Link State Over Ethernet
draft-ietf-lsvr-lsoe-00
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 | Randy Bush , Rob Austein , Keyur Patel | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-24 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl, draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-lsvr-lsoe-00
Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Arrcus & IIJ
Intended status: Standards Track R. Austein
Expires: June 27, 2019 K. Patel
Arrcus
December 24, 2018
Link State Over Ethernet
draft-ietf-lsvr-lsoe-00
Abstract
Used in Massive Data Centers (MDCs), BGP-SPF and similar protocols
need link neighbor discovery, link encapsulation data, and Layer 2
liveness. The Link State Over Ethernet protocol provides link
discovery, exchanges supported encapsulations (IPv4, IPv6, ...),
discovers encapsulation addresses (Layer 3 / MPLS identifiers) over
raw Ethernet, and provides layer 2 liveness checking. The interface
data are pushed directly to a BGP-LS API, obviating the need for
centralized controller architectures. This protocol is intended to
be more widely applicable to other upper layer routing protocols
which need link discovery and characterisation.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to
be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] only when they appear in all
upper case. They may also appear in lower or mixed case as English
words, without normative meaning. See [RFC8174].
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 https://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 June 27, 2019.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Top Level Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Ethernet to Ethernet Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Inter-Link Ether Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. The Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. TLV PDUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. HELLO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. OPEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. The Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12.1. The Encapsulation PDU Skeleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Prim/Loop Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.3. IPv4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.4. IPv6 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.5. MPLS Label List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.6. MPLS IPv4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.7. MPLS IPv6 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13. KEEPALIVE - Layer 2 Liveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. Layers 2.5 and 3 Liveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15. The North/South Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15.1. Use BGP-LS as Much as Possible . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15.2. Extensions to BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16.1. HELLO Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
16.2. HELLO versus KEEPALIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
17. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
20. IEEE Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
21. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
The Massive Data Center (MDC) environment presents unusual problems
of scale, e.g. O(10,000) devices, while its homogeneity presents
opportunities for simple approaches. Approaches such as Jupiter
Rising [JUPITER] use a central controller to deal with scaling, while
BGP-SPF [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf] provides massive scale-out without
centralization using a tried and tested scalable distributed control
plane, offering a scalable routing solution in Clos and similar
environments. But BGP-SPF and similar higher level device-spanning
protocols need link state and addressing data from the network to
build the routing topology. LLDP has scaling issues, e.g. in
extending a message beyond 1,500 bytes.
Link State Over Ethernet (LSOE) provides brutally simple mechanisms
for devices to
o Discover each other's Layer 2 (MAC) Addresses,
o Run Layer 2 keep-alive messages for liveness continuity,
o Discover each other's unique IDs (ASN, RouterID, ...),
o Discover mutually supported encapsulations, e.g. IP/MPLS,
o Discover Layer 3 and/or MPLS addressing of interfaces of the link
encapsulations,
o Enable layer 3 link liveness such as BFD, and finally
o Present these data, using a very restricted profile of a BGP-LS
[RFC7752] API, to BGP-SPF which computes the topology and builds
routing and forwarding tables.
This protocol may be more widely applicable to a range of routing and
similar protocols which need link discovery and characterisation.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
2. Terminology
Even though it concentrates on the Ethernet layer, this document
relies heavily on routing terminology. The following are some
possibly confusing terms:
ASN: Autonomous System Number [RFC4271], a BGP identifier for
an originator of Layer 3 routes, particularly BGP
announcements.
BGP-LS: A mechanism by which link-state and TE information can be
collected from networks and shared with external
components using the BGP routing protocol. See [RFC7752].
BGP-SPF A hybrid protocol using BGP transport but a Dijkstra SPF
decision process. See [I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf].
Clos: A hierarchic subset of a crossbar switch topology commonly
used in data centers.
Datagram: The LSOE content of a single Ethernet frame. A full LSOE
PDU may be packaged in multiple Datagrams.
Encapsulation: Address Family Indicator and Subsequent Address
Family Indicator (AFI/SAFI). I.e. classes of addresses
such as IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, ...
Frame: An Ethernet Layer 2 packet.
MAC Address: Media Access Control Address, essentially an Ethernet
address, six octets.
MDC: Massive Data Center, commonly thousands of TORs.
PDU: Protocol Data Unit, an LSOE application layer message. A
PDU may need to be broken into multiple Datagrams to make
it through MTU or other restrictions.
