RBridge: Pseudo-Nickname
draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname-06
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Hongjun Zhai , Tissa Senevirathne , Radia Perlman , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Mingui Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-14 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname, draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname, draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname, RFC 7781 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname-06
TRILL Working Group H. Zhai
Internet-Draft ZTE Corperation
Intended status: Standards Track T. Senevirathne
Expires: August 18, 2014 Cisco Systems
R. Perlman
Intel Labs
D. Eastlake 3rd
M. Zhang
Huawei Technologies
February 14, 2014
RBridge: Pseudo-Nickname
draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname-06
Abstract
The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol provides loop free connectivity to Local Area Network (LAN)
via choice of an Appoint Forwarder (AF) for a set of VLANs and to end
node via point-to-point link. The active-active access, as an
extension access of legacy network or end-device to TRILL campus has
not been specified. This document gives the concept of Virtual
RBridge(RBv), and based on it, specifies the active-active access of
a legacy network or an end node via a switch that multi-homes to
TRILL campus.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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. Terminology and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Concept of Virtual RBridge and Pseudo-nickname . . . . . . . 5
3.1. VLAN-x Appointed Forwarder for Member Interfaces in RBv . 6
3.2. Announcing Pseudo-Nickname of RBv . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Acquision of RBv's Pseudo-nickname . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Picking up RBridges for Different RBvs . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Distribution Trees for Member RBridges in RBv . . . . . . . . 9
6. Frame Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Native Frames Ingressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. TRILL Data Frames Egressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.1. Unicast TRILL Data Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2.2. Multi-Destination TRILL Data Frames . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Member Link Failure in RBv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Link Protection for Unicast Frame Egressing . . . . . . . 13
8. TLV Extensions for RBv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. LAG Membership (LM) Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. PN-RBv sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. OAM Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Configuration Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Rationale for MAC Sharing among Member RBridges . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
1. Introduction
The IETF TRILL protocol [RFC6325] provides optimal pair-wise data
frame forwarding without configuration, safe forwarding even during
periods of temporary loops, and support for multi-pathing of both
unicast and multicast traffic. TRILL accomplishes this by using IS-
IS [RFC1195] link state routing and encapsulating traffic using a
header that includes a hop count. The design supports VLANs and
optimization of the distribution of multi-destination frames based on
VLANs and IP derived multicast groups. Devices that implement TRILL
are called RBridges or TRILL Switchs.
In the current TRILL protocol, an end node can be attached to TRILL
campus via a point-to-point link or a shared link (such as a Local
Area Network (LAN) segment). Although there might be more than one
edge RBridge on a shared link, to avoid potential forwarding loops,
only one of the RBridges is permitted to provide forwarding service
for end station traffic in each VLAN (Virtual LAN). That RBridge is
referred as Appointed Forwarder (AF) for that VLAN on the link
[6325][6439]. However, in some practical deployments, to increase
the access bandwidth and reliability, an end node might be multi-
homed to several edge RBridges and treat all of the uplinks as a
single Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) bundle. In this case,
it's required that data traffic within a specific VLAN from this end
node can be ingressed and egressed by any of these RBridges
simultaneously. These RBridges constitute an Active-Active Edge
(AAE) RBridge Group.
Since a packet from each end node can be ingressed by any RBridge in
the AAE group, a remote RBridge may observe multiple attachment
points (i.e., egress RBridges) for this endnode which is identified
by its MAC address. This issue is known as the "MAC flip-flopping"
issue. In addition to this issue, other issues such as echo of
multi-destination frames originated from the MC-LAG or duplication
egressing of multi-destination from campus might be encountered by
the AAE group (see Section 5 for more details).
