] [RFC6325],
Section 1.4) can still be sent or received.

+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|D| | | | | | | | |
|i| |A| | | |TRILL| | |
|s| |c|T| | |Data | | |
|a| |c|r| | | | | |
|b|P|e|u| |native | LSP | | |
|l|2|s|n|Layer 2 |ingress| SNP |TRILL| P2P |
|e|P|s|k|Control |egress | MTU |Hello|Hello|
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|0|0|0|0| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|0|0|0|1| Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|0|0|1|0| Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|0|0|1|1| Yes | No | No | Yes | No |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|0|1|0|*| Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|0|1|1|*| Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+
|1|*|*|*|Optional| No | No | No | No |
+-+-+-+-+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+

(The formal name of the "access bit" is the "TRILL traffic disable
bit"
bit", and the formal name of the "trunk bit" is the "end-station
service disable bit" [RFC6325].)

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

7. The CFI / DEI CFI/DEI Bit

In May 2011, the IEEE promulgated [802.1Q-2011] [802.1Q-2011], which changes the
meaning of the bit between the priority and VLAN ID bits in the
payload of C-VLAN tags. Previously Previously, this bit was called the CFI
(Canonical Format Indicator) bit [802] and had a special meaning in
connection with IEEE 802.5 (Token Ring) frames. Now, under
[802.1Q-2011], it is a DEI (Drop Eligibility Indicator) bit, similar
to that bit in S-VLAN / B-VLAN S-VLAN/B-VLAN tags where this bit has always been a
DEI bit.

The TRILL base protocol specification [RFC6325] assumed, in effect,
that the link by which end stations are connected to TRILL Switches
and the restricted virtual link provided by the TRILL Data frame are
IEEE 802.3 Ethernet links on which the CFI bit is always zero.
Should an end station be attached by some other type of link, such as
a Token Ring link, [RFC6325] implicitly assumed that such frames
would be canonicalized to 802.3 frames before being ingressed ingressed, and
similarly, on egress, such frames would be converted from 802.3 to
the appropriate frame type for the link. Thus, [RFC6325] required
that the CFI bit in the Inner.VLAN Inner.VLAN, which is shown as the "C" bit in
Section 4.1.1 of [RFC6325], always be zero.

However, for TRILL Switches with ports conforming to the change
incorporated in the IEEE 802.1Q-2011 standard, the bit in the
Inner.VLAN, now a DEI bit, MUST be set to the DEI value provided by
the EISS (Enhanced Internal Sublayer Service) interface on ingressing
a native frame. Similarly, this bit MUST be provided to the EISS
when transiting or egressing a TRILL Data frame. As with the 3-bit
priority
Priority field, the DEI bit to use in forwarding a transit frame MUST
be taken from the Inner.VLAN. The exact effect on the Outer.VLAN DEI
and priority bits and whether or not an Outer.VLAN appears at all on
the wire for output frames may depend on output port configuration.

TRILL campuses with a mixture of ports, some compliant with
[802.1Q-2011] and some compliant with pre-802.1Q-2011 standards,
especially if they have actual Token Ring links, may operate
incorrectly and may corrupt data, just as a bridged LAN with such
mixed ports and links would.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

8. Graceful Restart

TRILL Switches SHOULD support the features specified in [RFC5306] [RFC5306],
which describes a mechanism for a restarting IS-IS router to signal
to its neighbors that it is restarting, allowing them to reestablish
their adjacencies without cycling through the down state, while still
correctly initiating link state link-state database synchronization.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

9. Updates to RFC 6327

[RFC6327] provides for multiple states of the potential adjacency
between two TRILL Switches. It makes clear that only an adjacency in
the "Report" state is reported in LSPs. LSP synchronization (LSP and
SNP
Subnetwork Point (SNP) transmission and receipt), however, is
performed if and only if there is at least one adjacency on the link
in either the "Two-Way" "2-Way" or "Report" state.

To support the PORT-TRILL-VER sub-TLV specified in [RFC6326bis], [RFC7176], the
following updates are made to [RFC6327]:

1. The first sentence of the last paragraph in [RFC6327] Section 3.1
is modified from
"All

All TRILL LAN Hellos issued by an RBridge on a particular port
MUST have the same source MAC address, priority, desired
Designated VLAN, and Port ID, regardless of the VLAN in which
the Hello is sent." sent.

to
"All

All TRILL LAN Hellos issued by an RBridge on a particular port
MUST have the same source MAC address, priority, desired
Designated VLAN, Port ID, and PORT-TRILL-VER sub-TLV
[RFC6326bis] [RFC7176]
if included, regardless of the VLAN in which the Hello is sent."
sent.

