wdiff rfc7379.original rfc7379.txt

TRILL Working Group Yizhou
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Y. Li
INTERNET-DRAFT Weiguo
Request for Comments: 7379 W. Hao
Intended Status:
Category: Informational Huawei Technologies
Radia
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Perlman
EMC
Jon
J. Hudson
Brocade
Hongjun
H. Zhai
ZTE
Expires: Feb 26, 2015 August 25,
JIT
October 2014

Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active TRILL Connection at the
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Edge
draft-ietf-trill-active-active-connection-prob-07

Abstract

The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol provides support for flow level multi-pathing flow-level multipathing with rapid
failover for both unicast and multi-destination traffic in networks
with arbitrary topology. Active-active connection at the TRILL edge
is the extension of these characteristics to end stations that are
multiply connected to a TRILL campus. This informational document
discusses the high level high-level problems and goals when providing active-active active-
active connection at the TRILL edge.

Status of this This Memo

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

Internet-Drafts are working documents not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum
(IETF). It represents the consensus of six months the IETF community. It has
received public review and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted has been approved for publication by other the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents at
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

The list status of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be accessed obtained at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7379.

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ................................................3
2. Target Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 LAALP and Edge Group Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .................................................4
3. Problems in Active-Active Connection at the TRILL Edge . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 ..........7
3.1. Frame Duplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Loop Back . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 .........................................7
3.2. Loopback ...................................................8
3.3. Address Flip-Flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 ..........................................8
3.4. Unsynchronized Information Among Member RBridges . . . . . . 8
4. High Level Requirements and Goals for Solutions . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1 among Member RBridges ...........8
4. High-Level Requirements and Goals for Solutions .................9
5. Security Considerations ........................................10
6. References .....................................................11
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2 ......................................11
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ....................................12
Acknowledgments ...................................................12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ................................................12

1. Introduction

The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
[RFC6325] protocol provides loop free loop-free and per hop based per-hop-based multipath
data forwarding with minimum configuration. TRILL uses IS-IS [IS-IS]
[RFC6165] [RFC7176] as its control plane control-plane routing protocol and defines
a TRILL specific TRILL-specific header for user data. In a TRILL campus,
communications between TRILL switches can

(1) can:

1) use multiple parallel links and/or paths,

(2)

2) spread load over different links and/or paths at a fine grained fine-grained
flow level through equal cost equal-cost multipathing of unicast traffic and
multiple distribution trees for multi-destination traffic, and

(3)

3) rapidly re-configure reconfigure to accommodate link or node failures or
additions.

"Active-active" is the extension, to

To the extent degree practical, "active-active" is the extension of similar
load spreading and robustness to the connections between end stations
and the TRILL campus. Such end stations may have multiple ports and
will be connected, directly or via bridges, to multiple edge TRILL
switches. It must be possible, except in some failure conditions, to
spread end station end-station traffic load at the granularity of flows across
links to such multiple edge TRILL switches and rapidly re-configure reconfigure to
accommodate topology changes.

1.1

1.1. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

The acronyms and terminology in the RBridges base protocol [RFC6325]
are used herein with the following additions:

CE -

CE: Customer Equipment (end station or bridge).

Data Label - Label: VLAN or FGL (Fine Grained (Fine-Grained Label [RFC7172]).

LAALP -

LAALP: Local Active-Active Link Protocol. Any protocol
similar to MC-LAG that runs in a distributed fashions fashion
on a CE, on the links from that CE to a set of edge
group RBridges, and on those RBridges.

MC-LAG -

MC-LAG: Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation. Proprietary
extensions to IEEE Std 802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] standard so that
the aggregated links can, at one end of the
aggregation, attach to different switches.

Edge group - group: a group of edge RBridges to which at least one CE is
multiply attached using an LAALP. When multiple CEs
attach to the exact same set of edge RBridges, those
edge RBridges can be considered as a single edge
group. An RBridge can be in more than one edge group.

RBridge -

RBridge: Routing Bridge - an Bridge. An alternative name for a TRILL
switch.

TRILL -

TRILL: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links.

TRILL switch -- switch: a device the that implements the TRILL protocol; an
alternative term for an RBridge.

2. Target Scenario

This section presents a typical scenario of active-active connections connection
to a TRILL campus via multiple edge RBridges where the current TRILL
appointed forwarder
Appointed Forwarder mechanism does not work as expected.

The TRILL appointed forwarder Appointed Forwarder mechanism [RFC6439] can handle fail
over failover
(active-standby), provides loop avoidance avoidance, and, with administrative
configuration, provides load spreading based on VLAN. One and only
one appointed RBridge can ingress/egress native frames into/from the
TRILL campus for a given VLAN among all edge RBridges connecting a
legacy network to the TRILL campus. This is true whether the legacy
network is a simple point-to-point link or a complex bridged LAN or
anything in between. By carefully selecting different RBridges as appointed forwarder
Appointed Forwarder for different sets of VLANs, load spreading over
different edge RBidges RBridges across different Data Labels can be achieved.

