Skip to main content

RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees
draft-ietf-rift-rift-23

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 "Active".
Authors Tony Przygienda , Jordan Head , Alankar Sharma , Pascal Thubert , Bruno Rijsman , Dmitry Afanasiev
Last updated 2024-05-02 (Latest revision 2024-05-01)
Replaces draft-przygienda-rift
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Reviews
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Associated WG milestones
Mar 2018
Adopt a protocol specification document
Apr 2020
Submit protocol specification to IESG for publication
Document shepherd Zheng Zhang
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2024-03-06
IESG IESG state IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Has enough positions to pass.
Responsible AD Jim Guichard
Send notices to Zheng Zhang <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - Actions Needed
draft-ietf-rift-rift-23
RIFT Working Group                                    A. Przygienda, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              J. Head, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track                        Juniper Networks
Expires: 2 November 2024                                       A. Sharma
                                                    Hudson River Trading
                                                              P. Thubert
                                                          Bruno. Rijsman
                                                              Individual
                                                       Dmitry. Afanasiev
                                                                  Yandex
                                                              1 May 2024

                       RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees
                        draft-ietf-rift-rift-23

Abstract

   This document defines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for
   Clos, fat tree, and variants thereof.  These topologies were
   initially used within crossbar interconnects, and consequently router
   and switch backplanes, but their characteristics make them ideal for
   constructing IP fabrics as well.  The protocol specified by this
   document is optimized toward the minimization of control plane state
   to support very large substrates as well as the minimization of
   configuration and operational complexity to allow for simplified
   deployment of said topologies.

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 2 November 2024.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   2.  A Reader's Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Reference Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.2.  Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.  RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   5.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.1.  Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.2.  Generalized Topology View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       5.2.1.  Terminology and Glossary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       5.2.2.  Clos as Crossed, Stacked Crossbars  . . . . . . . . .  21
     5.3.  Fallen Leaf Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     5.4.  Discovering Fallen Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     5.5.  Addressing the Fallen Leaves Problem  . . . . . . . . . .  34
   6.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     6.1.  Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     6.2.  Link (Neighbor) Discovery (LIE Exchange)  . . . . . . . .  36
       6.2.1.  LIE Finite State Machine  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
     6.3.  Topology Exchange (TIE Exchange)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
       6.3.1.  Topology Information Elements . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
       6.3.2.  Southbound and Northbound TIE Representation  . . . .  53
       6.3.3.  Flooding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
       6.3.4.  TIE Flooding Scopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65
       6.3.5.  RAIN: RIFT Adjacency Inrush Notification  . . . . . .  70
       6.3.6.  Initial and Periodic Database Synchronization . . . .  70
       6.3.7.  Purging and Roll-Overs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70
       6.3.8.  Southbound Default Route Origination  . . . . . . . .  71
       6.3.9.  Northbound TIE Flooding Reduction . . . . . . . . . .  72
       6.3.10. Special Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  77
     6.4.  Reachability Computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  78
       6.4.1.  Northbound Reachability SPF . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

       6.4.2.  Southbound Reachability SPF . . . . . . . . . . . . .  80
       6.4.3.  East-West Forwarding Within a non-ToF Level . . . . .  80
       6.4.4.  East-West Links Within ToF Level  . . . . . . . . . .  80
     6.5.  Automatic Disaggregation on Link & Node Failures  . . . .  80
       6.5.1.  Positive, Non-transitive Disaggregation . . . . . . .  80
       6.5.2.  Negative, Transitive Disaggregation for Fallen
               Leaves  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  84
     6.6.  Attaching Prefixes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  86
     6.7.  Optional Zero Touch Provisioning (RIFT ZTP) . . . . . . .  94
       6.7.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  95
       6.7.2.  Automatic System ID Selection . . . . . . . . . . . .  97
       6.7.3.  Generic Fabric Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  97
       6.7.4.  Level Determination Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
       6.7.5.  RIFT ZTP FSM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
       6.7.6.  Resulting Topologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
     6.8.  Further Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
       6.8.1.  Route Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
       6.8.2.  Overload Bit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
       6.8.3.  Optimized Route Computation on Leaves . . . . . . . . 107
       6.8.4.  Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
       6.8.5.  Key/Value (KV) Store  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
       6.8.6.  Interactions with BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
       6.8.7.  Fabric Bandwidth Balancing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
       6.8.8.  Label Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
       6.8.9.  Leaf to Leaf Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
       6.8.10. Address Family and Multi Topology Considerations  . . 117
       6.8.11. One-Hop Healing of Levels with East-West Links  . . . 117
     6.9.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
       6.9.1.  Security Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
       6.9.2.  Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
       6.9.3.  Security Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
       6.9.4.  Weak Nonces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
       6.9.5.  Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
       6.9.6.  Security Association Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
   7.  Information Elements Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
     7.1.  Backwards-Compatible Extension of Schema  . . . . . . . . 126
     7.2.  common.thrift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
     7.3.  encoding.thrift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
   8.  Further Details on Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
     8.1.  Considerations for Leaf-Only Implementation . . . . . . . 140
     8.2.  Considerations for Spine Implementation . . . . . . . . . 141
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
     9.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
     9.2.  Time to Live and Hop Limit Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
     9.3.  Malformed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
     9.4.  RIFT ZTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
     9.5.  Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
     9.6.  Packet Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

     9.7.  Outer Fingerprint Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
     9.8.  TIE Origin Fingerprint DoS Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . 143
     9.9.  Host Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
       9.9.1.  IPv4 Broadcast and IPv6 All Routers Multicast
               Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
     10.1.  Requested Multicast and Port Numbers . . . . . . . . . . 145
     10.2.  Requested Registries with Assigned Values  . . . . . . . 145
       10.2.1.  Registry RIFT/Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
       10.2.2.  Registry RIFT/common/AddressFamilyType . . . . . . . 146
       10.2.3.  Registry RIFT/common/HierarchyIndications  . . . . . 146
       10.2.4.  Registry RIFT/common/IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType  . . . 147
       10.2.5.  Registry RIFT/common/IPAddressType . . . . . . . . . 147
       10.2.6.  Registry RIFT/common/IPPrefixType  . . . . . . . . . 148
       10.2.7.  Registry RIFT/common/IPv4PrefixType  . . . . . . . . 148
       10.2.8.  Registry RIFT/common/IPv6PrefixType  . . . . . . . . 149
       10.2.9.  Registry RIFT/common/KVTypes . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
       10.2.10. Registry RIFT/common/PrefixSequenceType  . . . . . . 150
       10.2.11. Registry RIFT/common/RouteType . . . . . . . . . . . 150
       10.2.12. Registry RIFT/common/TIETypeType . . . . . . . . . . 151
       10.2.13. Registry RIFT/common/TieDirectionType  . . . . . . . 152
       10.2.14. Registry RIFT/encoding/Community . . . . . . . . . . 153
       10.2.15. Registry RIFT/encoding/KeyValueTIEElement  . . . . . 153
       10.2.16. Registry RIFT/encoding/KeyValueTIEElementContent . . 154
       10.2.17. Registry RIFT/encoding/LIEPacket . . . . . . . . . . 154
       10.2.18. Registry RIFT/encoding/LinkCapabilities  . . . . . . 157
       10.2.19. Registry RIFT/encoding/LinkIDPair  . . . . . . . . . 158
       10.2.20. Registry RIFT/encoding/Neighbor  . . . . . . . . . . 160
       10.2.21. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeCapabilities  . . . . . . 160
       10.2.22. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeFlags . . . . . . . . . . 161
       10.2.23. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeNeighborsTIEElement . . . 162
       10.2.24. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeTIEElement  . . . . . . . 163
       10.2.25. Registry RIFT/encoding/PacketContent . . . . . . . . 164
       10.2.26. Registry RIFT/encoding/PacketHeader  . . . . . . . . 165
       10.2.27. Registry RIFT/encoding/PrefixAttributes  . . . . . . 166
       10.2.28. Registry RIFT/encoding/PrefixTIEElement  . . . . . . 168
       10.2.29. Registry RIFT/encoding/ProtocolPacket  . . . . . . . 168
       10.2.30. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIDEPacket  . . . . . . . . . 168
       10.2.31. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEElement  . . . . . . . . . 169
       10.2.32. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEHeader . . . . . . . . . . 170
       10.2.33. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEHeaderWithLifeTime . . . . 171
       10.2.34. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEID . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
       10.2.35. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEPacket . . . . . . . . . . 172
       10.2.36. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIREPacket  . . . . . . . . . 173
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
   12. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
   Appendix A.  Sequence Number Binary Arithmetic  . . . . . . . . . 179
   Appendix B.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
     B.1.  Normal Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
     B.2.  Leaf Link Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
     B.3.  Partitioned Fabric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
     B.4.  Northbound Partitioned Router and Optional East-West
           Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

1.  Introduction

   Clos [CLOS] topologies have gained prominence in today's networking,
   primarily as a result of the paradigm shift towards a centralized
   data-center architecture that is poised to deliver a majority of
   computation and storage services in the future.  Such networks are
   called commonly a fat tree/network in modern IP fabric considerations
   [VAHDAT08] as homonym to the original definition of the term
   [FATTREE].  In most generic terms, and disregarding exceptions like
   horizontal shortcuts, those networks are all variations of a
   structured design isomorphic to a ranked lattice where the least
   upper bound is the "top of the fabric" and links closer to the top
   may be "fatter" to guarantee non-blocking bi-sectional capacity.

   Many builders of such IP fabrics desire a protocol that auto-
   configures itself and deals with failures and mis-configurations with
   a minimum of human intervention.  Such a solution would allow local
   IP fabric bandwidth to be consumed in a 'standard component' fashion,
   i.e. provision it much faster and operate it at much lower costs than
   today, much like compute or storage is consumed already.

   In looking at the problem through the lens of such IP fabric
   requirements, RIFT (Routing in Fat Trees) addresses those challenges
   not through an incremental modification of either a link-state
   (distributed computation) or distance-vector (diffused computation)
   techniques but rather a mixture of both, briefly described as "link-
   state towards the spines" and "distance vector towards the leaves".
   In other words, "bottom" levels are flooding their link-state
   information in the "northern" direction while each node generates
   under normal conditions a "default route" and floods it in the
   "southern" direction.  This type of protocol allows naturally for
   highly desirable address aggregation.  Alas, such aggregation could
   drop traffic in cases of misconfiguration or while failures are being
   resolved or even cause persistent network partitioning and this has
   to be addressed by some adequate mechanism.  The approach RIFT takes
   is described in Section 6.5 and is based on automatic, sufficient
   disaggregation of prefixes in case of link and node failures.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The protocol does further provide:

   *  optional fully automated construction of fat tree topologies based
      on detection of links without any configuration (Section 6.7),
      while allowing for conventional configuration methods or an
      arbitrary mix of both,

   *  minimum amount of routing state held by nodes,

   *  automatic pruning and load balancing of topology flooding
      exchanges over a sufficient subset of links (Section 6.3.9),

   *  automatic address aggregation (Section 6.3.8) and consequently
      automatic disaggregation (Section 6.5) of prefixes on link and
      node failures to prevent traffic loss and suboptimal routing,

   *  loop-free non-ECMP forwarding due to its inherent valley-free
      nature,

   *  fast mobility (Section 6.8.4),

   *  re-balancing of traffic towards the spines based on bandwidth
      available (Section 6.8.7.1), and finally

   *  mechanisms to synchronize a limited key-value data-store
      (Section 6.8.5.1) that can be used after protocol convergence to
      e.g.  bootstrap higher levels of functionality on nodes.