2. An additional bullet item is added to the end of [RFC6327] Section 3.2 of
[RFC6327] as follows:

o The 5 five bytes of data from the PORT-TRILL-VER sub-TLV data received in the
most recent TRILL Hello from the neighbor RBridge.

3. In [RFC6327] Section 3.3, 3.3 of [RFC6327], near the bottom of page 12, a bullet
item as follows is added:

o The five bytes of PORT-TRILL-VER sub-TLV data are set from
that sub-TLV in the Hello or set to zero if that sub-TLV does
not occur in the Hello.

4. At the beginning of [RFC6327] Section 4, 4 of [RFC6327], a bullet item is
added to the list as follows:

o The five bytes of PORT-TRILL-VER sub-TLV data used in TRILL
Hellos sent on the port.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

10. Updates on Appointed Forwarders and Inhibition

An optional method of Hello reduction is specified in Section 10.1
below and a recommendation on forwarder appointments in the face of
overload is given in Section 10.2.

10.1

10.1. Optional TRILL Hello Reduction

If a network manager has sufficient confidence that they know it knows the
configuration of bridges, ports, and the like, within a link, they it may
be able to reduce the number of TRILL Hellos sent on that link; for
example, if all RBridges on the link will see all Hellos regardless
of VLAN constraints, Hellos could be sent on fewer VLANs. However,
because adjacencies are established in the Designated VLAN, an
RBridge MUST always attempt to send Hellos in the Designated VLAN.
Hello reduction makes TRILL less robust in the face of decreased VLAN
connectivity in a link such as partitioned VLANs, many VLANs disabled
on ports, or disagreement over the Designated VLAN; however, as long
as all RBridge ports on the link are configured for the same desired
Designated VLAN, can see each other's frames in that VLAN, and
utilize the mechanisms specified below to update VLAN inhibition
timers, operations will be safe. (These considerations do not arise
on links between RBridges that are configured as point-to-point
since, in that case, each RBridge sends point-to-point Hellos, other
TRILL IS-IS PDUs, and TRILL Data frames only in what it believes to
be the Designated VLAN of the link and no native frame end-station
service is provided.)

The provision for a configurable set of "Announcing VLANs", as
described in Section 4.4.3 of [RFC6325] [RFC6325], provides a mechanism in the
TRILL base protocol for a reduction in TRILL Hellos.

To maintain loop safety in the face of occasional lost frames,
RBridge failures, link failures, new RBridges coming up on a link,
and the like, the inhibition mechanism specified in [RFC6439] is
still required. Under Section 3 of [RFC6439], a VLAN inhibition
timer can only be set by the receipt of a Hello sent or received in
that VLAN. Thus, to safely send a reduced number of TRILL Hellos on
a reduced number of VLANs requires additional mechanisms to set the
VLAN inhibition timers at an RBridge, thus extending Section 3, Item
4, of [RFC6439]. Two such mechanisms are specified below. Support
for both of these mechanisms is indicated by a capability bit in the
PORT-TRILL-VER sub-TLV (see Section 9 above and [RFC6326bis]). [RFC7176]). It may
be unsafe for an RBridge to send TRILL Hellos on fewer VLANs than the
set of VLANs recommended in [RFC6325] on a link unless all its
adjacencies on that link (excluding those in the Down state
[RFC6327]) indicate support of these mechanisms and these mechanisms
are in use.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

1. An RBridge RB2 MAY include in any TRILL Hello an Appointed
Forwarders sub-TLV [RFC6326bis] [RFC7176] appointing itself for one or more
ranges of VLANs. The Appointee Nickname field(s) in the
Appointed Forwarder sub-TLV MUST be the same as the Sender
Nickname in the Special VLANs and Flags sub-TLV in the TRILL
Hello. This indicates the sending RBridge believes it is
Appointed Forwarder for those VLANs. An RBridge receiving such a
sub-TLV sets each of its VLAN inhibition timers for every VLAN in
the block or blocks listed in the Appointed Forwarders sub-TLV to
the maximum of its current value and the Holding Time of the
Hello containing the sub-TLV. This is backwards backward compatible
because such sub-TLVs will have no effect on any receiving
RBridge not implementing this mechanism unless RB2 is the DRB
(Designated RBridge) sending Hello on the Designated VLAN VLAN, in
which case, as specified in [RFC6439], RB2 MUST include in the
Hello all forwarder appointments, if any, for RBridges other than
itself on the link.