RouterID: An 32-bit identifier unique in the current routing domain,
see [RFC4271] updated by [RFC6286].
Session: An established, via OPEN PDUs, session between two LSOE
capable devices,
SPF: Shortest Path First, an algorithm for finding the shortest
paths between nodes in a graph; AKA Dijkstra's algorithm.
TOR: Top Of Rack switch, aggregates the servers in a rack and
connects to aggregation layers of the Clos tree, AKA the
Clos spine.
ZTP: Zero Touch Provisioning gives devices initial addresses,
credentials, etc. on boot/restart.
3. Background
LSOE assumes a datacenter scale and topology, but can accommodate
richer topologies which contain potential cycles.
While LSOE is designed for the MDC, there are no inherent reasons it
could not run on a WAN; though, as it is simply a discovery protocol,
it is not clear that this would be useful. The authentication and
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
authorisation needed to run safely on the WAN are not provided in
detail in this version of the protocol, although future versions/
extensions could expend on them.
LSOE assumes a new IEEE assigned EtherType (TBD).
4. Top Level Overview
o Devices discover each other on Ethernet links
o MAC addresses and Link State are exchanged over Ethernet
o Layer 2 Liveness Checks are begun
o Encapsulation data are exchanged and IP-Level Liveness Checks done
o A BGP-like protocol is assumed to use these data to discover and
build a topology database
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
| Device | | Device | | Device |
| | | | | |
|+-----------------+| |+-----------------+| |+-----------------+|
|| || || || || ||
|| BGP-SPF <+---+> BGP-SPF <+---+> BGP-SPF ||
|| || || || || ||
|+--------^--------+| |+--------^--------+| |+--------^--------+|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|+--------+--------+| |+--------+--------+| |+--------+--------+|
|| L2 Liveness || || L2 Liveness || || L2 Liveness ||
|| Encapsulations || || Encapsulations || || Encapsulations ||
|| Addresses || || Addresses || || Addresses ||
|+--------^--------+| |+--------^--------+| |+--------^--------+|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
|+--------v--------+| |+--------v--------+| |+--------v--------+|
|| || || || || ||
|| Ether PDUs <+---+> Ether PDUs <+---+> Ether PDUs ||
|| || || || || ||
|+-----------------+| |+-----------------+| |+-----------------+|
+-------------------+ +-------------------+ +-------------------+
There are two protocols, the Ethernet discovery and the interface to
the upper level BGP-like protocol:
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
o Layer 2 Ethernet protocols are used to exchange Layer 2 data, i.e.
MAC addresses, and layer 2.5 and 3 identifiers (not payloads),
i.e. ASNs, Encapsulations, and interface addresses.
o A Link Layer to BGP API presents these data up the stack to a BGP
protocol or an other device-spanning upper layer protocol,
presenting them using the BGP-LS BGP-like data format.
The upper layer BGP family routing protocols cross all the devices,
though they are not part of these LSOE protocols.
To simplify this document, Layer 2 Ethernet framing is not shown.
5. Ethernet to Ethernet Protocols
Two devices discover each other and their respective MAC addresses by
sending multicast HELLO PDUs (Section 9). To allow discovery of new
devices coming up on a multi-link topology, devices send periodic
HELLOs forever, see Section 16.1.
Once a new device is recognized, both devices attempt to negotiate
and establish peering by sending unicast OPEN PDUs (Section 10). In
an established peering, Encapsulations (Section 12) may be announced
and modified. When two devices on a link have compatible
Encapsulations and addresses, i.e. the same AFI/SAFI and the same
subnet, the link is announced via the BGP-LS API.
5.1. Inter-Link Ether Protocol Overview
The HELLO, Section 9, is a priming message. It is an Ethernet
multicast frame with a small LSOE PDU with the simple goal of
discovering the Ethernet MAC address(es) of devices reachable via an
interface.
The HELLO and OPEN, Section 10, PDUs, which are used to discover and
exchange MAC address and IDs, are mandatory; other PDUs are optional;
though at least one encapsulation MUST be agreed at some point.