The appointed forwarder Appointed Forwarder mechanism [RFC6439] requires all of the edge
group RBridges to exchange TRILL IS-IS Hello packets through their
access ports. As Figure 1 shows, when multiple access links of
multiple edge RBridges are connected to a CE by an LAALP, Hello
messages sent by RB1 via access port to CE1 will not be forwarded to
RB2 by CE1. RB2 (and other members of LAALP1) will not see that
Hello from RB1 via the LAALP1. Every member RBridge of LAALP1 thinks
of itself as appointed forwarder Appointed Forwarder on an LAALP1 link for all VLANs and
will ingress/egress frames. Hence Hence, the appointed forwarder Appointed Forwarder mechanism
cannot provide active-active or even active-standby service across
the edge group in such a scenario.

----------------------
| |
| TRILL Campus |
| |
----------------------
| | |
----- | --------
| | |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | | |
|(RB1) | |(RB2) | | (RBk)|
+------+ +------+ +------+
|..| |..| |..|
| +----+ | | | |
| +---|-----|--|----------+ |
| +-|---|-----+ +-----------+ |
| | | +------------------+ | |
LAALP1--->(| | |) (| | |) <---LAALPn
+-------+ . . . +-------+
| CE1 | | CEn |
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+

Figure 1 1: Active-Active connection Connection to TRILL edge Edge RBridges

Active-Active

Active-active connection is useful when we want to achieve the
following two goals:

- Flow Flow-based rather than VLAN based VLAN-based load balancing is desired.

- More rapid failure recovery is desired.

The current appointed
forwarder Appointed Forwarder mechanism relies on the TRILL Hello
timer expiration to detect the unreachability of another edge RBridge
connecting to the same local link. Then re-appointing Then, reappointing the forwarder
for specific VLANs may be required. Such procedures take time on the
scale of seconds although this can be improved with TRILL use of BFD
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC7175].
Active-Active Active-active
connection usually has a faster built-in mechanism for member node
and/or link failure detection. Faster detection of failures
minimizes the frame loss and recovery time.

Today

Today, LAALP is usually a proprietary facility whose implementation
varies by vendor. So, to be sure the LAALP operations operates successfully
across a group of edge RBridges, those edge RBridges will almost
always have to be from the same vendor. In the case where the LAALP
is an MC-LAG, the CE normally implements standard [802.1AX] the logic described in IEEE
Std 802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX], so proprietary elements would only be at
the end of the edge group end. group. There is also a revision of IEEE Std
802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] underway (802.1X-REV) to remove the
restriction in IEEE Std 802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] that there be one box
at each end of the aggregation. So it is possible that that, in the future
future, an LAALP could be implemented through such a revised IEEE Std
802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] with standards
conformant standards-conformant logic at the ends of
both the CE and edge group ends. group. In order to have a common understanding
of active-active connection scenarios, the assumptions in Section 2.1
are made about the characteristics of the LAALP and edge group of
RBridges.

2.1

2.1. LAALP and Edge Group Characteristics

For a CE connecting to multiple edge RBridges via an LAALP (active-
active connection), the following characteristics apply:

a) The LAALP will deliver a frame from an endnode end node to TRILL at
exactly one edge group RBridge.

b) The LAALP will never forward frames it receives from one up-link uplink
to another.

c) The LAALP will attempt to send all frames for a given flow on the
same uplink. To do this, it has some unknown rule for which
frames get sent to which uplinks (typically based on a simple
hash function of Layer 2 through 4 header fields).

d) Frames are accepted from any of the uplinks and passed down to
endnodes
end nodes (if any exist).

e) The LAALP cannot be assumed to send useful control information to
the up-link uplink such as "this is the set of other RBridges to which
this CE is attached", attached" or "these are all the MAC addresses
attached".

For an edge group of RBridges to which a CE is multiply attached with
an LAALP:

a) Any two RBridges in the edge group are reachable from each other
via the TRILL campus.

b) Each RBridge in the edge group knows an ID for each LAALP
instance multiply attached to that group. The ID will be
consistent across the edge group and globally unique across the
TRILL campus. For example, if CE1 attaches to RB1, RB2, ... RBn
using an LAALP, then each of the RBs will know, for the port to
CE1, that it is has some a label such as "LAALP1" "LAALP1".

c) Each RB in the edge group can be configured with the set of
acceptable VLANs for the ports to any CE. The acceptable VLANs
configured for those ports should include all the VLANs the CE
has joined and be consistent for all the member RBridges of the
edge group.

d) When a an RBridge fails, all the other RBridges having that have formed any an
LAALP instance with it know learn of the information failure in a timely fashion.

e) When a down-link downlink of an edge group RBridge to an LAALP instance
fails, that RBridge and all the other RBridges participating in
the LAALP instance instance, including that down-link know downlink, learn of the failure
in a timely fashion.

f) The RBridges in the edge group have some a mechanism to exchange
information with each other, including information such as the set of CEs
they are connecting to or the IDs of the LAALP instances their down-links
downlinks are part of.