   Figure 1 illustrates a simplified, conceptual view of a RIFT fabric
   with its routing tables and topology databases using IPv4 as address
   family.  The top of the fabric's link-state database holds
   information about the nodes below it and the routes to them.  When
   referring to Figure 1, /32 notation corresponds to each node's IPv4
   loopback address (e.g.  A/32 is node A's loopback, etc.) and 0/0
   indicates a default IPv4 route.  The first row of database
   information represents the nodes for which full topology information
   is available.  The second row of database information indicates that
   partial information of other nodes in the same level is also
   available.  Such information will be needed to perform certain
   algorithms necessary for correct protocol operation.  When the
   "bottom" of the fabric is considered, or in other words the leaves,
   the topology is basically empty and, under normal conditions, the
   leaves hold a load balanced default route to the next level.

   The remainder of this document fills in the protocol specification
   details.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                                                      [A,B,C,D]
                                                      [E]

                       +---------+        +---------+ A/32 @ [C,D]
                       |    E    |        |    F    | B/32 @ [C,D]
                       +-+-----+-+        +-+-----+-+ C/32 @ C
                         |     |            |     |   D/32 @ D
                         |     |            |     |
                         |     |         +--+     |
                         |     |         |        |
                         |     +---------)--+     |
                         |               |  |     |
                         |               |  |     |
                         |     +---------+  |     |
                         |     |            |     |
                 [A,B] +-+-----+-+        +-+-----+-+ [A,B]
                 [D]   |    C    |        |    D    | [C]
                       +-+-----+-+        +-+-----+-+
          0/0  @ [E,F]   |     |            |     |   0/0  @ [E,F]
          A/32 @ [A]     |     |            |     |   A/32 @ A
          B/32 @ [B]     |     |         +--+     |   B/32 @ B
                         |     |         |        |
                         |     +---------)--+     |
                         |               |  |     |
                         |     +---------+  |     |
                         |     |            |     |
                       +-+-----+-+        +-+-----+-+
           0/0 @ [C,D] |    A    |        |    B    | 0/0 @ [C,D]
                       +---------+        +---------+

                  Figure 1: RIFT Information Distribution

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

2.  A Reader's Digest

   This section is an initial guided tour through the document in order
   to convey the necessary information for different readers, depending
   on their level of interest.  The authors recommend reading the HTML
   or PDF versions of this document due to the inherent limitation of
   text version to represent complex figures.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The Terminology (Section 3.1) section should be used as a supporting
   reference as the document is read.

   The indications of direction (i.e. "top", "bottom", etc.) referenced
   in Section 1 are of paramount importance.  RIFT requires a topology
   with a sense of top and bottom in order to properly achieve a sorted
   topology.  Clos, Fat Tree, and other similarly structured networks
   are conducive to such requirements.  Where RIFT does allow for
   further relaxation of these constraints, this will be mentioned later
   in this section.

   Several of the images in this document are annotated with "northern
   view" or "southern view" to indicate perspective to the reader.  A
   "northern view" should be interpreted as "from the top of the fabric
   looking down", whereas "southern view" should be interpreted as "from
   the bottom looking up".

   Operators and implementors alike must decide whether multi-plane IP
   fabrics are of interest for them.  Section 3.2 illustrates an example
   of both single-plane in Figure 2 and multi-plane fabric in Figure 3.
   Multi-plane fabrics require understanding of additional RIFT concepts
   (e.g.  negative disaggregation in Section 6.5.2) that are unnecessary
   in the context of fabrics consisting of a single-plane only.  The
   Overview (Section 5) and Section 5.2 aim to provide enough context to
   determine if multi-plane fabrics are of interest to the reader.  The
   Fallen Leaf part (Section 5.3), and additionally Section 5.4 and
   Section 5.5 describe further considerations that are specific to
   multi-plane fabrics.

   The fundamental protocol concepts are described starting in the
   specification part (Section 6), but some sub-sections are less
   relevant unless the protocol is being implemented.  The protocol
   transport (Section 6.1) is of particular importance for two reasons.
   First, it introduces RIFT's packet format content in the form of a
   normative Thrift [thrift] model given in Section 7.3 carried in
   according security envelope as described in Section 6.9.3.  Second,
   the Thrift model component is a prelude to understanding the RIFT's
   inherent security features as defined in both security models part
   (Section 6.9) and the security segment (Section 9).  The normative
   schema defining the Thrift model can be found in Section 7.2 and
   Section 7.3.  Furthermore, while a detailed understanding of Thrift
   [thrift] and the models is not required unless implementing RIFT,
   they may provide additional useful information for other readers.

   If implementing RIFT to support multi-plane topologies Section 6
   should be reviewed in its entirety in conjunction with the previously
   mentioned Thrift schemas.  Sections not relevant to single-plane
   implementations will be noted later in this section.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   All readers dealing with implementation of the protocol should pay
   special attention to the Link Information Element (LIE) definitions
   part (Section 6.2) as it not only outlines basic neighbor discovery
   and adjacency formation, but also provides necessary context for
   RIFT's optional Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) (Section 6.7) and mis-
   cabling detection capabilities that allow it to automatically detect
   and build the underlay topology with basically no configuration.
   These specific capabilities are detailed in Section 6.7.

   For other readers, the following sections provide a more detailed
   understanding of the fundamental properties and highlight some
   additional benefits of RIFT such as link state packet formats,
   efficient flooding, synchronization, loop-free path computation and
   link-state database maintenance - Section 6.3, Section 6.3.2,
   Section 6.3.3, Section 6.3.4, Section 6.3.6, Section 6.3.7,
   Section 6.3.8, Section 6.4, Section 6.4.1, Section 6.4.2,
   Section 6.4.3, Section 6.4.4.  RIFT's ability to perform weighted
   unequal-cost load balancing of traffic across all available links is
   outlined in Section 6.8.7 with an accompanying example.

   Section 6.5 is the place where the single-plane vs. multi-plane
   requirement is explained in more detail.  For those interested in
   single-plane fabrics, only Section 6.5.1 is required.  For the multi-
   plane interested reader Section 6.5.2, Section 6.5.2.1,
   Section 6.5.2.2, and Section 6.5.2.3 are also mandatory.  Section 6.6
   is especially important for any multi-plane interested reader as it
   outlines how the RIB (Routing Information Base) and FIB (Forwarding
   Information Base) are built via the disaggregation mechanisms, but
   also illustrates how they prevent defective routing decisions that
   cause traffic loss in both single or multi-plane topologies.

   Appendix B contains a set of comprehensive examples that show how
   RIFT contains the impact of failures to only the required set of
   nodes.  It should also help cement some of RIFT's core concepts in
   the reader's mind.

   Last, but not least, RIFT has other optional capabilities.  One
   example is the key-value data-store, which enables RIFT to advertise
   data post-convergence in order to bootstrap higher levels of
   functionality (e.g. operational telemetry).  Those are covered in
   Section 6.8.

   More information related to RIFT can be found in the "RIFT
   Applicability" [APPLICABILITY] document, which discusses alternate
   topologies upon which RIFT may be deployed, use cases where it is
   applicable, and presents operational considerations that complement
   this document.  The RIFT DayOne [DayOne] book covers some practical
   details of existing RIFT implementations and deployment details.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

3.  Reference Frame

3.1.  Terminology

   This section presents the terminology used in this document.

   Bandwidth Adjusted Distance (BAD):
      Each RIFT node can calculate the amount of northbound bandwidth
      available towards a node compared to other nodes at the same level
      and can modify the route distance accordingly to allow for the
      lower level to adjust their load balancing towards spines.

   Bi-directional Adjacency:
      Bidirectional adjacency is an adjacency where nodes of both sides
      of the adjacency advertised it in the Node TIEs with the correct
      levels and System IDs.  Bi-directionality is used to check in
      different algorithms whether the link should be included.

   Bow-tying:
      Traffic patterns in fully converged IP fabrics traverse normally
      the shortest route based on hop count toward their destination
      (e.g., leaf, spine, leaf).  Some failure scenarios with partial
      routing information cause nodes to lose the required downstream
      reachability to a destination and forcing traffic to utilize
      routes that traverse higher levels in the fabric in order to turn
      south again using a different to resolve reachability (e.g., leaf,
      spine-1, super-spine, spine-2, leaf).

   Clos/Fat Tree:
      This document uses the terms Clos and Fat Tree interchangeably
      where it always refers to a folded spine-and-leaf topology with
      possibly multiple Points of Delivery (PoDs) and one or multiple
      Top of Fabric (ToF) planes.  Several modifications such as leaf-
      2-leaf shortcuts and multiple level shortcuts are possible and
      described further in the document.

   Cost:
      A natural number without a unit to which the usual natural numbers
      algebra can be applied associated with either a single link or
      prefix or representing the sum of costs of links in the path
      between two nodes.

   Crossbar:
      Physical arrangement of ports in a switching matrix without
      implying any further scheduling or buffering disciplines.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG):
      A finite directed graph with no directed cycles (loops).  If links
      in a Clos are considered as either being all directed towards the
      top or vice versa, each of such two graphs is a DAG.

   Disaggregation:
      Process in which a node decides to advertise more specific
      prefixes Southwards, either positively to attract the
      corresponding traffic, or negatively to repel it.  Disaggregation
      is performed to prevent traffic loss and suboptimal routing to the
      more specific prefixes.

   Distance:
      The sum of costs (bound by infinite cost) between two nodes.  A
      distance can be obviously used as cost in another context again.

   East-West (E-W) Link:
      A link between two nodes at the same level.  East-West links are
      normally not part of Clos or "fat tree" topologies.

   Flood Repeater (FR):
      A node can designate one or more northbound neighbor nodes to be
      flood repeaters.  The flood repeaters are responsible for flooding
      northbound TIEs further north.  The document sometimes calls them
      flood leaders as well.

   Folded Spine-and-Leaf:
      In case the Clos fabric input and output stages are analogous, the
      fabric can be "folded" to build a "superspine" or top which is
      called the ToF in this document.

   Interface:
      A layer 3 entity over which RIFT control packets are exchanged.

   Key Value (KV) TIE:
      A TIE that is carrying a set of key value pairs [DYNAMO].  It can
      be used to distribute non topology related information within the
      protocol.

   Leaf-to-Leaf Shortcuts (L2L):
      East-West links at leaf level will need to be differentiated from
      East-West links at other levels.

   Leaf:
      A node without southbound adjacencies.  Level 0 implies a leaf in
      RIFT but a leaf does not have to be level 0.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Level:
      Clos and Fat Tree networks are topologically partially ordered
      graphs and 'level' denotes the set of nodes at the same height in
      such a network.  Nodes at the top level (i.e., ToF) are at the
      level with the highest value and count down to the nodes at the
      bottom level (i.e., leaf) with the lowest value.  A node will have
      links to nodes one level down and/or one level up.  In some
      circumstances, a node may have links to other nodes at the same
      level.  A leaf node may also have links to nodes multiple levels
      higher.  In RIFT, Level 0 always indicates that a node is a leaf,
      but does not have to be level 0.  Level values can be configured
      manually or automatically derived via Section 6.7.  As a final
      footnote: Clos terminology often uses the concept of "stage", but
      due to the folded nature of the Fat Tree it is not used from this
      point on to prevent misunderstandings.

   LIE:
      This is an acronym for a "Link Information Element" exchanged on
      all the system's links running RIFT to form _ThreeWay_ adjacencies
      and carry information used to perform RIFT Zero Touch Provisioning
      (ZTP) of levels.

   Metric:
      Used interchangeably with cost.

   Neighbor:
      Once a _ThreeWay_ adjacency has been formed a neighborship
      relationship contains the neighbor's properties.  Multiple
      adjacencies can be formed to a remote node via parallel point-to-
      point interfaces but such adjacencies are *not* sharing a neighbor
      structure.  Saying "neighbor" is thus equivalent to saying "a
      _ThreeWay_ adjacency".