In this document, the concept of a Virtual RBridge(RBv) group,
together with its Pseudo-nickname, is introduced to address the AAE
issues in the scope of TRILL. For a member RBridge of such a group,
it uses the pseudo-nickname of the RBv, instead of its own nickname,
as the ingress RBridge nickname when ingressing frames into TRILL
campus. So, in such a AAE Group, even if there are multiple RBridges
providing frame forwarding service for an end node simultaneously,
the ingress RBridge nickname associated to that end node's MAC
address(s) still remains unchanged in remote RBridges' forwarding
tables.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
This document is organized as follows. Section 2 is problem
statement, which describes why virtual RBridge and its pseudo-
nickname are required. Section 3 gives the concept of virtual
RBridge. Section 4 disusses how a RBv gets its pseudo-nickname.
Section 5 describes the consideration for pseudo-nickname used in
ingressing multi-destination frames. Section 6 covers processing of
data frame traffic when considering pseudo-nickname. Section 7
dissusses the processing of MC_LAG links failure. And Section 8
gives TLV extensions needed by RBv.
Familiarity with [RFC6325] is assumed in this document.
1.1. Terminology and Acronyms
This document uses the acronyms defined in [RFC6325] and the
following additional acronym:
AF - Appointed Forwarder
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
When used in lower case, these words convey their typical use in
common language, and are not to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
1.2. Contributors
We would like to thank Mingjiang Chen for his contributions to this
document. Additionally, we would like to thank Erik Nordmark, Les
Ginsberg, Ayan Banerjee, Dinesh Dutt, Anoop Ghanwani, Janardhanan
Pathang, and Jon Hudson for their good questions and comments.
2. Overview
In order to improve the reliability of connection to a TRILL network,
multi-homing technique may be employed by a legacy device which can
be a switch or end host. Take Figure 1 as an example, switch SW1
multi-homed to the TRILL network by connecting to RB1 and RB2 with
respective links. Then the end station S1 can continue to get frame
forwarding service from the TRILL network even if one of its up-links
(e.g., SW1-RB1) fails.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
..........................................
: TRILL Network :
:+-----+ /\-/\-/\-/\-/\ :
+-----| RB1 |-----/ \ :
| :+-----+ / \ :
+---+ : | / Transit \ +-----+ :
S1 o--|SW1| +---+ < RBridges >---| RBx |---o Sx
+---+ | : \ Campus / +-----+ :
| | :+-----+ \ / :
+-----| RB2 |-----\ / :
| :+-----+ \/\-/\-/\-/\-/ :
| : | :
S2 o----+ :
..........................................
Figure 1 Multi-homed to TRILL Network
SW1 may treat the two links as a link bundle, so that the two links
form active-active load sharing model instead of the previous active-
standby model. That is to say, in Figure 1, two RBridges (i.e., RB1
and RB2) provides frame forwarding service to S1 simultaneously in a
VLAN. As stated previously, simultaneous frame forwarding may result
in frame duplication, loops and the flip-flopping of the ingress
RBridge associated to the MAC of S1 in remote RBridges' (e.g., RBx)
forwarding tables. The flip-flopping in turn causes packet disorder
in reverse traffic and worsens the traffic disruption. Therefore,
the concept of Virtual RBridge, together with its nickname, is
introduced in the following section to fix these issues.
3. Concept of Virtual RBridge and Pseudo-nickname
A Virtual RBridge (RBv) represents a group of different end station
service ports on different edge RBridges. After joining RBv, such a
RBridge port is called a member port of RBv, and such a RBridge
becomes a member RBridge of RBv. An RBv is identified by its virtual
nickname in TRILL campus, and this nickname is also referred to as
pseudo-nickname in this document.
After joining a RBv, a member RBridge will announce its connection to
RBv by including the information of that RBv, e.g., the pseudo-
nickname of RBv, in its self-originated LSP. From such LSPs, other
RBridges that are not members of the RBv believe those member
RBridges are connected to RBv.
When a native frame from an end station S1 is received from such a
port, the member RBridge encapsulates the frame with the RBv's
nickname, instead of its own nickname, as the ingress nickname. When
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
the destination RBridges receive and de-capsulate this frame, they
will learn that S1 is reachable through RBv.