2. An RBridge MAY use the new VLANs Appointed sub-TLV [RFC6326bis]. [RFC7176].
When RB1 receives a VLANs Appointed sub-TLV in a TRILL Hello from
RB2 on any VLAN, RB1 updates the VLAN inhibition timers for all
the VLANs that RB2 lists in that sub-TLV as VLANs for which RB2
is Appointed Forwarder. Each such timer is updated to the
maximum of its current value and the Holding Time of the TRILL
Hello containing the VLANs Appointed sub-TLV. This sub-TLV will
be an unknown sub-TLV to RBridge RBridges not implementing it it, and such
RBridges will ignore it. Even if a TRILL Hello send sent by the DRB
on the Designated VLAN includes one or more VLANs Appointed sub-TLVs, sub-
TLVs, as long as no Appointed Forwarders sub-TLVs appear, the
Hello is not required to indicate all forwarder appointments.

Two different encodings are providing above to optimize the listing
of VLANs. Large blocks of contiguous VLANs are more efficiently
encoded with the Appointed Forwarders sub-TLV sub-TLV, and scattered VLANs
are more efficiently encoded with the VLANs Appointed sub-TLV. These
encodings may be mixed in the same Hello. The use of these sub-TLVs
does not affect the requirement that the "AF" bit in the Special
VLANs and Flags sub-TLV MUST be set if the originating RBridge
believes it is Appointed Forwarder for the VLAN in which the Hello is
sent. If the above mechanisms are used on a link, then each RBridge
on the link MUST send Hellos in one or more VLANs with such VLANs
Appointed sub-TLV(s) and/or self-appointment Appointed Forwarders
sub-TLV(s)
sub-TLV(s), and the "AF" bit MUST be appropriately set such that no
VLAN inhibition timer will improperly expire unless three or more
Hellos are lost. For example, an RBridge could announce all VLANs
for which it believes it is Appointed Forwarder in a Hello sent on
the Designated VLAN three times per Holding Time.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

10.2

10.2. Overload and Appointed Forwarders

An RBridge in overload (see Section 2) will, in general, do a poorer
job of ingressing and forwarding frames than an RBridge not in
overload that has full knowledge of the campus topology. For
example, an overloaded RBridge may not be able to distribute multi-destination multi-
destination TRILL Data frames at all.

Therefore, the DRB SHOULD NOT appoint an RBridge in overload as an
Appointed Forwarder unless there is no alternative. Furthermore, if
an Appointed Forwarder becomes overloaded, the DRB SHOULD re-assign
VLANs from the overloaded RBridge to another RBridge on the link that
is not overloaded, if one is available. DRB election is not affected
by overload.

A counter-example would be if all campus end stations in VLAN-x were
on links attached to RB1 via ports where VLAN-x was enabled. In such
a case, RB1 SHOULD be made the VLAN-x Appointed Forwarder on all such
links even if RB1 is overloaded.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

11. IANA Considerations

The following IANA actions are required: have been completed.

1. The nickname 0xTBD [0xFFC1 suggested], 0xFFC1, which was reserved by [RFC6325], is
allocated for use in the TRILL Header egress
nickname Egress Nickname field to
indicate an OOMF (Overload Originated Multi-
destination Multi-destination Frame).

2. Bit 1 from the seven previously reserved (RESV) bits in the per per-
neighbor "Neighbor RECORD" in the TRILL Neighbor TLV [RFC6326bis] [RFC7176] is
allocated to indicate that the RBridge sending the TRILL Hello
volunteers to provide the OOMF forwarding service described in
Section 2.4.2 to such frames originated by the TRILL Switch whose
SNPA (MAC address) appears in that Neighbor RECORD.

3. The
description of this bit is "Offering OOMF service".

3. Bit 0 is allocated from the Capability bits in the PORT-TRILL-VER
sub-TLV [RFC6326bis] [RFC7176] to indicate support of the VLANs Appointed
sub-TLV [RFC6326bis] sub-
TLV [RFC7176] and the VLAN inhibition setting mechanisms
specified in Section 10.1.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections The description of this bit is "Hello
reduction support".

12. Security Considerations

This memo improves the documentation of the TRILL protocol, corrects
five errata in [RFC6325], and updates [RFC6325], [RFC6327], and
[RFC6439]. It does not change the security considerations of these
RFCs.

13. Acknowledgements

The contributions of the following persons individuals are gratefully
acknowledged: Somnath Chatterjee, Weiguo Hao, Rakesh Kumar, Yizhou
Li, Radia Perlman, Mike Shand, Meral Shirazipour, and Varun Varshah.

This document was produced with raw nroff. All macros used were
defined in the source file.

Change History

RFC Editor Note: Please delete this Change History section before
publication.