   Node TIE:
      This stands as acronym for a "Node Topology Information Element",
      which contains all adjacencies the node discovered and information
      about the node itself.  Node TIE should not be confused with a
      North TIE since "node" defines the type of TIE rather than its
      direction.  Consequently North Node TIEs and South Node TIEs
      exist.

   North SPF (N-SPF):
      A reachability calculation that is progressing northbound, as
      example SPF that is using South Node TIEs only.  Normally it
      progresses a single hop only and installs default routes.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Northbound Link:
      A link to a node one level up or in other words, one level further
      north.

   Northbound representation:
      Subset of topology information flooded towards higher levels of
      the fabric.

   Overloaded:
      Applies to a node advertising the _overload_ attribute as set.
      Overload attribute is carried in the _NodeFlags_ object of the
      encoding schema.

   Point of Delivery (PoD):
      A self-contained vertical slice or subset of a Clos or Fat Tree
      network containing normally only level 0 and level 1 nodes.  A
      node in a PoD communicates with nodes in other PoDs via the ToF
      nodes.  PoDs are numbered to distinguish them and PoD value 0
      (defined later in the encoding schema as _common.default_pod_) is
      used to denote "undefined" or "any" PoD.

   Prefix TIE:
      This is an acronym for a "Prefix Topology Information Element" and
      it contains all prefixes directly attached to this node in case of
      a North TIE and in case of South TIE the necessary default routes
      the node advertises southbound.

   Radix:
      A radix of a switch is the number of switching ports it provides.
      It's sometimes called fanout as well.

   Routing on the Host (RotH):
      Modern data center architecture variant where servers/leaves are
      multi-homed and consequently participate in routing.

   Security Envelope:
      RIFT packets are flooded within an authenticated security envelope
      that allows to protect the integrity of information a node
      accepts.  This is described in Section 6.9.3.

   Shortest-Path First (SPF):
      A well-known graph algorithm attributed to Dijkstra [DIJKSTRA]
      that establishes a tree of shortest paths from a source to
      destinations on the graph.  SPF acronym is used due to its
      familiarity as general term for the node reachability calculations
      RIFT can employ to ultimately calculate routes of which Dijkstra
      algorithm is a possible one.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   South Reflection:
      Often abbreviated just as "reflection", it defines a mechanism
      where South Node TIEs are "reflected" from the level south back up
      north to allow nodes in the same level without E-W links to be
      aware of each other's node Topology Information Elements (TIEs).

   South SPF (S-SPF):
      A reachability calculation that is progressing southbound, as
      example SPF that is using North Node TIEs only.

   South/Southbound and North/Northbound (Direction):
      When describing protocol elements and procedures, in different
      situations the directionality of the compass is used. i.e.,
      'lower', 'south' or 'southbound' mean moving towards the bottom of
      the Clos or Fat Tree network and 'higher', 'north' and
      'northbound' mean moving towards the top of the Clos or Fat Tree
      network.

   Southbound Link:
      A link to a node one level down or in other words, one level
      further south.

   Southbound representation:
      Subset of topology information sent towards a lower level.

   Spine:
      Any nodes north of leaves and south of ToF nodes.  Multiple layers
      of spines in a PoD are possible.

   Superspine, Aggregation/Spine and Edge/Leaf Switches:"
      Traditional level names in 5-stages folded Clos for Level 2, 1 and
      0 respectively (counting up from the bottom).  We normalize this
      language to talk about ToF, Top-of-Pod (ToP) and leaves.

   System ID:
      RIFT nodes identify themselves with a unique network-wide number
      when trying to build adjacencies or describe their topology.  RIFT
      System IDs can be auto-derived or configured.

   ThreeWay Adjacency:
      RIFT tries to form a unique adjacency between two nodes over a
      point-to-point interface and exchange local configuration and
      necessary RIFT ZTP information.  An adjacency is only advertised
      in Node TIEs and used for computations after it achieved
      _ThreeWay_ state, i.e. both routers reflected each other in LIEs
      including relevant security information.  Nevertheless, LIEs
      before _ThreeWay_ state is reached may carry RIFT ZTP related
      information already.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   TIDE:
      Topology Information Description Element carrying descriptors of
      the TIEs stored in the node.

   TIE:
      This is an acronym for a "Topology Information Element".  TIEs are
      exchanged between RIFT nodes to describe parts of a network such
      as links and address prefixes.  A TIE has always a direction and a
      type.  North TIEs (sometimes abbreviated as N-TIEs) are used when
      dealing with TIEs in the northbound representation and South-TIEs
      (sometimes abbreviated as S-TIEs) for the southbound equivalent.
      TIEs have different types such as node and prefix TIEs.

   TIEDB:
      The database holding the newest versions of all TIE headers (and
      the corresponding TIE content if it is available).

   TIRE:
      Topology Information Request Element carrying set of TIDE
      descriptors.  It can both confirm received and request missing
      TIEs.

   Top of Fabric (ToF):
      The set of nodes that provide inter-PoD communication and have no
      northbound adjacencies, i.e. are at the "very top" of the fabric.
      ToF nodes do not belong to any PoD and are assigned
      _common.default_pod_ PoD value to indicate the equivalent of "any"
      PoD.

   Top of PoD (ToP):
      The set of nodes that provide intra-PoD communication and have
      northbound adjacencies outside of the PoD, i.e. are at the "top"
      of the PoD.

   ToF Plane or Partition:
      In large fabrics ToF switches may not have enough ports to
      aggregate all switches south of them and with that, the ToF is
      'split' into multiple independent planes.  Section 5.2 explains
      the concept in more detail.  A plane is a subset of ToF nodes that
      are aware of each other through south reflection or E-W links.

   Valid LIE:
      LIEs undergo different checks to determine their validity.  The
      term "valid LIE" is used to describe a LIE that can be used to
      form or maintain an adjacency.  The amount of checking itself
      depends on the FSM (Finite State Machine) involved and its state.
      A "minimally valid LIE" is a LIE that passes checks necessary on
      any FSM in any state.  A "ThreeWay valid LIE" is a LIE that

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      successfully underwent further checks with a LIE FSM in _ThreeWay_
      state.  Minimally valid LIE is a subcategory of _ThreeWay_ valid
      LIE.

   RIFT Zero Touch Provisioning (abbreviated as RIFT ZTP or just
   ZTP):
      Optional RIFT mechanism which allows the automatic derivation of
      node levels based on minimum configuration as detailed in
      Section 6.7.  Such a mininum configuration consists solely of ToFs
      being configured as such.  RIFT ZTP contains a recommendation for
      automatic collision-free derivation of the System ID as well.

   Additionally, when the specification refers to elements of packet
   encoding or constants provided in the Section 7 a special emphasis is
   used, e.g. _invalid_distance_.  The same convention is used when
   referring to finite state machine states or events outside the
   context of the machine itself, e.g., _OneWay_.

3.2.  Topology

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                ^ N      +--------+          +--------+
 Level 2        |        |ToF   21|          |ToF   22|
            W <-*-> E    ++-+--+-++          ++-+--+-++
                |         | |  | |            | |  | |
              S v      P111/2  P121/2         | |  | |
                          ^ ^  ^ ^            | |  | |
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
           +--------------+ |  +-----------+  | |  | +---------------+
           |                |    |         |  | |  |                 |
          South +-----------------------------+ |  |                 ^
           |    |           |    |         |    |  |                All
           0/0  0/0        0/0   +-----------------------------+    TIEs
           v    v           v              |    |  |           |     |
           |    |           +-+    +<-0/0----------+           |     |
           |    |             |    |       |    |              |     |
         +-+----++ optional +-+----++     ++----+-+           ++-----++
 Level 1 |       | E/W link |       |     |       |           |       |
         |Spin111+----------+Spin112|     |Spin121|           |Spin122|
         +-+---+-+          ++----+-+     +-+---+-+           ++---+--+
           |   |             |   South      |   |              |   |
           |   +---0/0--->-----+ 0/0        |   +----------------+ |
          0/0                | |  |         |                  | | |
           |   +---<-0/0-----+ |  v         |   +--------------+ | |
           v   |               |  |         |   |                | |
         +-+---+-+          +--+--+-+     +-+---+-+          +---+-+-+
 Level 0 |       |  (L2L)   |       |     |       |          |       |
         |Leaf111+~~~~~~~~~~+Leaf112|     |Leaf121|          |Leaf122|
         +-+-----+          +-+---+-+     +--+--+-+          +-+-----+
           +                  +    \        /   +              +
           Prefix111   Prefix112    \      /   Prefix121    Prefix122
                                   multi-homed
                                     Prefix
         +---------- PoD 1 ---------+     +---------- PoD 2 ---------+

            Figure 2: A Three Level Spine-and-Leaf Topology

  ____________________________________________________________________________
  | [Plane A]    .  [Plane B]       .  [Plane C]     .  [Plane D]            |
  |..........................................................................|
  |        +-+   .           +-+    .          +-+   .           +-+         |
  |        |n|   .           |n|    .          |n|   .           |n|         |
  |        +++   .           +++    .          +++   .           +++         |
  |      . | |   .         . | |    .        . | |   .         . | |         |
  |     .  | |   .        .  | |    .       .  | |   .        .  | |         |
  | +-+    | |   .    +-+    | |    .   +-+    | |   .    +-+    | |         |
  | |1|  +-+ |   .    |1|  +-+ |    .   |1|  +-+ |   .    |1|  +-+ |         |
  | +++  |   |   .    +++  |   |    .   +++  |   |   .    +++  |   |         |
  |  ||  |   |   .     ||  |   |    .    ||  |   |   .     ||  |   |         |

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

  |  ||  |   |   .     ||  |   |    .    ||  |   |   .     ||  |   |         |
  |  |+--|--+|   .     |+--|--+|    .    |+--|--+|   .     |+--|----+        |
  |  |   |  ||   .     |   |  ||    .    |   |  ||   .     |   |   ||        |
  |  |   |  ||   .     |   |  ||    .    |   |  ||   .     |   |   +|---+    |
=====|===|==||=========|===|==||=========|===|==||=========|===|====|===|=== |
/ |  |   |  ||   .     |   |  ||    .    |   |  ||   .     |   | /  |   |  / |
/ |  |   |  ||   .     |   |  ||    .    |   |  ||   .     |   | / ++---++ / |
/ |  |   |  ||   .     |   |  ||    .    |   |  ||   .     |   | / |  n  | / |
/ |  |   |  ||   .     |   |  ||    .    |   |  ||   .     |   | / +++-+++ / |
/ | ++---++ ||   .    ++---++ ||    .   ++---++ ||   .    ++---++/         / |
/ | |  1  | ||   .    |  2  | ||    .   |  3  | ||   .    |  4  |/         / |
/ | +++-+++ ||   .    +++-+++ ||    .   +++-+++ ||   .    +++-+++/         / |
/ |  || ||  ||   .     || ||  ||    .    || ||  ||   .     || || /         / |
/ \__||_||_____________||_||_____________||_||_____________||_||_/_________/_/
/    || ||             || ||             || ||             || || /  || ||  /
/    || || +-----------+| ||             || ||             || || /  || ||  /
/    || || |+-----------|-||-------------+| ||             || || /  || ||  /
/    || || ||+----------|-||--------------|-||-------------+| || /  || ||  /
/    || || |||          | ||              | ||      +-------+ || /  || ||  /
/    || || |||          | |+--------------|-||------|---+     || /  || ||  /
/    || || |||          | |               | ||      |   |   +-+| /  || ||  /
/    || || |||          | +-----------+   | ||      |   |   |  | /  || ||  /
/    || +|-|||----------|------------+|   | |+------|---|---|-+| /  || ||  /
/    ||  +-|||----------|------------||---|-|-------|-+ |   | || /  || ||  /
/    ||    |||          |     +------||---+ |       | | |   | || /  || ||  /
/    |+----|||-----+    |     |+-----||-----|-------+ | |   | || /  || ||  /
/    |     |||     |    |     ||     ||     |         | |   | || /  || ||  /
/    |     |||     |    |     ||     ||     |    +----|-|---+ || /  || ||  /
/    |     |||     |    |     ||     ||     |    |    | |     || /  || ||  /
/    |+----+||     |    |     ||     ||     |    |    | |     || /  || ||  /
/    || +---+|     |    | +---+|     |+---+ |    |    | +---+ || / +++-+++ /
/    || |+---+     +---+| |+---+     +---+| |+---+    +----+| || / |  n  | /
/    || ||             || ||             || ||             || || / +++-+++ /
/   +++-+++           +++-+++           +++-+++           +++-+++/=========/
/   |  1  |           |  2  +           |  3  |   . . .   |  n  |/    ^^
/   +++-+++           +-----+           +-----+           +-----+/   //
/                                                                /  PoDs
================================================================== //