The following is a ladder-style sketch of the Ethernet protocol
exchanges:
| HELLO | MAC Address discovery
|---------------------------->|
| HELLO | Mandatory
|<----------------------------|
| |
| |
| OPEN | MACs, IDs, and Capabilities
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
|---------------------------->|
| OPEN | Mandatory
|<----------------------------|
| |
| |
| Interface IPv4 Addresses | Interface IPv4 Addresses
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface IPv4 Addresses |
|<----------------------------|
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
| |
| Interface IPv6 Addresses | Interface IPv6 Addresses
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface IPv6 Addresses |
|<----------------------------|
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
| |
| Interface MPLSv4 Labels | Interface MPLSv4 Labels
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface MPLSv4 Labels | Interface MPLSv4 Labels
|<----------------------------| Optional
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
| |
| Interface MPLSv6 Labels | Interface MPLSv6 Labels
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface MPLSv6 Labels | Interface MPLSv6 Labels
|<----------------------------| Optional
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
| |
| LSOE KEEPALIVE | Layer 2 Liveness
|---------------------------->| Optional
| LSOE KEEPALIVE |
|<----------------------------|
6. Transport Layer
LSOE PDU are carried by a simple transport layer which allows long
PDUs to occupy multiple Ethernet frames. The LSOE data in each frame
is referred to as a Datagram.
The LSOE Transport Layer encapsulates each Datagram using a common
transport header.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version |L|Datagram Number| Datagram Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of the LSOE Transport Header are as follows:
Version: Version number of the protocol, currently 0. Values other
than 0 are treated as failure.
Datagram Number: 0..255, a monotonically increasing value, modulo
256, see [RFC1982].
L: A bit that set to 1 if this Datagram is the last Datagram of the
PDU. For a PDU which fits in only one Datagram, it is set to one.
PDU Length: Total number of octets in the Datagram including all
payloads and fields.
Checksum: A 32 bit hash over the Datagram to detect bit flips, see
Section 7.
7. The Checksum
There is a reason conservative folk use a checksum in UDP. And as
many operators stretch to jumbo frames (over 1,500 octets) longer
checksums are the conservative approach.
For the purpose of computing a checksum, the checksum field itself is
assumed to be zero.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
Sum up 32-bit unsigned ints in a 64-bit long, then take the high-
order section, shift it right, rotate, add it in, repeat until zero.
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdint.h>
/* The F table from Skipjack, and it would work for the S-Box. */
static const uint8_t sbox[256] = {
0xa3,0xd7,0x09,0x83,0xf8,0x48,0xf6,0xf4,0xb3,0x21,0x15,0x78,
0x99,0xb1,0xaf,0xf9,0xe7,0x2d,0x4d,0x8a,0xce,0x4c,0xca,0x2e,
0x52,0x95,0xd9,0x1e,0x4e,0x38,0x44,0x28,0x0a,0xdf,0x02,0xa0,
0x17,0xf1,0x60,0x68,0x12,0xb7,0x7a,0xc3,0xe9,0xfa,0x3d,0x53,
0x96,0x84,0x6b,0xba,0xf2,0x63,0x9a,0x19,0x7c,0xae,0xe5,0xf5,
0xf7,0x16,0x6a,0xa2,0x39,0xb6,0x7b,0x0f,0xc1,0x93,0x81,0x1b,
0xee,0xb4,0x1a,0xea,0xd0,0x91,0x2f,0xb8,0x55,0xb9,0xda,0x85,
0x3f,0x41,0xbf,0xe0,0x5a,0x58,0x80,0x5f,0x66,0x0b,0xd8,0x90,
0x35,0xd5,0xc0,0xa7,0x33,0x06,0x65,0x69,0x45,0x00,0x94,0x56,
0x6d,0x98,0x9b,0x76,0x97,0xfc,0xb2,0xc2,0xb0,0xfe,0xdb,0x20,
0xe1,0xeb,0xd6,0xe4,0xdd,0x47,0x4a,0x1d,0x42,0xed,0x9e,0x6e,
0x49,0x3c,0xcd,0x43,0x27,0xd2,0x07,0xd4,0xde,0xc7,0x67,0x18,
0x89,0xcb,0x30,0x1f,0x8d,0xc6,0x8f,0xaa,0xc8,0x74,0xdc,0xc9,
0x5d,0x5c,0x31,0xa4,0x70,0x88,0x61,0x2c,0x9f,0x0d,0x2b,0x87,
0x50,0x82,0x54,0x64,0x26,0x7d,0x03,0x40,0x34,0x4b,0x1c,0x73,
0xd1,0xc4,0xfd,0x3b,0xcc,0xfb,0x7f,0xab,0xe6,0x3e,0x5b,0xa5,
0xad,0x04,0x23,0x9c,0x14,0x51,0x22,0xf0,0x29,0x79,0x71,0x7e,
0xff,0x8c,0x0e,0xe2,0x0c,0xef,0xbc,0x72,0x75,0x6f,0x37,0xa1,
0xec,0xd3,0x8e,0x62,0x8b,0x86,0x10,0xe8,0x08,0x77,0x11,0xbe,
0x92,0x4f,0x24,0xc5,0x32,0x36,0x9d,0xcf,0xf3,0xa6,0xbb,0xac,
0x5e,0x6c,0xa9,0x13,0x57,0x25,0xb5,0xe3,0xbd,0xa8,0x3a,0x01,
0x05,0x59,0x2a,0x46
};
/* non-normative example C code, constant time even */
uint32_t sbox_checksum_32(const uint8_t *b, const size_t n)
{