Changes from -01 to -02:
Add Section 3.4. Minor editorial changes and update of the version
and dates.

Changes from -02 to -03:
Emphasize in Section 3.4 that the change is not backwards
compatible and that all the RBridges in a campus must calculate
the distribution trees the same way or RPFC will discard too much.
Provide additional detail at the end of Item 5, Section 4, as to
what Channel messages can be received by an RBridge without a
nickname. Add Section 1.2 on incompatible changes, renumbering the
former Section 1.2 as 1.3.

Changes from -03 to -04:
Update author information. Numerous typos fixes and editorial
changes based on the GENART review and various Area Director
reviews. The update from -03 to -04 is not intended to make any
technical change.

Changes from -04 to -05:
Change text to make it clear that frames are not least cost routed
through overloaded RBridges. Minor editorial changes, some to
resolve second-pass GENART comments.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

Changes from -05 to -06:
Improve wording of Section 4, bullet 4, and Section 5, paragraph
2, as per suggestions by Mike Shand. Fix typos in Change History.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

14. References

14.1. Normative References

[802.1Q-2011] - IEEE 802.1,
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks - -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, May August
2011.

[Err3002] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 3002, RFC 6325, http://www.rfc-
editor.org.

[Err3003] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 3003, RFC 6325, http://www.rfc-
editor.org.

[Err3004] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 3004, RFC 6325, http://www.rfc-
editor.org.

[Err3052] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 3052, RFC 6325, http://www.rfc-
editor.org.

[Err3053] - RFC Errata, Errata ID 3053, RFC 6325, http://www.rfc-
editor.org.

[IS-IS] - ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in Conjunction
conjunction with the Protocol protocol for Providing providing the
Connectionless-mode Network Service
connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", Second
Edition, November 2002.

[RFC1195] - Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

[RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC5305] - Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

[RFC5306] - Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS",
RFC 5306, October 2008.

[RFC6325] - Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.

[RFC6327] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D., and
V. Manral, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Adjacency", RFC
6327, July 2011.

[RFC6439] - Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Li, Y., Banerjee, A., and F.
Hu, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Appointed Forwarders",
RFC 6439, November 2011.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

[RFC6326bis] - Eastlake,

[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Banerjee, Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
D., Perlman, R., and A. Ghanwani, draft-eastlake-isis-rfc6326bis, work in progress. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, April 2014.

14.2. Informative References
[802] - IEEE 802, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks: Overview and Architecture", IEEE Std 802.1-2001,
8 March 2002.

[Channel] - Eastlake, E., Manral, V., Li, Y., Ward, D., draft-ietf-
trill-rbridge-channel, work in progress.

[RFC5342] -

[Err3002] RFC Errata, Errata ID 3002, RFC 6325,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

[Err3003] RFC Errata, Errata ID 3003, RFC 6325,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

[Err3004] RFC Errata, Errata ID 3004, RFC 6325,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

[Err3052] RFC Errata, Errata ID 3052, RFC 6325,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

[Err3053] RFC Errata, Errata ID 3053, RFC 6325,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

[Err3508] RFC Errata, Errata ID 3508, RFC 6325,
<http://rfc-editor.org>.

[RFC7042] Eastlake 3rd, D., D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and
IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802
Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 5342, September
2008.

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications 7042, October 2013.

[RFC7178] Eastlake 3rd, D., Manral, V., Yizhou, L., Aldrin, S., and Corrections
D. Ward, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Routing Bridge (RBridge) Channel Support", RFC
7178, April 2014.

Authors' Addresses

Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei R&D USA
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA

Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email:
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com

Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Z-park, Shi-Chuang-Ke-Ji-Shi-Fan-Yuan, Hai-Dian District,
Beijing 100095
P.R. China

Email:

EMail: zhangmingui@huawei.com

Anoop Ghanwani
Dell
350 Holger Way
San Jose,
5450 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95134 95054
USA

Phone: +1-408-571-3500
Email:

EMail: anoop@alumni.duke.edu

Vishwas Manral
HP Networking
19111 Pruneridge Avenue
Cupertino,
Ionos Corp.
4100 Moorpark Ave.
San Jose, CA 95014 95117
USA

Tel: +1-408-477-0000
Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com

EMail: vishwas@ionosnetworks.com

Ayan Banerjee
Cumulus Networks
1089 West Evelyn Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA

Email:

EMail: ayabaner@gmail.com

INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Clarifications and Corrections

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. The definitive version of
an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
including those that are translated into other languages, should not
be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
that are published by third parties, including those that are
translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of
doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such
Contribution.