For a member RBridge, it MUST move out of a RBv and clear the RBv's
information from its self-originated LSPs when it loses all of its
member ports of the RBv, due to port failure, configuration, etc.
NOTE1: In the multi-homing scenario of same a RBv, it is RECOMMENDED
that all devices multi-homed to that RBv SHOULD have operational
links to all the member RBridges of that RBv unless one or more of
the links failed or administratively down.
3.1. VLAN-x Appointed Forwarder for Member Interfaces in RBv
Since member RBridges in RBv cannot see each others' Hellos on their
member ports in the multi-homing scenario, then each RBridge becomes
Designated RBridge (DRB) for that port and appoints itself as AF for
all VLANs.
This extended AF framework allows:
o Detection and protection against mis-configuration at the edge,
e.g., on the device SW1 the two interfaces are not configured as
multi-homing then RB1 and RB2 work in an unexpected active-standby
mode rather than expected active-active mode for S1 or
o Avoidance of loops in the event that S1 and S2 were connected by a
native Ethernet Link. In this event, RB1's Hellos originated on
link RB1-SW1 will be forwarded by S1 through the Ethernet Link to
S2 then received by RB2, and vice versa. Therefore, RB1 and RB2
work in an active-standby mode for S1 (or S2) in any VLAN to avoid
potential forwarding loops.
3.2. Announcing Pseudo-Nickname of RBv
Each member RBridge advertises the RBv's pseudo-nickname using the
nickname sub-TLV [rfc6326bis], along with its regular nickname(s), in
its LSPs. For a member RBridge, when its last member port is
disconnected to RBv, it MUST leave from RBv and clear RBv's pseudo-
nickname from its update LSPs.
RBv's pseudo-nickname is ignored when determining the distribution
tree root for the campus. The tree root priority of RBv's nickname
SHOULD be set to 0, and this nickname SHOULD NOT be listed in the "s"
nicknames by the RBridge holding the highest priority tree root
nickname.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
4. Acquision of RBv's Pseudo-nickname
In active-active connection scenario, a device is typically connected
to multiple edge RBridges via a link bundle. From the perspective of
the edge RBridges, the device can be identified by a globally unique
identifier; and this identifier is called Link Aggregation Group
Identifier (LAG-ID) in this document.
For an edge RBridge, if it has one or more operational ports through
which a device multi-homed to it, it MUST announce that LAG-ID of the
device to all other edge RBridges via RBridge Channel messages
[RBChannel]. Based on the LAG-IDs received from other edge RBridges,
edge RBridges can pick up, from TRILL campus, all the edge RBridges
that can join same a RBv(See Section Section 4.1 for more details)
and elect one of them as the Designated RBridge (DRB) for that RBv.
That DRB is responsible for appointing an available pseudo-nickname
for that RBv.
4.1. Picking up RBridges for Different RBvs
---------------------
/ \
| TRILL Campus |
\ /
-----------------------
| | | |
+-------+ | | +--------+
| | | |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| RB1 | | RB2 | | RB3 | | RB4 |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | | | | | |
| +--|-------+ | +-------|-+ | +-------|--+ |
| | +--------+ | | | | | | |
| | +---------|-|-|-------+ | +-------+ | |
LAG1->(| | |) LAG2->(| | |) LAG3->(| |) LAG4->(| |)
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| CE1 | | CE2 | | CE3 | | CE4 |
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Figure 2 Different LAGs to TRILL Campus
For each edge RBridge with available multi-homed devices connected,
it MUST announce a list of LAG-IDs of all of those devices to all
other edge RBridges via RBridge Channel message (See Section 8.1 for
more details). Take Figure 2 as an example, RB1 and RB2 announce
{LAG1, LAG2} in their lists respectively; RB3 announces {LAG1, LAG2,
LAG3, LAG4}; and RB4 announces {LAG3, LAG4}, respectively.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
Based on the LAG-IDs contained in these lists, each RBridge can know
which set of RBridges each LAG is multi-homed to. For example, all
the 4 RBridges know the information as follows:
LAG-ID OE-flag Set of multi-homed RBridges
------ ------- ---------------------------
LAG1 0 {RB1, RB2, RB3}
LAG2 0 {RB1, RB2, RB3}
LAG3 1 {RB3, RB4}
LAG4 0 {RB3, RB4}
In the above table, there might be some LAGs that multi-homes only to
one single RBridge due to mis-configuration or link failure, etc.