uint32_t sum[4] = {0, 0, 0, 0};
uint64_t result = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++)
sum[i & 3] += sbox[*b++];
for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(sum)/sizeof(*sum); i++)
result = (result << 8) + sum[i];
result = (result >> 32) + (result & 0xFFFFFFFF);
result = (result >> 32) + (result & 0xFFFFFFFF);
return (uint32_t) result;
}
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
8. TLV PDUs
The basic LSOE application layer PDU is a typical TLV (Type Length
Value) PDU. It may be broken into multiple Datagrams, see Section 6
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | PDU Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Value ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of the basic LSOE header are as follows:
Type: An integer differentiating PDU payload types
0 - HELLO
1 - OPEN
2 - KEEPALIVE
3 - ACK
4 - IPv4 Announcement
5 - IPv6 Announcement
6 - MPLS IPv4 Announcement
7 - MPLS IPv6 Announcement
8-255 Reserved
PDU Length: Total number of octets in the PDU including all payloads
and fields
Value: Any application layer content of the LSOE PDU beyond the
type.
9. HELLO
The HELLO PDU is unique in that it is a multicast Ethernet frame. It
solicits response(s) from other device(s) on the link. See
Section 16.1 for why multicast is used.
All other LSOE PDUs are unicast Ethernet frames, as the peer's MAC
Address is known after the HELLO exchange.
When an interface is turned up on a device, it SHOULD issue a HELLO
periodically. The interval is set by configuration.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 0 | PDU Length = 9 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| MyMAC Address |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
If more than one device responds, one adjacency is formed for each
unique (MAC address) response. LSOE treats the adjacencies as
separate links.
When a HELLO is received from a MAC address where there is no
established LSOE adjacency, the receiver SHOULD respond with an OPEN
PDU. The two devices establish an LSOE adjacency by exchanging OPEN
PDUs.
The PDU Length is the octet count of the entire PDU, including the
Type, the Datagram Length field itself, and the MyMAC Address
payload.
A particular MAC address SHOULD arrive on frames from only one
interface.
10. OPEN
Each device has learned the other's MAC address from the HELLO
exchange, see Section 9. Therefore the OPEN and subsequent PDUs are
unicast, as opposed to the HELLO's multicast, Ethernet frames.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 1 | PDU Length | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ +
| Local ID |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Remote ID (or Zero) |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | AttrCount |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute List ... | Auth Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Authentication Data ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
An ID can be an ASN with high order bits zero, a classic RouterID
with high order bits zero, a catenation of the two, a 80-bit ISO
System-ID, or any other identifier unique to a single device in the
current routing space. IDs are big-endian.
When the local device sends an OPEN without knowing the remote
device's ID, the Remote ID MUST be zero. The Local ID MUST NOT be
zero.
AttrCount is the number of attributes in the Attribute List.
Attributes are single octets whose semantics are user-defined.
A node may have zero or more user-defined attributes, e.g. spine,
leaf, backbone, route reflector, arabica, ...
Attribute syntax and semantics are local to an operator or
datacenter; hence there is no global registry. Nodes exchange their
attributes only in the OPEN PDU.
Auth Length is a 16-bit field denoting the length in octets of the
Authentication Data, not including the Auth Length itself. If there
are no Authentication Data, the Auth Length MUST BE zero.
The Authentication Data are specific to the operational environment.
A failure to authenticate is a failure to start the LSOE session, and
HELLOs MUST BE restarted.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
Once two devices know each other's MAC addresses, and have ACKed
eachother's OPEN PDUs, Layer 2 KEEPALIVEs (see Section 13) SHOULD be
started to ensure Layer 2 liveness and keep the session semantics
alive. The timing and acceptable drop of the KEEPALIVE PDUs SHOULD
be configured.