Other than the applicable characteristics above, the internals of an
LAALP are out of the scope for of TRILL.

3. Problems in Active-Active Connection at the TRILL Edge

This section presents the problems that need to be addressed in
active-active connection scenarios. The topology in Figure 1 is used
in the following sub-sections as the example scenario for
illustration purposes.

3.1

3.1. Frame Duplications

When a remote RBridge ingresses a multi-destination TRILL Data data packet
in VLAN x, all edge group RBridges of LAALP1 will receive the frame
if any local CE1 joins VLAN x. As each of them thinks it is the
appointed forwarder
Appointed Forwarder for VLAN x, without changes made for active-
active connection support, they would all forward the frame to CE1.
The bad consequence is that CE1 receives multiple copies of that
multi-destination frame from the remote end host end-host source.

Frame duplication may also occur when an ingress RBridge is non-
remote, say
remote -- say, ingress and egress are two RBridges belonging to the
same edge group. Assume LAALP m connects to an edge group g g, and the
edge group g consists of RB1, RB2 RB2, and RB3. The multi-destination
frames ingressed from a port not connected to LAALP m by RB1 can be
locally replicated to other ports on RB1 and also TRILL encapsulated
and forwarded to RB2 and RB3. CE1 will receive duplicate copies from
RB1,
RB2 RB2, and RB3.

Note that frame duplication is only a problem in multi-destination
frame forwarding. Unicast forwarding does not have this issue as
there is only ever one copy of the packet.

3.2 Loop Back

3.2. Loopback

As shown in Figure 1, CE1 may send a native multi-destination frame
to the TRILL campus via a member of the LAALP1 edge group (say RB1).
This frame will be TRILL encapsulated and then forwarded through the
campus to the multi-destination receivers. Other members (say RB2)
of the same LAALP edge group will receive this multicast packet as
well. In this case, without changes made for active-active
connection support, RB2 will decapsulate the frame and egress it.
The frame loops back to CE1.

3.3

3.3. Address Flip-Flop

Consider RB1 and RB2 using their own nickname as ingress nickname for
data into a TRILL campus. As shown by in Figure 1, CE1 may send a data
frame with the same VLAN and source MAC Media Access Control (MAC)
address to any member of the edge group LAALP1. If some an egress RBridge
receives TRILL data packets from different ingress RBridges but with
the same source Data Label and MAC address, it learns different Data
correspondences between a {Data Label and MAC to address} and nickname
address correspondences
when decapsulating the data frames. Address correspondence may keep
flip-flopping among nicknames of the member RBridges of the LAALP for
the same Data Label and MAC address. Existing hardware does not
support data plane data-plane learning of multiple nicknames for the same MAC
address and data label Data Label -- when data plane data-plane learning indicates
attachment of the MAC address to a new nickname, it overwrites the
old attachment nickname.

Implementers have stated that most current TRILL switch hardware,
when doing data plane data-plane learning, behaves badly under these
circumstances and, for example, interpret interprets address flip-flopping as a
severe network problem. It may also cause the returning traffic to
go through different paths to reach the destination destination, resulting in
persistent re-ordering reordering of the frames.

3.4

3.4. Unsynchronized Information Among among Member RBridges

A local RBridge, say RB1 connected to LAALP1, may have learned a Data
correspondence between a {Data Label and MAC to address} and nickname correspondence
for a remote host h1 when h1 sends a packet to CE1. The returning
traffic from CE1 may go to any other member RBridge of LAALP1, for example
example, RB2. RB2 may not have h1's Data correspondence between a {Data
Label and MAC to address} and nickname correspondence stored. Therefore Therefore, it has to do
the flooding for unknown unicast addresses [RFC6325]. Such flooding
is unnecessary since the returning traffic is almost always expected
and RB1 had learned the address correspondence. It is desirable to
avoid flooding; it imposes a greater burden on the network than known
destination unicast traffic because the flooded traffic is sent over
more links.

Synchronization of the Data correspondence between a {Data Label and MAC to
address} and nickname correspondence information among member RBridges will reduce
such unnecessary flooding.

4. High Level High-Level Requirements and Goals for Solutions

The problems identified in section Section 3 should be solved in any solution
for active-active connection to edge RBridges. The following high-
level requirements and goals should be met.