Those LAGs are considered as invalid entries. Then each of the
relative edge RBridges performs the following approach to pick up
which valid LAGs can be served by same a RBv.
Step 1: Take all the valid LAGs that have their OE-flags (Occupying
Exclusively a RBv) set 1 out of the table and create a RBv per such
LAG.
Step 2: Sort the left valid LAGs in the table in descending order
based on the mumber of RBriges in their associated set of multi-homed
RBridges.
Step 3: Take the valid LAG (say LAG_i) with the maximum set of
RBridges, say S_i, out of the table and create a new RBv (Say RBv_i)
for it.
Step 4: Walk through the remainder valid LAGs in the table one by
one, pick up all the valid LAGs that their sets of multi-homed
RBridges contain the same RBridges as that of LAG_i and take the LAGs
out of the table. Then appoint RBv_i as those LAGs' servicing RBv.
Step 5: Repeat Step 3-4 for the left LAGs in the table.
For the example given in Figure 2, after performing the above steps,
all the 4 RBridges know that LAG3 is served by a RBv, say RBv1, which
has RB3 and RB4 as member RBrdigs; LAG1 and LAG2 are served by
another RBv, say RBv2, which has RB1, RB2 and RB3 as member RBridges;
and LAG4 is served by RBv3, which has RB3 and RB4 as member RBrdigs,
shown as follows:
RBv Serving LAGs Member RBridges
----- ------------- ---------------
RBv1 {LAG3} {RB3, RB4}
RBv2 {LAG1, LAG2} {RB1, RB2, RB3}
RBv3 {LAG4} {RB3, RB4}
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
In each RBv, one of its member RBridges is elected as DRB. The
winner is the member RBridge with the maximum device nickname in this
RBv. Then this DRB picks up an available nickname as this RBv's
pseudo-nickname and announce it to all other member RBridges in this
RBv via RBridge Channel message (Refer Section 8.3 for more details).
If possible, the DRB SHOULD attempt to reuse the RBv's previous
pseudo-nickname to avoid traffic disruption caused by pseudo-nickname
changing. If there is no such a previous nickname available, the DRB
will acquire a new available nickname from TRILL campus and announce
it as the RBv's pseudo-nickname among the RBv's member RBridges.
5. Distribution Trees for Member RBridges in RBv
In TRILL, RBridges use distribution trees to forward multi-
destination frames. In the TRILL header of the multi-destination
frames, the ingress nickname identifies the ingress RBridge and the
egress nickname specifies the root of the chosen distribution tree.
After receiving a multi-destination TRILL data frame, RBn performs
Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check on the multi-destination frame to
avoid temporary multicast loops during topology changes.
RPF specifies that a multi-destination TRILL data frame ingressed by
an RBridge and forwarded on a distribution tree can only be received
by RBn on an expected port. If the frame is not received from that
port, it MUST be dropped.
However, member RBridges use RBv's pseudo-nickname other than their
own nicknames as the ingress nickname when they forward unicast or
non-unicast native frames. Therefore, when these TRILL data frames
arrive at RBn, they will be treated as frames ingressed by the same
RBridge, i.e., RBv. If they are multi-destination frames and the
same distribution tree is chosen by different member RBridges to
forward these frames, they may travel on the tree and arrive at RBn
on different ports. Then the RPF check is violated, and some of the
frames reaching the RBridge on unexpected ports will be dropped by
RBn.