If a properly authenticated OPEN arrives from a device with which the
receiving device believes it already has an LSOE session (OPENs have
already been exchanged), the receiver MUST assume that the sending
device has been reset. All discovered data MUST BE withdrawn via the
BGP-LS API and the recipient MUST respond with a new OPEN.
11. ACK
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 3 | Length = 4 | PDU Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The ACK acknowledges receipt of an OPEN or an Encapsulation PDU.
The PDU Type is the Type of the PDU being acknowledged, OPEN or one
of the Encapsulations.
11.1. Retransmission
If a PDU sender expects an ACK, e.g. for an OPEN or an Encapsulation,
and does not receive the ACK for a configurable time (default one
second), the sender resends the PDU. This cycle MAY be repeated a
configurable number of times (default three) before it is considered
a failure. The session is considered closed in case of an ACK
failure.
12. The Encapsulations
Once the devices know each other's MAC addresses, know each other's
upper layer identities, have means to ensure link state, etc., the
LSOE session is considered established, and the devices SHOULD
announce their interface encapsulation, addresses, (and labels).
The Encapsulation types the peers exchange may be IPv4 Announcement
(Section 12.3), IPv6 Announcement (Section 12.4), MPLS IPv4
Announcement (Section 12.6), MPLS IPv6 Announcement (Section 12.7),
and/or possibly others not defined here.
The sender of an Encapsulation PDU MUST NOT assume that the peer is
capable of the same Encapsulation Type. An ACK (Section 11) merely
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
acknowledges receipt. Only if both peers have sent the same
Encapsulation Type is it safe to assume that they are compatible for
that type.
Further, to consider a link of a type to formally be established so
that it may be pushed up to upper layer protocols, the addressing for
the type must be compatible, i.e. on the same IPvX subnet.
12.1. The Encapsulation PDU Skeleton
The header for all encapsulation PDUs is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | PDU Length | Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Encapsulation List... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 16-bit Count is the number of Encapsulations in the Encapsulation
list.
If the length of an Encapsulation PDU exceeds the Datagram size limit
on media, the PDU is broken into multiple Datagrams. See Section 8.
The Receiver MUST acknowledge the Encapsulation PDU with a Type=3,
ACK PDU (Section 11) with the Encapsulation Type being that of the
encapsulation being announced, see Section 11.
If the Sender does not receive an ACK in one second, they SHOULD
retransmit. After a user configurable number of failures, the LSOE
session should be considered dead and the OPEN process SHOULD be
restarted.
An Encapsulation PDU describes zero or more addresses of the
encapsulation type.
An Encapsulation PDU of Type T replaces all previous encapsulations
of Type T.
To remove all encapsulations of Type T, the sender uses a Count of
zero.
If an interface has multiple addresses for an encapsulation type, one
address SHOULD be marked as primary, see Section 12.2.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
If a loopback address needs to be exposed, e.g. for iBGP peering,
then it should be marked as such, see Section 12.2.
If a sender has multiple links on the same interface, separate data,
ACKs, etc. must be kept for each peer.
Over time, multiple Encapsulation PDUs may be sent for an interface
as configuration changes.
12.2. Prim/Loop Flags
0 1 2 3 ... 7
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Primary | Loopback | Reserved ... | |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
Each Encapsulation interface address MAY be marked as a primary
address, and/or a loopback, in which case the respective bit is set
to one.
Only one address MAY be marked as primary for an encapsulation type.
12.3. IPv4 Encapsulation
The IPv4 Encapsulation describes a device's ability to exchange IPv4
packets on one or more subnets. It does so by stating the
interface's address and the prefix length.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 4 | PDU Length | Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | PrimLoop Flags| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | PrefixLen | PrimLoop Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLen | more ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 16-bit Count is the number of IPv4 Encapsulations.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
12.4. IPv6 Encapsulation
The IPv6 Encapsulation describes a device's ability to exchange IPv6
packets on one or more subnets. It does so by stating the
interface's address and the prefix length.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 5 | PDU Length | Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | PrimLoop Flags| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+ +
| IPv6 Address |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | PrefixLen | more ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 16-bit Count is the number of IPv6 Encapsulations.