Data plane:

1) All up-links uplinks of a CE MUST be active: the LAALP is free to choose
any
up-link uplink on which to send packets packets, and the CE is able to
receive packets from any up-link uplink of an edge group.

2) Looping back Loopback and frame duplication MUST be prevented.

3) Learning of Data correspondence between a {Data Label and MAC to address}
and nickname correspondence by a remote RBridge MUST NOT flip-flop between the
local multiply attached edge RBridges.

4) Packets for a flow SHOULD stay in order.

5) The Reverse Path Forwarding Check MUST work properly as per the
RBridges base protocol [RFC6325].

6) Single up-link uplink failure on a CE to an edge group MUST NOT cause
persistent packet delivery failure between a TRILL campus and CE.

Control plane:

1) No requirement for new information to be passed between edge
RBridges and CE CEs or between edge RBridges and endnodes. end nodes exists.

2) If there is any TRILL specific TRILL-specific information required to be
exchanged between RBridges in an edge group, for example data labels example, Data
Labels and MAC addresses binding to nicknames, a solution MUST
specify the mechanism to perform such exchange unless this is
handled internal to the LAALP.

3) RBridges SHOULD be able to discover other members in the same
edge group by exchanging their LAALP attachment information.

Configuration, incremental deployment, and others:

1) Solution SHOULD require minimal configuration.

2) Solution SHOULD automatically detect misconfiguration of edge
RBridge group.

3) Solution SHOULD support incremental deployment, that is, not
require campus wide campus-wide upgrading for all RBridges, only changes to
the edge group RBridges.

4) Solution SHOULD be able to support from 2 two up to at least 4 active-
active up-links four
active-active uplinks on a multiply attached CE.

5) Solution SHOULD NOT assume there is a dedicated physical link
between any two of the edge RBridges in an edge group.

5. Security Considerations

As an informational overview, this draft document does not introduce any
extra security risks. Security risks introduced by any a particular
LAALP or other elements of solutions to the problems presented here
will be discussed in the separate document(s) describing such LAALP
or solutions.

End station

End-station links in TRILL are Ethernet links links, and consideration
should be given to securing them with [802.1AE] link security as described in
IEEE Std 802.1AE-2006 [802.1AE] for the protection of end station end-station
data and link level link-level control messages messages, including any LAALP control
messages.

For general TRILL Security Considerations, see the RBridges base
protocol [RFC6325].

6. IANA Considerations

No IANA action is required. RFC Editor: please delete this section
before publication.

7. Acknowledgments

Special acknowledgments to Donald Eastlake, Adrian Farrel and Mingui
Zhang for their valuable comments.

8. References

8.1

6.1. Normative References

[IS-IS] ISO/IEC, "Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- 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, Second Edition,
2002.

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

[IS-IS] ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routing Exchange Protocol
for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the
Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", 2002. 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC6165] Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2
Systems", RFC 6165, April 2011. 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6165>.

[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6325>.

[RFC6439] Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Li, Y., Banerjee, A., and F.
Hu, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Appointed Forwarders",
RFC 6439, November 2011 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6439>.

[RFC7172] Eastlake, Eastlake 3rd, D., M. Zhang, P. M., Agarwal, R. P., Perlman, R., and
D. Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC7172, RFC 7172, May 2014. 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.

[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
D., and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, May 2014.

8.2 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.

6.2. Informative References

[802.1AE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std
802.1AE-2006, 18 August 2006.

[802.1AX] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
networks -- Link Aggregration", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008, 3
November 2008.

[RFC7175] Manral, V., D. Eastlake, D. Eastlake 3rd, D., Ward, D., and A. Banerjee,
"Transparent
Interconnetion Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support", RFC7175, RFC
7175, May 2014.

[802.1AX] IEEE, "Link Aggregration", 802.1AX-2008, 3 November 2008.

[802.1Q] IEEE, "Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7175>.

Acknowledgments

Special acknowledgments to Donald Eastlake, Adrian Farrel, and Virtual
Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std 802.1Q-2011, 31
August 2011.

[802.1AE] IEEE, "Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std
802.1AE-2006, 18 August 2006. Mingui
Zhang for their valuable comments.

Authors' Addresses

Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56625409
EMail: liyizhou@huawei.com

Weiguo Hao
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56623144
EMail: haoweiguo@huawei.com

Radia Perlman
EMC
2010 256th Avenue NE, #200
Bellevue, WA 98007 USA
Email:
United States
EMail: Radia@alum.mit.edu
Jon Hudson
Brocade
130 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
United States
Phone: +1-408-333-4062
EMail: jon.hudson@gmail.com

Hongjun Zhai
ZTE
68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China

Phone: +86 25 52877345
Email: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn
JIT
EMail: honjun.zhai@tom.com