               Figure 3: Topology with Multiple Planes

   The topology in Figure 2 is referred to in all further
   considerations.  This figure depicts a generic "single plane fat
   tree" and the concepts explained using three levels apply by
   induction to further levels and higher degrees of connectivity.
   Further, this document will deal also with designs that provide only
   sparser connectivity and "partitioned spines" as shown in Figure 3
   and explained further in Section 5.2.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

4.  RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees

   The remainder of this document presents the detailed specification of
   the RIFT protocol, which in the most abstract terms has many
   properties of a modified link-state protocol when distributing
   information northbound and a distance vector protocol when
   distributing information southbound.  While this is an unusual
   combination, it does quite naturally exhibit desired properties.

5.  Overview

5.1.  Properties

   The most singular property of RIFT is that it floods link-state
   information northbound only so that each level obtains the full
   topology of levels south of it.  Link-State information is, with some
   exceptions, not flooded East-West nor back South again.  Exceptions
   like south reflection is explained in detail in Section 6.5.1 and
   east-west flooding at ToF level in multi-plane fabrics is outlined in
   Section 5.2.  In the southbound direction, the necessary routing
   information required (normally just a default route as per
   Section 6.3.8) only propagates one hop south.  Those nodes then
   generate their own routing information and flood it south to avoid
   the overhead of building an update per adjacency.  For the moment
   describing the East-West direction is left out until later in the
   document.

   Those information flow constraints create not only an anisotropic
   protocol (i.e. the information is not distributed "evenly" or
   "clumped" but summarized along the N-S gradient) but also a "smooth"
   information propagation where nodes do not receive the same
   information from multiple directions at the same time.  Normally,
   accepting the same reachability on any link, without understanding
   its topological significance, forces tie-breaking on some kind of
   distance function.  And such tie-breaking leads ultimately to hop-by-
   hop forwarding by shortest paths only.  In contrast to that, RIFT,
   under normal conditions, does not need to tie-break the same
   reachability information from multiple directions.  Its computation
   principles (south forwarding direction is always preferred) leads to
   valley-free [VFR] forwarding behavior.  In shortest terms, valley
   free paths allow reversal of direction at most once from a packet
   heading northbound to southbound while permitting traversal of
   horizontal links in the northbound phase.  Those principles guarantee
   loop-free forwarding and with that can take advantage of all such
   feasible paths on a fabric.  This is another highly desirable
   property if available bandwidth should be utilized to the maximum
   extent possible.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   To account for the "northern" and the "southern" information split
   the link state database is partitioned accordingly into "north
   representation" and "south representation" Topology Information
   Elements (TIEs).  In simplest terms the North TIEs contain a link
   state topology description of lower levels and South TIEs carry
   simply node description of the level above and default routes
   pointing north.  This oversimplified view will be refined gradually
   in the following sections while introducing protocol procedures and
   state machines at the same time.

5.2.  Generalized Topology View

   This section and resulting Section 6.5.2 are dedicated to multi-plane
   fabrics, in contrast with the single plane designs where all ToF
   nodes are topologically equal and initially connected to all the
   switches at the level below them.

   Multi-plane design is effectively a multi-dimensional switching
   matrix.  To make that easier to visualize, this document introduces a
   methodology depicting the connectivity in two-dimensional pictures.
   Further, it can be leveraged that what is under consideration here
   are basically stacked crossbar fabrics where ports align "on top of
   each other" in a regular fashion.

   A word of caution to the reader; at this point it should be observed
   that the language used to describe Clos variations, especially in
   multi-plane designs, varies widely between sources.  This description
   follows the terminology introduced in Section 3.1.  This terminology
   is needed to follow the rest of this section correctly.

5.2.1.  Terminology and Glossary

   This section describes the terminology and abbreviations used in the
   rest of the text.  Though the glossary may not be clear on a first
   read, the following sections will introduce the terms in their proper
   context.

   P:
      Denotes the number of PoDs in a topology.

   S:
      Denotes the number of ToF nodes in a topology.

   K:
      To simplify the visual aids, notations and further considerations,
      the assumption is made that the switches are symmetrical, i.e.,
      they have an equal number of ports pointing northbound and
      southbound.  With that simplification, K denotes half of the radix

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      of a symmetrical switch, meaning that the switch has K ports
      pointing north and K ports pointing south.  K_LEAF (K of a leaf)
      thus represents both the number of access ports in a leaf Node and
      the maximum number of planes in the fabric, whereas K_TOP (K of a
      ToP) represents the number of leaves in the PoD and the number of
      ports pointing north in a ToP Node towards a higher spine level
      and thus the number of ToF nodes in a plane.

   ToF Plane:
      Set of ToFs that are aware of each other by means of south
      reflection.  Planes are designated by capital letters, e.g.  plane
      A.

   N:
      Denotes the number of independent ToF planes in a topology.

   R:
      Denotes a redundancy factor, i.e., number of connections a spine
      has towards a ToF plane.  In single plane design K_TOP is equal to
      R.

   Fallen Leaf:
      A fallen leaf in a plane Z is a switch that lost all connectivity
      northbound to Z.

5.2.2.  Clos as Crossed, Stacked Crossbars

   The typical topology for which RIFT is defined is built of P number
   of PoDs and connected together by S number of ToF nodes.  A PoD node
   has K number of ports.  From here on half of them (K=Radix/2) are
   assumed to connect host devices from the south, and the other half to
   connect to interleaved PoD Top-Level switches to the north.  The K
   ratio can be chosen differently without loss of generality when port
   speeds differ or the fabric is oversubscribed but K=Radix/2 allows
   for more readable representation whereby there are as many ports
   facing north as south on any intermediate node.  A node is hence
   represented in a schematic fashion with ports "sticking out" to its
   north and south rather than by the usual real-world front faceplate
   designs of the day.

   Figure 4 provides a view of a leaf node as seen from the north, i.e.
   showing ports that connect northbound.  For lack of a better symbol,
   the document chooses to use the "o" as ASCII visualisation of a
   single port.  In this example, K_LEAF has 6 ports.  Observe that the
   number of PoDs is not related to Radix unless the ToF Nodes are
   constrained to be the same as the PoD nodes in a particular
   deployment.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

     Top view
      +---+
      |   |
      | O |     e.g., Radix = 12, K_LEAF = 6
      |   |
      | O |
      |   |      -------------------------
      | o <------ Physical Port (Ethernet) ----+
      |   |      -------------------------     |
      | O |                                    |
      |   |                                    |
      | O |                                    |
      |   |                                    |
      | O |                                    |
      |   |                                    |
      +---+                                    v

        ||             ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||
      +----+       +------------------------------------------------+
      |    |       |                                                |
      +----+       +------------------------------------------------+
        ||             ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||
            Side views

                      Figure 4: A Leaf Node, K_LEAF=6

   The Radix of a PoD's top node may be different than that of the leaf
   node.  Though, more often than not, a same type of node is used for
   both, effectively forming a square (K*K).  In the general case,
   switches at the top of the PoD with K_TOP southern ports not
   necessarily equal to K_LEAF could be considered .  For instance, in
   the representations below, we pick a 6 port K_LEAF and an 8 port
   K_TOP.  In order to form a crossbar, K_TOP Leaf Nodes are necessary
   as illustrated in Figure 5.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

           +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |
           |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
           +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+

          Figure 5: Southern View of Leaf Nodes of a PoD, K_TOP=8

   As further visualized in Figure 6 the K_TOP Leaf Nodes are fully
   interconnected with the K_LEAF ToP nodes, providing connectivity that
   can be represented as a crossbar when "looked at" from the north.
   The result is that, in the absence of a failure, a packet entering
   the PoD from the north on any port can be routed to any port in the
   south of the PoD and vice versa.  And that is precisely why it makes
   sense to talk about a "switching matrix".

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                            W <---*---> E

        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
        |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      |   o      o      o      o      o      o      o      o   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      |   o      o      o      o      o      o      o      o   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      |   o      o      o      o      o      o      o      o   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      |   o      o      o      o      o      o      o      o   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      +--------------------------------------------------------+
      |   o      o      o      o      o      o      o      o   |<--+
      +--------------------------------------------------------+   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+   |
      |   o      o      o      o      o      o      o      o   |   |
      +--------------------------------------------------------+   |
        |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |     |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+     |
                   ^                                               |
                   |                                               |
                   |     ----------      -----------------------   |
                   +----- Leaf Node      Top-of-PoD Node (Spine) --+
                         ----------      -----------------------

             Figure 6: Northern View of a PoD's Spines, K_TOP=8

   Side views of this PoD is illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8.

                     Connecting to Spine Nodes

    ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||
  +----------------------------------------------------------------+   N
  |                     Top-of-PoD Node (Sideways)                 |   ^
  +----------------------------------------------------------------+   |
    ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||         *
  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+       |
  |Leaf|  |Leaf|  |Leaf|  |Leaf|  |Leaf|  |Leaf|  |Leaf|  |Leaf|       v
  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|       S
  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+
    ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||

                     Connecting to Client Nodes

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

             Figure 7: Side View of a PoD, K_TOP=8, K_LEAF=6

                 Connecting to Spine Nodes

         ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||
       +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+                N
       |ToP |  |ToP |  |ToP |  |ToP |  |ToP |  |ToP |                ^
       |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|  |Node|                |
       +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+                *
         ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||                  |
     +------------------------------------------------+              v
     |             Leaf Node (Sideways)               |              S
     +------------------------------------------------+

                 Connecting to Client Nodes

      Figure 8: Other Side View of a PoD, K_TOP=8, K_LEAF=6, 90 Degree
                 Turn in E-W Plane from the Previous Figure

   As a next step, observe that a resulting PoD can be abstracted as a
   bigger node with a number K of K_POD= K_TOP * K_LEAF, and the design
   can recurse.

   It will be critical at this point that, before progressing further,
   the concept and the picture of "crossed crossbars" is understood.
   Else, the following considerations might be difficult to comprehend.