12.5. MPLS Label List
As an MPLS enabled interface may have a label stack, see [RFC3032], a
variable length list of labels is needed.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Count | Label | Exp |S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | Exp |S| more ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A Label Count of zero is an implicit withdraw of all labels for that
prefix on that interface.
12.6. MPLS IPv4 Encapsulation
The MPLS IPv4 Encapsulation describes a device's ability to exchange
labeled IPv4 packets on one or more subnets. It does so by stating
the interface's address and the prefix length.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 6 | PDU Length | Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | PrimLoop Flags| MPLS Label List ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | PrefixLen | PrimLoop Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPLS Label List ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len | more ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 16-bit Count is the number of MPLSv6 Encapsulations.
12.7. MPLS IPv6 Encapsulation
The MPLS IPv6 Encapsulation describes a device's ability to exchange
labeled IPv6 packets on one or more subnets. It does so by stating
the interface's address and the prefix length.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 7 | PDU Length | Count |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | PrimLoop Flags| MPLS Label List ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+ +
| IPv6 Address |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | Prefix Len | PrimLoop Flags|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPLS Label List ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IPv6 Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len | more ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 16-bit Count is the number of MPLSv6 Encapsulations.
13. KEEPALIVE - Layer 2 Liveness
LSOE devices MUST beacon occasional Layer 2 KEEPALIVE PDUs to ensure
session continuity.
They SHOULD be beaconed at a configured frequency. One per second is
the default. Layer 3 liveness, such as BFD, will likely be more
aggressive.
If a KEEPALIVE is not received from a peer with which a receiver has
an open session for a configurable time (default one minute), the
session SHOULD BE presumed closed. The devices MAY keep
configuration state until a new session is established and new
Encapsulation PDUs are received.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
0 1 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 2 | Length = 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
14. Layers 2.5 and 3 Liveness
Ethernet liveness is continuously tested by KEEPALIVE PDUs, see
Section 13. As layer 2.5 or layer 3 connectivity could still break,
liveness above layer 2 SHOULD be frequently tested using BFD
([RFC5880]) or a similar technique.
This protocol assumes that one or more Encapsulation addresses will
be used to ping, BFD, or whatever the operator configures.
15. The North/South Protocol
Thus far, a one-hop point-to-point link discovery protocol has been
defined.
The nodes know the unique node identifiers (ASNs, RouterIDs, ...) and
Encapsulations on each link interface.
Full topology discovery is not appropriate at the Ethernet layer, so
Dijkstra a la IS-IS etc. is assumed to be done by higher level
protocols.
Therefore the node identifiers, link Encapsulations, and state
changes are pushed North via a small subset of the BGP-LS API. The
upper layer routing protocol(s), e.g. BGP-SPF, learn and maintain
the topology, run Dijkstra, and build the routing database(s).
For example, if a neighbor's IPv4 Encapsulation address changes, the
devices seeing the change push that change Northbound.
15.1. Use BGP-LS as Much as Possible
BGP-LS [RFC7752] defines BGP-like Datagrams describing link state
(links, nodes, link prefixes, and many other things), and a new BGP
path attribute providing Northbound transport, all of which can be
ingested by upper layer protocols such as BGP-SPF; see Section 4 of
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf].
For IPv4 links, TLVs 259 and 260 are used. For IPv6 links, TLVs 261
and 262. If there are multiple addresses on a link, multiple TLV
pairs are pushed North, having the same ID pairs.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
15.2. Extensions to BGP-LS
The Northbound protocol needs a few minor extensions to BGP-LS.
Luckily, others have needed the same extensions.
Similarly to BGP-SPF, the BGP protocol is used in the Protocol-ID
field specified in table 1 of
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]. The local and remote node
descriptors for all NLRI are the ID's described in Section 10. This
is equivalent to an adjacency SID or a node SID if the address is a
loopback address.
Label Sub-TLVs from [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Section 2.1.1, are used to associate one or more MPLS Labels with a
link.
16. Discussion
This section explores some trade-offs taken and some considerations.
16.1. HELLO Discussion
There is the question of whether to allow an intermediate switch to
be transparent to discovery. We consider that an interface on a
device is a Layer 2 or a Layer 3 interface. In theory it could be a
Layer 3 interface with no encapsulation or Layer 3 addressing
currently configured.
A device with multiple Layer 2 interfaces, traditionally called a
switch, may be used to forward frames and therefore packets from
multiple devices to one interface, I, on an LSOE speaking device.