[CMT] proposes to assign different distribution trees for each member
RBridge to fix the above RPF check issue, and makes use of the
Affinity sub-TLV defined in [rfc6326bis] to achieve this kind of
assignment. When the distribution tree Tx is assigned to member
RBridge RBn in a RBv, RBn is called Tx's Designated Forwarder and Tx
is called the Assigned Tree of RBn in the scope of this RBv.
This document assumes the approach proposed in [CMT] is supported by
member RBridges of RBv.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
To avoid duplication traffic being egressed through RBv to a multi-
homing end-device, multi-destination TRILL traffic arriving at member
RBridges of RBv on a tree (say Tx), only the Tx's Designated
Forwarder is allowed to egress it to the device.
When RBn receives a native frame on its member ports of RBv, and
decides to ingress it as a multi-deistinaiton frame(for exampe, the
native frame is a broadcast frame or the destination is unknown), RBn
can only choose one of its Assigned Trees to distribute the TRILL-
encapsulated frame.
Since different member RBridge has different Assigned Trees and acts
as Designated Forwarder on different trees in the socpe of its RBv,
the multi-destination frames ingressed from a MC_LAG by one member
RBridge will not be egressed back to the MC_LAG by another member
RBridges in the scope. That is to say, no echo of multi-destination
traffic occurs in RBv.
When a member RBridge joins in or leaves from a virtual RBridge
group, the assignment of distribution trees may change. That change
has been discussed in [CMT] and is beyond the scope of this document.
6. Frame Processing
Although, there are five types of Layer 2 frames in [RFC6325], e.g.,
native frame, TRILL data frame, TRILL control frames, etc., pseudo-
nickname of RBv is only used for native frame and TRILL data frame in
this specification.
6.1. Native Frames Ingressing
When RB1 receives a native frame on one of its valid member ports of
RBv, it uses the pseudo-nickname of RBv, instead of its own nickname,
as ingress nickname, if it is the appointed forwarder for the VLAN of
the frame on the port. If the frame is not received on a member
port, RB1 MUST NOT use RBv's pseudo-nickname as ingress nickname when
doing TRILL-encapsulation on the frame. Otherwise, the reverse
traffic may be forwarded to another member RBridge that does not
connect to the link containing the destination, which may cause the
traffic disruption.
If the above native frame is ingressed by RB1 as a multi-destination
TRILL data frame, e.g., its destination is unknown to RB1 or it is
non-unicast frame, RB1 can only choose one of its assigned
distribution trees in the RBv to distribute the TRILL-encapsulated
frame [CMT]. If not so, the multi-destination TRILL data frame will
fail RPF check on another RBridge and be dropped.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
Furthermore, for such a frame, its source MAC address information ( {
VLAN, Outer.MacSA, port } ) is learned by default if its source
address is unicast. Then the learned information is shared with
other member RBridges of the RBv (See Appendix A for more details for
the information sharing).
6.2. TRILL Data Frames Egressing
6.2.1. Unicast TRILL Data Frames
When receiving a unicast TRILL data frame, RBn checks the egress
nickname in the TRILL header of the frame. If the egress nickname is
one of RBn's own nicknames, the frame is processed as defined in in
[RFC6325].
If the egress nickname is RBv's pseudo-nickname and RBn is a member
RBridge of the RBv, RBn is responsible to learn the source MAC
address. If the learned { Inner.MacSA, Inner.VLAN ID, ingress
nickname } triplet is a new one or it updates a previously learned
one, this triplet SHOULD be shared with other member RBridges of the
RBv (See Appendix A for more details for the triplet sharing).
Then the frame is de-capsulated to its native form. The Inner.MacDA
and Inner.VLAN ID are looked up in RBn's local forwarding address
cache, and one of the three following cases occurs:
o If the destination end station identified by the Inner.MacDA and
Inner.VLAN ID is on a local link to RBv, this frame is egressed
onto that link.
o Else if RBn can reach the destination through another member
RBridge RBk, it tunnels the frame to RBk [ClearCorrect] by re-
encapsulating the native frame into a unicast TRILL data frame.