   To continue, the PoDs are interconnected with each other through a
   ToF node at the very top or the north edge of the fabric.  The
   resulting ToF is *not* partitioned if, and only if (IIF), every PoD
   top level node (spine) is connected to every ToF Node.  This topology
   is also referred to as a single plane configuration and is quite
   popular due to its simplicity.  In order to reach a 1:1 connectivity
   ratio between the ToF and the leaves, it results that there are K_TOP
   ToF nodes, because each port of a ToP node connects to a different
   ToF node, and K_LEAF ToP nodes for the same reason.  Consequently, it
   will take at least (P * K_LEAF) ports on a ToF node to connect to
   each of the K_LEAF ToP nodes of the P PoDs.  Figure 9 illustrates
   this, looking at P=3 PoDs from above and 2 sides.  The large view is
   the one from above, with the 8 ToF of 3*6 ports each interconnecting
   the PoDs, every ToP Node being connected to every ToF node.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]  <-----+
       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |         |
    [=================================]      |     --------------
       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |         +----- ToF
      [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]        +----- Node         ---+
                                             |     --------------   |
                                             |                      v
      +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+  <-----+                     +-+
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |                              | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] -------------------------  | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o<--- Physical Port (Ethernet)  | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] -------------------------  | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |                              | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]      ----------            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] <---  ToP Node --------+   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]       (Spine)          |   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]      ----------        |   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                        |   | |
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  -+           +-   +-+   v   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |           |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |   -----   |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] +--- PoD ---+  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |   -----   |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |           |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |           |  --| |--[ ]--| |
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  -+           +-   +-+       | |
      +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+                              +-+

      Figure 9: Fabric Spines and TOFs in Single Plane Design, 3 PoDs

   The top view can be collapsed into a third dimension where the hidden
   depth index is representing the PoD number.  One PoD can be shown
   then as a class of PoDs and hence save one dimension in the
   representation.  The Spine Node expands in the depth and the vertical
   dimensions, whereas the PoD top level Nodes are constrained, in
   horizontal dimension.  A port in the 2-D representation represents
   effectively the class of all the ports at the same position in all
   the PoDs that are projected in its position along the depth axis.
   This is shown in Figure 10.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

            / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
           / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
          / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
         / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /   ]
        +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+   ]]
        | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  ]    -----------------------
      [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] <-- Top of PoD Node (Spine)
      [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]     -----------------------
      [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]]]]
      [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]]]     ^^
      [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]]     //  PoDs
      [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]     // (depth)
        | |/| |/| |/| |/| |/| |/| |/| |/     //
        +-+ +-+ +-+/+-+/+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+     //
                ^
                |      --------
                +----- ToF Node
                       --------

   Figure 10: Collapsed Northern View of a Fabric for Any Number of PoDs

   As simple as a single plane deployment is, it introduces a limit due
   to the bound on the available radix of the ToF nodes that has to be
   at least P * K_LEAF.  Nevertheless, it will become clear that a
   distinct advantage of a connected or non-partitioned ToF is that all
   failures can be resolved by simple, non-transitive, positive
   disaggregation (i.e., nodes advertising more specific prefixes with
   the default to the level below them that is, however, not propagated
   further down the fabric) as described in Section 6.5.1 . In other
   words, non-partitioned ToF nodes can always reach nodes below or
   withdraw the routes from PoDs they cannot reach unambiguously.  And
   with this, positive disaggregation can heal all failures and still
   allow all the ToF nodes to be aware of each other via south
   reflection.  Disaggregation will be explained in further detail in
   Section 6.5.

   In order to scale beyond the "single plane limit", the ToF can be
   partitioned into N number of identically wired planes where N is an
   integer divider of K_LEAF.  The 1:1 ratio and the desired symmetry
   are still served, this time with (K_TOP * N) ToF nodes, each of (P *
   K_LEAF / N) ports.  N=1 represents a non-partitioned Spine and
   N=K_LEAF is a maximally partitioned Spine.  Further, if R is any
   integer divisor of K_LEAF, then N=K_LEAF/R is a feasible number of
   planes and R a redundancy factor that denotes the number of
   independent paths between 2 leaves within a plane.  It proves
   convenient for deployments to use a radix for the leaf nodes that is
   a power of 2 so they can pick a number of planes that is a lower
   power of 2.  The example in Figure 11 splits the Spine in 2 planes

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   with a redundancy factor R=3, meaning that there are 3 non-
   intersecting paths between any leaf node and any ToF node.  A ToF
   node must have, in this case, at least 3*P ports, and be directly
   connected to 3 of the 6 ToP nodes (spines) in each PoD.  The ToP
   nodes are represented horizontally with K_TOP=8 ports northwards
   each.

      +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
      +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+

    Plane 1
    ----------- . ------------ . ------------ . ------------ . --------
    Plane 2

      +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
      +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
              ^
              |
              |      ---------------------
              +----- ToF Node Across Depth
                     ---------------------

     Figure 11: Northern View of a Multi-Plane ToF Level, K_LEAF=6, N=2

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 28]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   At the extreme end of the spectrum it is even possible to fully
   partition the spine with N = K_LEAF and R=1, while maintaining
   connectivity between each leaf node and each ToF node.  In that case
   the ToF node connects to a single Port per PoD, so it appears as a
   single port in the projected view represented in Figure 12.  The
   number of ports required on the Spine Node is more than or equal to
   P, the number of PoDs.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 29]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      Plane 1
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  -+
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      ----------- . ------------------- . ------------ . ------- |
      Plane 2                                                    |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      ----------- . ------------ . ---- . ------------ . ------- |
      Plane 3                                                    |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      ----------- . ------------ . ------------------- . --------+<-+
      Plane 4                                                    |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      ----------- . ------------ . ------------ . ---- . ------- |  |
      Plane 5                                                    |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      ----------- . ------------ . ------------ . -------------- |  |
      Plane 6                                                    |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  -+  |
                 ^                                                  |
                 |                                                  |
                 |     ----------------           -------------     |
                 +-----  ToF       Node           Class of PoDs  ---+
                       ----------------           -------------

     Figure 12: Northern View of a Maximally Partitioned ToF Level, R=1

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 30]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

5.3.  Fallen Leaf Problem

   As mentioned earlier, RIFT exhibits an anisotropic behavior tailored
   for fabrics with a North / South orientation and a high level of
   interleaving paths.  A non-partitioned fabric makes a total loss of
   connectivity between a ToF node at the north and a leaf node at the
   south a very rare but yet possible occasion that is fully healed by
   positive disaggregation as described in Section 6.5.1.  In large
   fabrics or fabrics built from switches with low radix, the ToF may
   often become partitioned in planes which makes the occurrence of
   having a given leaf being only reachable from a subset of the ToF
   nodes more likely to happen.  This makes some further considerations
   necessary.

   A "Fallen Leaf" is a leaf that can be reached by only a subset of ToF
   nodes due to missing connectivity.  If R is the redundancy factor,
   then it takes at least R breakages to reach a "Fallen Leaf"
   situation.

   In a maximally partitioned fabric, the redundancy factor is R=1, so
   any breakage in the fabric will cause one or more fallen leaves in
   the affected plane.  R=2 guarantees that a single breakage will not
   cause a fallen leaf.  However, not all cases require disaggregation.
   The following cases do not require particular action:

      If a southern link on a node goes down, then connectivity through
      that node is lost for all nodes south of it.  There is no need to
      disaggregate since the connectivity to this node is lost for all
      spine nodes in a same fashion.

      If a ToF Node goes down, then northern traffic towards it is
      routed via alternate ToF nodes in the same plane and there is no
      need to disaggregate routes.

   In a general manner, the mechanism of non-transitive positive
   disaggregation is sufficient when the disaggregating ToF nodes
   collectively connect to all the ToP nodes in the broken plane.  This
   happens in the following case:

      If the breakage is the last northern link from a ToP node to a ToF
      node going down, then the fallen leaf problem affects only that
      ToF node, and the connectivity to all the nodes in the PoD is lost
      from that ToF node.  This can be observed by other ToF nodes
      within the plane where the ToP node is located and positively
      disaggregated within that plane.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 31]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   On the other hand, there is a need to disaggregate the routes to
   Fallen Leaves within the plane in a transitive fashion, that is, all
   the way to the other leaves, in the following cases:

   *  If the breakage is the last northern link from a leaf node within
      a plane (there is only one such link in a maximally partitioned
      fabric) that goes down, then connectivity to all unicast prefixes
      attached to the leaf node is lost within the plane where the link
      is located.  Southern Reflection by a leaf node, e.g., between ToP
      nodes, if the PoD has only 2 levels, happens in between planes,
      allowing the ToP nodes to detect the problem within the PoD where
      it occurs and positively disaggregate.  The breakage can be
      observed by the ToF nodes in the same plane through the North
      flooding of TIEs from the ToP nodes.  The ToF nodes however need
      to be aware of all the affected prefixes for the negative,
      possibly transitive disaggregation to be fully effective (i.e., a
      node advertising in the control plane that it cannot reach a
      certain more specific prefix than default whereas such
      disaggregation must in the extreme condition propagate further
      down southbound).  The problem can also be observed by the ToF
      nodes in the other planes through the flooding of North TIEs from
      the affected leaf nodes, together with non-node North TIEs which
      indicate the affected prefixes.  To be effective in that case, the
      positive disaggregation must reach down to the nodes that make the
      plane selection, which are typically the ingress leaf nodes.  The
      information is not useful for routing in the intermediate levels.

   *  If the breakage is a ToP node in a maximally partitioned fabric
      (in which case it is the only ToP node serving the plane in that
      PoD that goes down), then the connectivity to all the nodes in the
      PoD is lost within the plane where the ToP node is located.
      Consequently, all leaves of the PoD fall in this plane.  Since the
      Southern Reflection between the ToF nodes happens only within a
      plane, ToF nodes in other planes cannot discover fallen leaves in
      a different plane.  They also cannot determine beyond their local
      plane whether a leaf node that was initially reachable has become
      unreachable.  As the breakage can be observed by the ToF nodes in
      the plane where the breakage happened, the ToF nodes in the plane
      need to be aware of all the affected prefixes for the negative
      disaggregation to be fully effective.  The problem can also be
      observed by the ToF nodes in the other planes through the flooding
      of North TIEs from the affected leaf nodes, if there are only 3
      levels and the ToP nodes are directly connected to the leaf nodes,
      and then again it can only be effective if it is propagated
      transitively to the leaf, and useless above that level.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 32]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   These abstractions are rolled back into a simplified example that
   shows that in Figure 3 the loss of link between spine node 3 and leaf
   node 3 will make leaf node 3 a fallen leaf for ToF nodes in plane C.
   Worse, if the cabling was never present in the first place, plane C
   will not even be able to know that such a fallen leaf exists.  Hence
   partitioning without further treatment results in two grave problems:

   *  Leaf node 1 trying to route to leaf node 3 must not choose spine
      node 3 in plane C as its next hop since it will inevitably drop
      the packet when forwarding using default routes or do excessive
      bow-tying.  This information must be in its routing table.

   *  A path computation trying to deal with the problem by distributing
      host routes may only form paths through leaves.  The flooding of
      information about leaf node 3 would have to go up to ToF nodes in
      planes A, B, and D and then "loopback" over other leaves to ToF C
      leading in extreme cases to traffic for leaf node 3 when presented
      to plane C taking an "inverted fabric" path where leaves start to
      serve as ToFs, at least for the duration of a protocol's
      convergence.

5.4.  Discovering Fallen Leaves

   When aggregation is used, RIFT deals with fallen leaves by ensuring
   that all the ToF nodes share the same north topology database.  This
   happens naturally in single plane design by the means of northbound
   flooding and south reflection but needs additional considerations in
   multi-plane fabrics.  To enable routing to fallen leaves in multi-
   plane designs, RIFT requires additional interconnection across planes
   between the ToF nodes, e.g., using rings as illustrated in Figure 13.
   Other solutions are possible but they either need more cabling or end
   up having much longer flooding paths and/or single points of failure.