Interface I could discover a peer J across the switch. Later, a
prospective peer K could come up across the switch. If I was not
still sending and listening for HELLOs, the potential peering with K
could not be discovered. Therefore, interfaces MUST continue to send
HELLOs as long as they are turned up.
16.2. HELLO versus KEEPALIVE
Both HELLO and KEEPALIVE are periodic. KEEPALIVE might be eliminated
in favor of keeping only HELLOs. But currently KEEPALIVE is unicast,
has a checksum, is acknowledged, and thus more firmly verifies
session existence.
This warrants discussion.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
17. Open Issues
VLANs/SVIs/Subinterfaces
18. Security Considerations
The protocol as is MUST NOT be used outside a datacenter or similarly
closed environment due to lack of formal definition of the
authentication and authorisation mechanism. These will be worked on
in a later effort, likely using credentials configured using ZTP or
similar configuration automation.
Many MDC operators have a strange belief that physical walls and
firewalls provide sufficient security. This is not credible. All
MDC protocols need to be examined for exposure and attack surface.
It is generally unwise to assume that on the wire Ethernet is secure.
Strange/unauthorized devices may plug into a port. Mis-wiring is
very common in datacenter installations. A poisoned laptop might be
plugged into a device's port.
Malicious nodes/devices could mis-announce addressing, form malicious
sessions, etc.
For these reasons, the OPEN PDU's authentication data exchange SHOULD
be used. [ A mandatory to implement authentication is in
development. ]
19. IANA Considerations
This document requests the IANA create a registry for LSOE PDU Type,
which may range from 0 to 255. The name of the registry should be
LSOE-PDU-Type. The policy for adding to the registry is RFC Required
per [RFC5226], either standards track or experimental. The initial
entries should be the following:
PDU
Code PDU Name
---- -------------------
0 HELLO
1 OPEN
2 KEEPALIVE
3 ACK
4 IPv4 Announce / Withdraw
5 IPv6 Announce / Withdraw
6 MPLS IPv4 Announce / Withdraw
7 MPLS IPv6 Announce / Withdraw
8-255 Reserved
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
This document requests the IANA create a registry for LSOE PL Flag
Bits, which may range from 0 to 7. The name of the registry should
be LSOE-PL-Flag-Bits. The policy for adding to the registry is RFC
Required per [RFC5226], either standards track or experimental. The
initial entries should be the following:
Bit Bit Name
---- -------------------
0 Primary
1 Loopback
2-7 Reserved
20. IEEE Considerations
This document requires a new EtherType.
21. Acknowledgments
The authors thank Cristel Pelsser for multiple reviews, Jeff Haas for
review and comments, Joe Clarke for a useful review, John Scudder
deeply serious review and comments, Larry Kreeger for a lot of layer
2 clue, Martijn Schmidt for his contribution, Russ Housley for
checksum discussion and sBox, and Steve Bellovin for checksum advice.
22. References
22.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-11
(work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe]
Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Patel, K., Ray,
S., and J. Dong, "BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing
BGP Egress Peer Engineering", draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-
segment-routing-epe-17 (work in progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf]
Patel, K., Lindem, A., Zandi, S., and W. Henderickx,
"Shortest Path Routing Extensions for BGP Protocol",
draft-ietf-lsvr-bgp-spf-04 (work in progress), December
2018.
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC6286] Chen, E. and J. Yuan, "Autonomous-System-Wide Unique BGP
Identifier for BGP-4", RFC 6286, DOI 10.17487/RFC6286,
June 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6286>.
[RFC7752] Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
22.2. Informative References
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Link State Over Ethernet December 2018
[JUPITER] Singh, A., Germano, P., Kanagala, A., Liu, H., Provost,
J., Simmons, J., Tanda, E., Wanderer, J., HAP.lzle, U.,
Stuart, S., Vahdat, A., Ong, J., Agarwal, A., Anderson,
G., Armistead, A., Bannon, R., Boving, S., Desai, G., and
B. Felderman, "Jupiter rising", Communications of the
ACM Vol. 59, pp. 88-97, DOI 10.1145/2975159, August 2016.
Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
Arrcus & IIJ
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
United States of America
Email: randy@psg.com
Rob Austein
Arrcus, Inc
Email: sra@hactrn.net
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
2077 Gateway Place, Suite #400
San Jose, CA 95119
United States of America
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Bush, et al. Expires June 27, 2019 [Page 24]