RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees
draft-ietf-rift-rift-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rift WG)
Last updated 2018-06-22
Replaces draft-przygienda-rift
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
RIFT Working Group                                    T. Przygienda, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                               A. Sharma
Expires: December 23, 2018                                       Comcast
                                                              P. Thubert
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                A. Atlas
                                                              Individual
                                                                J. Drake
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                            Jun 21, 2018

                       RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees
                        draft-ietf-rift-rift-02

Abstract

   This document outlines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for
   Clos and fat-tree network topologies.  The protocol (1) deals with
   automatic construction of fat-tree topologies based on detection of
   links, (2) minimizes the amount of routing state held at each level,
   (3) automatically prunes the topology distribution exchanges to a
   sufficient subset of links, (4) supports automatic disaggregation of
   prefixes on link and node failures to prevent black-holing and
   suboptimal routing, (5) allows traffic steering and re-routing
   policies, (6) allows non-ECMP forwarding, (7) automatically re-
   balances traffic towards the spines based on bandwidth available and
   ultimately (8) provides mechanisms to synchronize a limited key-value
   data-store that can be used after protocol convergence to e.g.
   bootstrap higher levels of functionality on nodes.

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 December 23, 2018.

Przygienda, et al.      Expires December 23, 2018               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          Jun 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Reference Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  Requirement Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.2.1.  Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.2.2.  Link (Neighbor) Discovery (LIE Exchange)  . . . . . .  13
       4.2.3.  Topology Exchange (TIE Exchange)  . . . . . . . . . .  15
         4.2.3.1.  Topology Information Elements . . . . . . . . . .  15
         4.2.3.2.  South- and Northbound Representation  . . . . . .  16
         4.2.3.3.  Flooding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
         4.2.3.4.  TIE Flooding Scopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
         4.2.3.5.  Initial and Periodic Database Synchronization . .  21
         4.2.3.6.  Purging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
         4.2.3.7.  Southbound Default Route Origination  . . . . . .  22
         4.2.3.8.  Northbound TIE Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . .  22
       4.2.4.  Policy-Guided Prefixes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
         4.2.4.1.  Ingress Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
Show full document text