   In detail, by reserving at least two ports on each ToF node it is
   possible to connect them together by interplane bi-directional rings
   as illustrated in Figure 13.  The rings will be used to exchange full
   north topology information between planes.  All ToFs having the same
   north topology allows by the means of transitive, negative
   disaggregation described in Section 6.5.2 to efficiently fix any
   possible fallen leaf scenario.  Somewhat as a side-effect, the
   exchange of information fulfills the requirement for a full view of
   the fabric topology at the ToF level, without the need to collate it
   from multiple points.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 33]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

  ____________________________________________________________________________
  | [Plane A]    .  [Plane B]       .  [Plane C]     .  [Plane D]            |
  |..........................................................................|
  |      +-------------------------------------------------------------+     |
  |      | +---+ .           +---+  .          +---+ .           +---+ |     |
  |      +-+ n +-------------+ n +-------------+ n +-------------+ n +-+     |
  |        +--++ .           +-+++  .          +-+++ .           +--++       |
  |           || .             ||   .            ||  .              ||       |
  | +---------||---------------||----------------||---------------+ ||       |
  | | +---+   || .      +---+  ||   .     +---+  ||  .      +---+ | ||       |
  | +-+ 1 +---||--------+ 1 +--||---------+ 1 +--||---------+ 1 +-+ ||       |
  |   +--++   || .      +-+++  ||   .     +-+++  ||  .      +-+++   ||       |
  |      ||   || .        ||   ||   .       ||   ||  .        ||    ||       |
  |      ||   || .        ||   ||   .       ||   ||  .        ||    ||       |

 Figure 13: Using rings to bring all planes and at the ToF bind them

5.5.  Addressing the Fallen Leaves Problem

   One consequence of the "Fallen Leaf" problem is that some prefixes
   attached to the fallen leaf become unreachable from some of the ToF
   nodes.  RIFT defines two methods to address this issue denoted as
   positive disaggregation and negative disaggregation.  Both methods
   flood corresponding types of South TIEs to advertise the impacted
   prefix(es).

   When used for the operation of disaggregation, a positive South TIE,
   as usual, indicates reachability to a prefix of given length and all
   addresses subsumed by it.  In contrast, a negative route
   advertisement indicates that the origin cannot route to the
   advertised prefix.

   The positive disaggregation is originated by a router that can still
   reach the advertised prefix, and the operation is not transitive.  In
   other words, the receiver does *not* generate its own TIEs or flood
   them south as a consequence of receiving positive disaggregation
   advertisements from a higher level node.  The effect of a positive
   disaggregation is that the traffic to the impacted prefix will follow
   the longest match and will be limited to the northbound routers that
   advertised the more specific route.

   In contrast, the negative disaggregation can be transitive, and is
   propagated south when all the possible routes have been advertised as
   negative exceptions.  A negative route advertisement is only
   actionable when the negative prefix is aggregated by a positive route
   advertisement for a shorter prefix.  In such case, the negative
   advertisement "punches out a hole" in the positive route in the
   routing table, making the positive prefix reachable through the

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 34]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   originator with the special consideration of the negative prefix
   removing certain next hop neighbors.  The specific procedures will be
   explained in detail in Section 6.5.2.3.

   When the ToF switches are not partitioned into multiple planes, the
   resulting southbound flooding of the positive disaggregation by the
   ToF nodes that can still reach the impacted prefix is in general
   enough to cover all the switches at the next level south, typically
   the ToP nodes.  If all those switches are aware of the
   disaggregation, they collectively create a ceiling that intercepts
   all the traffic north and forwards it to the ToF nodes that
   advertised the more specific route.  In that case, the positive
   disaggregation alone is sufficient to solve the fallen leaf problem.

   On the other hand, when the fabric is partitioned in planes, the
   positive disaggregation from ToF nodes in different planes do not
   reach the ToP switches in the affected plane and cannot solve the
   fallen leaves problem.  In other words, a breakage in a plane can
   only be solved in that plane.  Also, the selection of the plane for a
   packet typically occurs at the leaf level and the disaggregation must
   be transitive and reach all the leaves.  In that case, the negative
   disaggregation is necessary.  The details on the RIFT approach to
   deal with fallen leaves in an optimal way are specified in
   Section 6.5.2.

6.  Specification

   This section specifies the protocol in a normative fashion by either
   prescriptive procedures or behavior defined by Finite State Machines
   (FSM).

   The FSMs, as usual, are presented as states a neighbor can assume,
   events that can occur, and the corresponding actions performed when
   transitioning between states on event processing.

   Actions are performed before the end state is assumed.

   The FSMs can queue events against itself to chain actions or against
   other FSMs in the specification.  Events are always processed in the
   sequence they have been queued.

   Consequently, "On Entry" actions for an FSM state are performed every
   time and right before the corresponding state is entered, i.e., after
   any transitions from previous state.

   "On Exit" actions are performed every time and immediately when a
   state is exited, i.e., before any transitions towards target state
   are performed.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 35]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Any attempt to transition from a state towards another on reception
   of an event where no action is specified MUST be considered an
   unrecoverable error and the protocol MUST reset all adjacencies and
   discard all the state (i.e., force the FSM back to _OneWay_ and flush
   all of the queues holding flooding information).

   The data structures and FSMs described in this document are
   conceptual and do not have to be implemented precisely as described
   here, i.e., an implementation is considered conforming as long as it
   supports the described functionality and exhibits externally
   observable behavior equivalent to the behavior of the standardized
   FSMs.

   The FSMs can use "timers" for different situations.  Those timers are
   started through actions and their expiration leads to queuing of
   corresponding events to be processed.

   The term "holdtime" is used often as short-hand for "holddown timer"
   and signifies either the length of the holding down period or the
   timer used to expire after such period.  Such timers are used to
   "hold down" state within an FSM that is cleaned if the machine
   triggers a _HoldtimeExpired_ event.

6.1.  Transport

   All normative RIFT packet structures and their contents are defined
   in the Thrift [thrift] models in Section 7.  The packet structure
   itself is defined in _ProtocolPacket_ which contains the packet
   header in _PacketHeader_ and the packet contents in _PacketContent_.
   _PacketContent_ is a union of the LIE, TIE, TIDE, and TIRE packets
   which are subsequently defined in _LIEPacket_, _TIEPacket_,
   _TIDEPacket_, and _TIREPacket_ respectively.

   Further, in terms of bits on the wire, it is the _ProtocolPacket_
   that is serialized and carried in an envelope defined in
   Section 6.9.3 within a UDP frame that provides security and allows
   validation/modification of several important fields without Thrift
   de-serialization for performance and security reasons.  Security
   model and procedures are further explained in Section 9.

6.2.  Link (Neighbor) Discovery (LIE Exchange)

   RIFT LIE exchange auto-discovers neighbors, negotiates RIFT ZTP
   parameters and discovers miscablings.  The formation progresses under
   normal conditions from _OneWay_ to _TwoWay_ and then _ThreeWay_ state
   at which point it is ready to exchange TIEs per Section 6.3.  The
   adjacency exchanges RIFT ZTP information (Section 6.7) in any of the
   states, i.e. it is not necessary to reach _ThreeWay_ for zero-touch

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 36]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   provisioning to operate.

   RIFT supports any combination of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing, including
   link-local scope, on the fabric to form adjacencies with the
   additional capability for forwarding paths that are capable of
   forwarding IPv4 packets in presence of IPv6 addressing only.

   IPv4 LIE exchange happens by default over well-known administratively
   locally scoped and configured or otherwise well-known IPv4 multicast
   address [RFC2365].  For IPv6 [RFC8200] exchange is performed over
   link-local multicast scope [RFC4291] address which is configured or
   otherwise well-known.  In both cases a destination UDP port defined
   in the schema Section 7.2 is used unless configured otherwise.  LIEs
   MUST be sent with an IPv4 Time to Live (TTL) or an IPv6 Hop Limit
   (HL) of either 1 or 255 to prevent RIFT information reaching beyond a
   single L3 next-hop in the topology.  Observe that for the allocated
   link-local scope IP multicast address TTL value of 1 is a more
   logical choice since TTL value of 255 may in some environment lead to
   an early drop due to suspicious TTL value for a packet addressed to
   such destination.  LIEs SHOULD be sent with network control
   precedence unless an implementation is prevented from doing so
   [RFC2474].

   Any LIE packet received on an address that is neither the well-known
   or configured multicast or a broadcast address MUST be discarded.

   The originating port of the LIE has no further significance other
   than identifying the origination point.  LIEs are exchanged over all
   links running RIFT.

   An implementation may listen and send LIEs on IPv4 and/or IPv6
   multicast addresses.  A node MUST NOT originate LIEs on an address
   family if it does not process received LIEs on that family.  LIEs on
   the same link are considered part of the same LIE FSM independent of
   the address family they arrive on.  The LIE source address may not
   identify the peer uniquely in unnumbered or link-local address cases
   so the response transmission MUST occur over the same interface the
   LIEs have been received on.  A node may use any of the adjacency's
   source addresses it saw in LIEs on the specific interface during
   adjacency formation to send TIEs (Section 6.3.3).  That implies that
   an implementation MUST be ready to accept TIEs on all addresses it
   used as source of LIE frames.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 37]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   A simplified version MAY be implemented on platforms with limited
   multicast support (e.g.  IoT devices) by sending and receiving LIE
   frames on IPv4 subnet broadcast addresses or IPv6 all routers
   multicast address.  However, this technique is less optimal and
   presents a wider attack surface from a security perspective and
   should hence be used only as last resort.

   A _ThreeWay_ adjacency (as defined in the glossary) over any address
   family implies support for IPv4 forwarding if the
   _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ flag in _LinkCapabilities_ is set to true.
   In the absence of IPv4 LIEs with _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ set to
   true, a node MUST forward IPv4 packets using gateways discovered on
   IPv6-only links advertising this capability.  The mechanism to
   discover the corresponding IPv6 gateway is out of scope for this
   specification and may be implementation specific.  It is expected
   that the whole fabric supports the same type of forwarding of address
   families on all the links, any other combination is outside the scope
   of this specification.  If IPv4 forwarding is supported on an
   interface, _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ MUST be set to true for all LIEs
   advertised from that interface.  If IPv4 and IPv6 LIEs indicate
   contradicting information, protocol behavior is unspecified.  A node
   sending IPv4 LIEs MUST set the _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ flag to true
   on all LIEs advertised from that interface.

   Operation of a fabric where only some of the links are supporting
   forwarding on an address family or have an address in a family and
   others do not is outside the scope of this specification.

   Any attempt to construct IPv6 forwarding over IPv4 only adjacencies
   is outside this specification.

   Table 1 outlines protocol behavior pertaining to LIE exchange over
   different address family combinations.  Table 2 outlines the way in
   which neighbors forward traffic as it pertains to the
   _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ flag setting across the same address family
   combinations.  The table is symmetric, i.e. local and remote can be
   exchanged to construct the remaining combinations.