RBn uses RBk's own nickname, instead of RBv's pseudo-nickname as
the egress nickname for the re-encapsulation, and remains the
ingress nickname remains unchanged. If the hop count value of the
frame is too small for the frame to reach RBk safely, RBn SHOULD
increase that value properly in doing the re-encapsulation.
[NOTE: When receiving that re-encapsulated TRILL frame, as the
egress nickname of the frame is RBk's own nickname rather than the
RBv's pseudo-nickname, RBk will process it as Section 4.6.2.4 in
[RFC6325], and will not re-forward it to another RBridge.
o Else, RBn does not know how to reach the destination; it sends the
native frame out of all its member ports of RBv on which it is
appointed forwarder for the Inner.VLAN.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
6.2.2. Multi-Destination TRILL Data Frames
To avoid multiple copies of a multi-destination TRILL data frames in
VLAN x are egressed to same a MC_LAG, when receiving such a frame on
tree Tx by multiple member RBridges of this MC_LAG, only the
Designated Forwarder of Tx in the MC_LAG is permitted to egress the
frame to this MC_LAG.
That is to say, if RBn is the the Designated Forwarder of Tx in
MC_LAGi, a copy of the frame is de-capsulated by RBn into its native
form, and sent to MC_LAGi. The { Inner.MacSA, Inner.VLAN ID, ingress
nickname } triplet is also learned based on the de-capsulation. If
the learned triplet is a new one or updates the previously learned
one, it SHOULD be shared among the members RBridges of the virtual
RBridge group (See Appendix A for more details for the triplet
sharing).
7. Member Link Failure in RBv
As shown in Figure 3, suppose the link RB2-CE1 fails. Both unicast
frames and multi-destination frames cannot be sent from RB2 to CE1.
Section 7.1 discusses the failure protection for unicast frames
egressing.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
------------------
/ \
| TRILL Campus |
\ /
---------------------
| | |
+---+ | +----+
| | |
+------+ +------+ +------+
| RB1 | | RB2 | | RB3 |
o|oooooo|ooo|oooooo|ooo|oooooo|o
o +------+ +------+ +------+ o
o | | \|/ | | | | o
o | +-|-- B --+ +------|-+ | o
o | | | /|\ +-------+ | | o
oo|o|o|ooooooooo|ooooooooo|o|ooo
| | +---------|-------+ | |
| | +---------+ | | |
(| | |)<--MC_LAG1 (| | |)<--MC_LAG2
+-------+ +-------+
| CE1 | | CE2 |
+-------+ +-------+
B - Failed Link or Link bundle
Figure 3 Member Link Failure in LAG1
7.1. Link Protection for Unicast Frame Egressing
When the link CE1-RB2 fails, RB2 loses its direct connection to CE1.
The MAC entry through the failed link to CE1 is removed from RB2's
local forwarding table immediately. Another MAC entry through
another member RBridge (say RB1) that has local link to CE1 is
installed into RB2's forwarding table only if RB2 is still a member
RBridge of RBv. Then when the TRILL data frames to CE1 are delivered
to RB2, they can be re-encapsulated (ingress nickname remains
unchanged and egress nickname is replaced with RB1's nickname) by RB2
and forwarded based on the above installed MAC entry. The member
RBridge who receives the redirected frames will egress them to CE1.
When the failure recovers, RB2 will be aware that it can reach CE1 by
observing CE1's native frames. Then RB2 installs the MAC entry for
link CE1-RB2.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
8. TLV Extensions for RBv
8.1. LAG Membership (LM) Sub-TLV
We propose to use LM sub-TLV to advertise the state of the RBridges'
MC_LAG membership. There are following 3 different events, as
follows:
o Membership Add
o Membership Withdrawal
o Membership Refresh
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type= LM | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RBv Nickname | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESV |OC | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAG-ID (1) | (10 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAG-ID (n) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Edge Membership advertisement sub-TLV
where each LAG_ID record is of the following form:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+
| RESV |OE| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Virtual Network ID(VNID) | (3 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAG ID | (6 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o LM (1 byte): Defines the type of Edge Membership sub-TLV.
o Length (1 byte): Defines the length of this sub-TLV which should
be greater than 3.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
o RBv Nickname (2 bytes): 2 byte nickname of the RBv. By default,
this field is zero. Otherwise, it indicates the pseudo-nickname
that the originator of the TLV considers the RBv has used, which
providing information for the DRB to reuse the RBv's previous
pseudo-nickname.
o RESV (6 bits): Transmitted as zero and ignored on receipt.
o OE(1 bit): an flag indicating whether the end-device identified by
the combination of the VNID and LAG-ID needs to Occupy a RBv
exclusively or can share a RBv with other end-devices; 1 for
occupying exclusively, and 0 for sharing. By default, it is set
to 0.
o OC (2 bits): Define the operation code.
* 00: Add (LAG-IDs in this sub-TLV are new and will trigger the
process of picking up member RBridge for a RBv and the
Designated Forwarder election on the relative edge RBridges).
* 01: Withdrawal (LAG-IDs in this sub-TLV do not have an active
links from the announcing RBridge for RBv, the process of
picking up member RBridge for a RBv and Designated Forwarder
election MUST be triggered on the relative edge RBridges).
* 10: Refresh (LAG-IDs in this sub-TLV are being refreshed and no
state change from the perspective of the announcing RBridge).
* 11: Reserved and currently unused.
o VNID(24 bits): an identifier of an Virtual Network where the end-
device populated. By default, this field is set to zero.
o LAG-ID (2 bytes): an unsigned positive integer that uniquely
identifies an end device multi-homed to the RBv. This ID along
with the VNIT is globally meaningful in the scope of the TRILL
campus. For convenience, this ID can be one of the MAC addresses
of the end-device..
When receiving such a sub-TLV, if the RBridge has no membership for
the listed LAGs in the RBv, it ignores the sub-TLV. If it has the
membership, receiving such a sub-TLV where the operation code is 00
or 01 will triggers it to re-calculate the Designated Forwarder on
each tree for the listed LAGs.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
8.2. PN-RBv sub-TLV
The DRB employs PN-RBv sub-TLV to announce the RBv's pseudo-nickname,
along with all the LAGs serviced by this RBv, to other relative edge
RBridges.
The format of this sub-TLV is as follows, where the LAG-ID Record has
the same format as the Record of LM Sub-TLV.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type= PN_RBv | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RBv's Pseudo-Nickname | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| RESV | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAG-ID RECORD (1) | (10 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LAG-ID RECORD (n) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LAG-ID RECORDs list all the end-devices to which the RBv identified
by the pseudo-nickname provides services.
After receiving such a sub-TLV, if the receipt RBridge has membership
for at least one of the listed LAGs and accepts the DRB membership of
the originator of the TLV, it uses the RBv identified by the pseudo-
nickname to service the end-devices identified by some of the listed
LAGs and multi-homed to it. Otherwise, the received sub-TLV is
ignored.
9. OAM Frames
Attention must be paid when generating the OAM frames. When an OAM
frame is generated with the ingress nickname of RBv, the originator
RBridge's nickname MUST be included in the OAM message to ensure the
response is returned to the originating member of the RBv group.
10. Configuration Consistency
It is important that VLAN membership of member ports of end switch
SW1 is consistent across all of the member ports in the point-point
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
scenario. Any inconsistencies in VLAN membership may result in
packet loss or non-shortest paths.
Take Figure 1 for example, suppose RB1 configures VLAN1 and VLAN2 for
the link SW1-RB1, while RB2 only configures VLAN1 for the SW1-RB2
link. Both RB1 and RB2 use the same ingress nickname RBv for all
frames originating from S1. Hence, a remote RBridge RBx will learn
that MAC addresses from S1 on VLAN2 are originating from RBv. As a
result, on the returning path, RBx may deliver VLAN2 traffic to RB2.