   The specific forwarding implementation to support the described
   behavior is out of scope for this document.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 38]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    +==========+==========+==========================================+
    | Local    | Remote   | LIE Exchange Behavior                    |
    | Neighbor | Neighbor |                                          |
    | AF       | AF       |                                          |
    +==========+==========+==========================================+
    | IPv4     | IPv4     | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv4    |
    |          |          | only.  The local neighbor receives TIEs  |
    |          |          | from remote neighbors on any of the LIE  |
    |          |          | source addresses.                        |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv6     | IPv6     | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv6    |
    |          |          | only.  The local neighbor receives TIEs  |
    |          |          | from remote neighbors on any of the LIE  |
    |          |          | source addresses.                        |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv4,    | IPv6     | The local neighbor sends LIEs for both   |
    | IPv6     |          | IPv4 and IPv6 while the remote neighbor  |
    |          |          | only sends LIEs for IPv6.  The resulting |
    |          |          | adjacency will exchange TIEs over IPv6   |
    |          |          | on any of the IPv6 LIE source addresses. |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv4,    | IPv4,    | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv6    |
    | IPv6     | IPv6     | and IPv4.  TIEs are received on any of   |
    |          |          | the IPv4 or IPv6 LIE source addresses.   |
    |          |          | The local neighbor receives TIEs from    |
    |          |          | the remote neighbors on any of the IPv4  |
    |          |          | or IPv6 LIE source addresses.            |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv4,    | IPv4     | The local neighbor sends LIEs for both   |
    | IPv6     |          | IPv4 and IPv6 while the remote neighbor  |
    |          |          | only sends LIEs for IPv4.  The resulting |
    |          |          | adjacency will exchange TIEs over IPv4   |
    |          |          | on any of the IPv4 LIE source addresses. |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+

       Table 1: Control Plane Behavior for Neighbor AF Combinations

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 39]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    +==========+==========+==========================================+
    | Local    | Remote   | Forwarding Behavior                      |
    | Neighbor | Neighbor |                                          |
    | AF       | AF       |                                          |
    +==========+==========+==========================================+
    | IPv4     | IPv4     | Only IPv4 traffic can be forwarded.      |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv6     | IPv6     | If either neighbor sets                  |
    |          |          | _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ to false, only |
    |          |          | IPv6 traffic can be forwarded.  If both  |
    |          |          | neighbors set _ipv4_forwarding_capable_  |
    |          |          | to true, IPv4 traffic is also forwarded  |
    |          |          | via IPv6 gateways.                       |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv4,    | IPv6     | If the remote neighbor sets              |
    | IPv6     |          | _ipv4_forwarding_capable_ to false, only |
    |          |          | IPv6 traffic can be forwarded.  If both  |
    |          |          | neighbors set _ipv4_forwarding_capable_  |
    |          |          | to true, IPv4 traffic is also forwarded  |
    |          |          | via IPv6 gateways.                       |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv4,    | IPv4,    | IPv4 and IPv6 traffic can be forwarded.  |
    | IPv6     | IPv6     | If IPv4 and IPv6 LIEs advertise          |
    |          |          | conflicting _ipv4_forwarding_capable_    |
    |          |          | flags, the behavior is unspecified.      |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+
    | IPv4,    | IPv4     | IPv4 traffic can be forwarded.           |
    | IPv6     |          |                                          |
    +----------+----------+------------------------------------------+

        Table 2: Forwarding Behavior for Neighbor AF Combinations

   The protocol does *not* support selective disabling of address
   families after adjacency formation, disabling IPv4 forwarding
   capability or any local address changes in _ThreeWay_ state, i.e. if
   a link has entered ThreeWay IPv4 and/or IPv6 with a neighbor on an
   adjacency and it wants to stop supporting one of the families or
   change any of its local addresses or stop IPv4 forwarding, it MUST
   tear down and rebuild the adjacency.  It MUST also remove any state
   it stored about the remote side of the adjacency such as associated
   LIE source addresses.

   Unless RIFT ZTP as described in Section 6.7 is used, each node is
   provisioned with the level at which it is operating and advertises it
   in the _level_ of the _PacketHeader_ schema element.  It MAY be also
   provisioned with its PoD.  If level is not provisioned, it is not
   present in the optional _PacketHeader_ schema element and established
   by ZTP procedures if feasible.  If PoD is not provisioned, it is

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 40]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   governed by the _LIEPacket_ schema element assuming the
   _common.default_pod_ value.  This means that switches except ToF do
   not need to be configured at all.  Necessary information to configure
   all values is exchanged in the _LIEPacket_ and _PacketHeader_ or
   derived by the node automatically.

   Further definitions of leaf flags are found in Section 6.7 given they
   have implications in terms of level and adjacency forming here.  Leaf
   flags are carried in _HierarchyIndications_.

   A node MUST form a _ThreeWay_ adjacency if at a minimum the following
   first order logic conditions are satisfied on a LIE packet as
   specified by the _LIEPacket_ schema element and received on a link
   (such a LIE is considered a "minimally valid" LIE).  Observe that
   depending on the FSM involved and its state further conditions may be
   checked and even a minimally valid LIE can be considered ultimately
   invalid if any of the additional conditions fail.

   1.  the neighboring node is running the same major schema version as
       indicated in the _major_version_ element in _PacketHeader_ *and*

   2.  the neighboring node uses a valid System ID (i.e. value different
       from _IllegalSystemID_) in the _sender_ element in _PacketHeader_
       *and*

   3.  the neighboring node uses a different System ID than the node
       itself *and*

   4.  (the advertised MTU values in the _LiePacket_ element match on
       both sides while a missing MTU in the _LiePacket_ element is
       interpreted as _default_mtu_size_) *and*

   5.  both nodes advertise defined level values in _level_ element in
       _PacketHeader_ *and*

   6.  [

          i) the node is at _leaf_level_ value and has no _ThreeWay_
          adjacencies already to nodes at Highest Adjacency _ThreeWay_
          (HAT as defined later in Section 6.7.1) with level different
          than the adjacent node *or*

          ii) the node is not at _leaf_level_ value and the neighboring
          node is at _leaf_level_ value *or*

          iii) both nodes are at _leaf_level_ values *and* both indicate
          support for Section 6.8.9 *or*

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 41]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

          iv) neither node is at _leaf_level_ value and the neighboring
          node is at most one level difference away

       ].

   LIEs arriving with IPv4 Time to Live (TTL) or an IPv6 Hop Limit (HL)
   different than 1 or 255 MUST be ignored.

6.2.1.  LIE Finite State Machine

   This section specifies the precise, normative LIE FSM which is given
   as well in Figure 14.  Additionally, some sets of actions repeat
   often and are hence summarized into well-known procedures.

   Events generated are fairly fine grained, especially when indicating
   problems in adjacency forming conditions to simplify tracking of
   problems in deployment.

   Initial state is _OneWay_.

   The machine sends LIEs proactively on several transitions to
   accelerate adjacency bring-up without waiting for the corresponding
   timer tic.

                        Enter
                          |
                          V
                    +-----------+
                    | OneWay    |<----+
                    |           |     | TimerTick
                    |           |     | LevelChanged
                    |           |     | HALChanged
                    |           |     | HATChanged
                    |           |     | HALSChanged
                    |           |     | LieRcvd
                    |           |     | NeighborDroppedReflection
                    |           |     | NeighborChangedLevel
                    |           |     | NeighborChangedAddress
                    |           |     | UnacceptableHeader
                    |           |     | MTUMismatch
                    |           |     | NeighborChangedMinorFields
                    |           |     | HoldtimeExpired
                    |           |     | FloodLeadersChanged
                    |           |     | SendLie
                    |           |     | UpdateZTPOffer
                    |           |-----+
                    |           |
                    |           |<--------------------- (ThreeWay)

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 42]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                    |           |--------------------->
                    |           | ValidReflection
                    |           |
                    |           |---------------------> (Multiple
                    |           | MultipleNeighbors      Neighbors
                    +-----------+                        Wait)
                        ^    |
                        |    |
                        |    | NewNeighbor
                        |    V
                       (TwoWay)

                       (OneWay)
                        |    ^
                        |    | NeighborChangedLevel
                        |    | NeighborChangedAddress
                        |    | UnacceptableHeader
                        |    | MTUMismatch
                        |    | HoldtimeExpired
                        |    |
                        V    |
                    +-----------+
                    | TwoWay    |<----+
                    |           |     | TimerTick
                    |           |     | LevelChanged
                    |           |     | HALChanged
                    |           |     | HATChanged
                    |           |     | HALSChanged
                    |           |     | LieRcvd
                    |           |     | FloodLeadersChanged
                    |           |     | SendLie
                    |           |     | UpdateZTPOffer
                    |           |-----+
                    |           |
                    |           |<----------------------
                    |           |----------------------> (Multiple
                    |           | NewNeighbor             Neighbors
                    |           |                         Wait)
                    |           | MultipleNeighbors
                    +-----------+
                        ^    |
                        |    | ValidReflection
                        |    V
                      (ThreeWay)

                       (TwoWay)    (OneWay)
                        ^    |        ^
                        |    |        | LevelChanged

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 43]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                        |    |        | NeighborChangedLevel
                        |    |        | NeighborChangedAddress
                        |    |        | UnacceptableHeader
                        |    |        | MTUMismatch
                        |    |        | HoldtimeExpired
    NeighborDropped-    |    |        |
         Reflection     |    |        |
                        |    V        |
                    +-----------+     |
                    | ThreeWay  |-----+
                    |           |
                    |           |<----+
                    |           |     | TimerTick
                    |           |     | HALChanged
                    |           |     | HATChanged
                    |           |     | HALSChanged
                    |           |     | LieRcvd
                    |           |     | ValidReflection
                    |           |     | FloodLeadersChanged
                    |           |     | SendLie
                    |           |     | UpdateZTPOffer
                    |           |-----+
                    |           |----------------------> (Multiple
                    |           | MultipleNeighbors       Neighbors
                    +-----------+                         Wait)

                   (TwoWay) (ThreeWay)
                        |     |
                        V     V
                    +------------+
                    | Multiple   |<----+
                    | Neighbors  |     | TimerTick
                    | Wait       |     | HALChanged
                    |            |     | HATChanged
                    |            |     | HALSChanged
                    |            |     | LieRcvd
                    |            |     | ValidReflection
                    |            |     | NeighborDroppedReflection
                    |            |     | NeighborChangedBFDCapability
                    |            |     | NeighborChangedAddress
                    |            |     | UnacceptableHeader
                    |            |     | MTUMismatch
                    |            |     | HoldtimeExpired
                    |            |     | MultipleNeighbors
                    |            |     | FloodLeadersChanged
                    |            |     | SendLie
                    |            |     | UpdateZTPOffer
                    |            |-----+

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 44]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                    |            |
                    |            |<---------------------------
                    |            |---------------------------> (OneWay)
                    |            | LevelChanged
                    +------------+ MultipleNeighborsDone

                             Figure 14: LIE FSM

   The following words are used for well-known procedures:

   *  PUSH Event: queues an event to be executed by the FSM upon exit of
      this action

   *  CLEANUP: The FSM *conceptually* holds a `current neighbor`
      variable that contains information received in the remote node's
      LIE that is processed against LIE validation rules.  In the event
      that the LIE is considered to be invalid, the existing state held
      by `current neighbor` MUST be deleted.