However, RB2 does not have VLAN2 configured on SW1-RB2 link and hence
the frame may be dropped or has to be redirected to RB1 if RB2 knows
RB1 can reach S1 in VLAN2.
11. IANA Considerations
TBD.
12. Security Considerations
TBD.
13. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Mingjiang Chen for his contributions to this
document. Additionally, we would like to thank Erik Nordmark, Les
Ginsberg, Ayan Banerjee, Dinesh Dutt, Anoop Ghanwani, Janardhanan
Pathang, and Jon Hudson for their good questions and comments.
14. Normative References
[CMT] Senevirathne, T., Pathangi, J., and J. Hudson,
"Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT)for TRILL", draft-ietf-
trill-cmt-00.txt Work in Progress, April 2012.
[ClearCorrect]
Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Ghanwani, A., Manral, V., and
A. Banerjee, "TRILL: Clarifications, Corrections, and
Updates", draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-06.txt In RFC
Editting Queue, July 2012.
[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.
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
[rfc6326bis]
Eastlake 3rd, D., Banerjee, A., Ghanwani, A., and R.
Perlman, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL) Use of IS-IS", draft-eastlake-isis-
rfc6326bis-07.txt Work in Progress, March 2012.
Appendix A. Rationale for MAC Sharing among Member RBridges
With the introduction of virtual RBridge, MAC flip-flopping problem
in LAN or LAG is resolved. However, in order to forward traffic
effectively, member RBridges should share some of their learned MAC
addresses with each other. For example, see Figure 5 shown below.
...........................................
: TRILL Network :
^ : +-----+ /\-/\-/\-/\-/\ :
+-----| RB1 |-----/ \ :
/ : +-----+ / \ :
/ : | / Transit \ +-----+ :
S1 o RBv : | < RBridges >---| RBx |---o Sx
\ : | \ Campus / +-----+ :
\ : +-----+ \ / :
+-----| RB2 |-----\ / :
V : +-----+ \/\-/\-/\-/\-/ :
: :
...........................................
Figure 5 RBv in LAG scenario
Take Figure 5 as an example, the VLAN-x native frames from S1 to Sx
will enter TRILL campus via one member RBridge of the RBv (say RB1).
RB1 learns the location of S1 in VLAN-x. However, RBx may deliver the
reverse traffic to RB2 if it thinks the shortest path to RBv is
through RB2. If RB2 has not learned the location of S1 in VLAN-x
from the MAC sharing, RB2 has to transmit the reverse traffic to S1
as unknown unicast.
Thus, the learned MAC addresses of attached end stations on one
member RBridge SHOULD be shared with rest of the member RBridges in
the same RBv. With these information shared, when RB2 receives
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
reverse frames, it can determine how to forward them to S1. For
example, it can redirect them to RB1 if link RB2-S1 fails.
Since RBx always delivers the reverse traffic to RBv via RB2, RB2
egresses the traffic and learns the location of Sx. But RB1 will not
know where Sx is, if RB2 does not share this information with RB1.
As a result, RB1 has to treat the traffic from S1 to Sx as traffic
with unknown destination and flood it in TRILL, which adds additional
forwarding burden on the TRILL network.
Therefore, in addition to local attached end station MAC addresses,
the learned remote MAC addresses should also be shared among all
member RBridges of a RBv. With such information shared, RB1 can
treat the traffic to Sx as known destination traffic and unicast it
to RBx.
The design for above MAC sharing is currently beyond the scope of
this document.
Authors' Addresses
Hongjun Zhai
ZTE Corperation
68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Phone: +86 25 52877345
Email: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn
Tissa Senevirathne
Cisco Systems
375 East Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
USA
Phone: +1-408-853-2291
Email: tsenevir@cisco.com
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Pseudo-Nickname February 2014
Radia Perlman
Intel Labs
2200 Mission College Blvd
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
USA
Phone: +1-408-765-8080
Email: Radia@alum.mit.edu
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing, Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com
Zhai, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 20]