   *  SEND_LIE: create and send a new LIE packet

      1.  reflecting the _neighbor_ element as described in
          ValidReflection and

      2.  setting the necessary _not_a_ztp_offer_ variable if level was
          derived from the last known neighbor on this interface and

      3.  setting _you_are_flood_repeater_ variable to the computed
          value

   *  PROCESS_LIE:

      1.  if LIE has a major version not equal to this node's major
          version *or* System ID equal to (this node's System ID or
          _IllegalSystemID_) then CLEANUP else

      2.  if both sides advertise Layer 2 MTU values and the MTU in the
          received LIE does not match the MTU advertised by the local
          system *or* at least one of the nodes does not advertise an
          MTU value and the advertising node's LIE does not match the
          _default_mtu_size_ of the system not advertising an MTU then
          CLEANUP, PUSH UpdateZTPOffer, PUSH MTUMismatch else

      3.  if the LIE has an undefined level *or* this node's level is
          undefined *or* this node is a leaf and remote level is lower
          than HAT *or* (the LIE's level is not leaf *and* its
          difference is more than one from this node's level) then
          CLEANUP, PUSH UpdateZTPOffer, PUSH UnacceptableHeader else

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 45]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      4.  PUSH UpdateZTPOffer, construct temporary new neighbor
          structure with values from LIE, if no current neighbor exists
          then set current neighbor to new neighbor, PUSH NewNeighbor
          event, CHECK_THREE_WAY else

          1.  if current neighbor System ID differs from LIE's System ID
              then PUSH MultipleNeighbors else

          2.  if current neighbor stored level differs from LIE's level
              then PUSH NeighborChangedLevel else

          3.  if current neighbor stored IPv4/v6 address differs from
              LIE's address then PUSH NeighborChangedAddress else

          4.  if any of neighbor's flood address port, name, or local
              LinkID changed then PUSH NeighborChangedMinorFields

          5.  CHECK_THREE_WAY

   *  CHECK_THREE_WAY: if current state is _OneWay_ do nothing else

      1.  if LIE packet does not contain neighbor then if current state
          is _ThreeWay_ then PUSH NeighborDroppedReflection else

      2.  if packet reflects this system's ID and local port and state
          is _ThreeWay_ then PUSH event ValidReflection else PUSH event
          MultipleNeighbors

   States:

   *  OneWay: initial state the FSM is starting from.  In this state the
      router did not receive any valid LIEs from a neighbor.

   *  TwoWay: that state is entered when a node has received a minimally
      valid LIE from a neighbor but not a ThreeWay valid LIE.

   *  ThreeWay: this state signifies that _ThreeWay_ valid LIEs from a
      neighbor have been received.  On achieving this state the link can
      be advertised in _neighbors_ element in _NodeTIEElement_.

   *  MultipleNeighborsWait: occurs normally when more than two nodes
      become aware of each other on the same link or a remote node is
      quickly reconfigured or rebooted without regressing to _OneWay_
      first.  Each occurrence of the event SHOULD generate notification
      to help operational deployments.

   Events:

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 46]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  TimerTick: one second timer tick, i.e., the event is provided to
      the FSM once a second by an implementation-specific mechanism that
      is outside the scope of this specification.  This event is quietly
      ignored if the relevant transition does not exist.

   *  LevelChanged: node's level has been changed by ZTP or
      configuration.  This is provided by the ZTP FSM.

   *  HALChanged: best HAL computed by ZTP has changed.  This is
      provided by the ZTP FSM.

   *  HATChanged: HAT computed by ZTP has changed.  This is provided by
      the ZTP FSM.

   *  HALSChanged: set of HAL offering systems computed by ZTP has
      changed.  This is provided by the ZTP FSM.

   *  LieRcvd: received LIE on the interface.

   *  NewNeighbor: new neighbor is present in the received LIE.

   *  ValidReflection: received valid reflection of this node from
      neighbor, i.e. all elements in _neighbor_ element in _LiePacket_
      have values corresponding to this link.

   *  NeighborDroppedReflection: lost previously held reflection from
      neighbor, i.e. _neighbor_ element in _LiePacket_ does not
      correspond to this node or is not present.

   *  NeighborChangedLevel: neighbor changed advertised level from the
      previously held one.

   *  NeighborChangedAddress: neighbor changed IP address, i.e. LIE has
      been received from an address different from previous LIEs.  Those
      changes will influence the sockets used to listen to TIEs, TIREs,
      TIDEs.

   *  UnacceptableHeader: Unacceptable header received.

   *  MTUMismatch: MTU mismatched.

   *  NeighborChangedMinorFields: minor fields changed in neighbor's
      LIE.

   *  HoldtimeExpired: adjacency holddown timer expired.

   *  MultipleNeighbors: more than one neighbor is present on interface

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 47]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  MultipleNeighborsDone: multiple neighbors timer expired.

   *  FloodLeadersChanged: node's election algorithm determined new set
      of flood leaders.

   *  SendLie: send a LIE out.

   *  UpdateZTPOffer: update this node's ZTP offer.  This is sent to the
      ZTP FSM.

   Actions:

   *  on HATChanged in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: store HAT

   *  on FloodLeadersChanged in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: update
      _you_are_flood_repeater_ LIE elements based on flood leader
      election results

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on NeighborChangedMinorFields in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on SendLie in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: SEND_LIE

   *  on HALSChanged in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: store HALS

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in _OneWay_ finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: start multiple neighbors timer with
      interval _multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler_ *
      _default_lie_holdtime_

   *  on NeighborChangedLevel in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on LieRcvd in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: PROCESS_LIE

   *  on MTUMismatch in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on ValidReflection in _OneWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: no action

   *  on LevelChanged in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: update level with
      event value, PUSH SendLie event

   *  on HALChanged in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: store new HAL

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 48]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on NewNeighbor in _OneWay_ finishes in TwoWay: PUSH SendLie event

   *  on UpdateZTPOffer in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: send offer to
      ZTP FSM

   *  on NeighborDroppedReflection in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on TimerTick in _OneWay_ finishes in OneWay: PUSH SendLie event

   *  on FloodLeadersChanged in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: update
      _you_are_flood_repeater_ LIE elements based on flood leader
      election results

   *  on UpdateZTPOffer in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: send offer to
      ZTP FSM

   *  on NewNeighbor in _TwoWay_ finishes in MultipleNeighborsWait: PUSH
      SendLie event

   *  on ValidReflection in _TwoWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: no action

   *  on LieRcvd in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: PROCESS_LIE

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in _TwoWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on HALChanged in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: store new HAL

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in _TwoWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on LevelChanged in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: update level with
      event value

   *  on TimerTick in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: PUSH SendLie event,
      if last valid LIE was received more than _holdtime_ ago as
      advertised by neighbor then PUSH HoldtimeExpired event

   *  on HATChanged in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: store HAT

   *  on NeighborChangedLevel in _TwoWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on HALSChanged in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: store HALS

   *  on MTUMismatch in _TwoWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 49]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in _TwoWay_ finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on SendLie in _TwoWay_ finishes in TwoWay: SEND_LIE

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in _TwoWay_ finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: start multiple neighbors timer with
      interval _multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler_ *
      _default_lie_holdtime_

   *  on TimerTick in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: PUSH SendLie
      event, if last valid LIE was received more than _holdtime_ ago as
      advertised by neighbor then PUSH HoldtimeExpired event

   *  on LevelChanged in _ThreeWay_ finishes in OneWay: update level
      with event value

   *  on HATChanged in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: store HAT

   *  on MTUMismatch in _ThreeWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in _ThreeWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in _ThreeWay_ finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: start multiple neighbors timer with
      interval _multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler_ *
      _default_lie_holdtime_

   *  on NeighborChangedLevel in _ThreeWay_ finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on HALSChanged in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: store HALS

   *  on LieRcvd in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: PROCESS_LIE

   *  on FloodLeadersChanged in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: update
      _you_are_flood_repeater_ LIE elements based on flood leader
      election results, PUSH SendLie

   *  on NeighborDroppedReflection in _ThreeWay_ finishes in TwoWay: no
      action

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in _ThreeWay_ finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on ValidReflection in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: no action

   *  on UpdateZTPOffer in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: send offer
      to ZTP FSM

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 50]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in _ThreeWay_ finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on HALChanged in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: store new HAL

   *  on SendLie in _ThreeWay_ finishes in ThreeWay: SEND_LIE

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: start multiple neighbors timer with
      interval _multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler_ *
      _default_lie_holdtime_

   *  on FloodLeadersChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: update _you_are_flood_repeater_ LIE
      elements based on flood leader election results

   *  on TimerTick in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: check MultipleNeighbors timer, if timer
      expired PUSH MultipleNeighborsDone

   *  on ValidReflection in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on UpdateZTPOffer in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: send offer to ZTP FSM

   *  on NeighborDroppedReflection in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on LieRcvd in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on LevelChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in OneWay:
      update level with event value

   *  on HATChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: store HAT

   *  on MTUMismatch in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 51]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  on HALSChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: store HALS

   *  on HALChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: store new HAL

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on SendLie in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on MultipleNeighborsDone in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      OneWay: no action

   *  on Entry into OneWay: CLEANUP

6.3.  Topology Exchange (TIE Exchange)

6.3.1.  Topology Information Elements

   Topology and reachability information in RIFT is conveyed by TIEs.

   The TIE exchange mechanism uses the port indicated by each node in
   the LIE exchange as _flood_port_ in _LIEPacket_ and the interface on
   which the adjacency has been formed as destination.  TIEs MUST be
   sent with an IPv4 Time to Live (TTL) or an IPv6 Hop Limit (HL) of
   either 1 or 255 and also MUST be ignored if received with values
   different than 1 or 255.  This helps to protect RIFT information from
   being accepted beyond a single L3 next-hop in the topology.  TIEs
   SHOULD be sent with network control precedence unless an
   implementation is prevented from doing so [RFC2474].

   TIEs contain sequence numbers, lifetimes, and a type.  Each type has
   ample identifying number space and information is spread across
   multiple TIEs with the same TIEElement type (this is true for all TIE
   types).

   More information about the TIE structure can be found in the schema
   in Section 7 starting with _TIEPacket_ root.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 52]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.3.2.  Southbound and Northbound TIE Representation

   A central concept of RIFT is that each node represents itself
   differently depending on the direction in which it is advertising
   information.  More precisely, a spine node represents two different
   databases over its adjacencies depending on whether it advertises
   TIEs to the north or to the south/east-west.  Those differing TIE
   databases are called either south- or northbound (South TIEs and
   North TIEs) depending on the direction of distribution.

   The North TIEs hold all of the node's adjacencies and local prefixes
   while the South TIEs hold only all of the node's adjacencies, the
   default prefix with necessary disaggregated prefixes and local
   prefixes.  Section 6.5 explains further details.

   All TIE types are mostly symmetrical in both directions.  The
   (Section 7.3) defines the TIE types (i.e., the TIETypeType element)
   and their directionality (i.e., _direction_ within the _TIEID_
   element).

   As an example illustrating a databases holding both representations,
   the topology in Figure 2 with the optional link between spine 111 and
   spine 112 (so that the flooding on an East-West link can be shown) is
   shown below.  Unnumbered interfaces are implicitly assumed and for
   simplicity, the key value elements which may be included in their
   South TIEs or North TIEs are not shown.  First, in Figure 15 are the
   TIEs generated by some nodes.

        ToF 21 South TIEs:
        Node South TIE:
          NodeTIEElement(level=2,
            neighbors(
              (Spine 111, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Spine 112, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Spine 121, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Spine 122, level 1, cost 1, links(...))
            )
          )
        Prefix South TIE:
          PrefixTIEElement(prefixes(0/0, metric 1), (::/0, metric 1))

        Spine 111 South TIEs:
        Node South TIE:
          NodeTIEElement(level=1,
            neighbors(
              (ToF 21, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (ToF 22, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Spine 112, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 53]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

              (Leaf111, level 0, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf112, level 0, cost 1, links(...))
            )
          )
        Prefix South TIE:
          PrefixTIEElement(prefixes(0/0, metric 1), (::/0, metric 1))

        Spine 111 North TIEs:
        Node North TIE:
          NodeTIEElement(level=1,
            neighbors(
              (ToF 21, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (ToF 22, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Spine 112, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf111, level 0, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf112, level 0, cost 1, links(...))
            )
          )
        Prefix North TIE:
          PrefixTIEElement(prefixes(Spine 111.loopback)

        Spine 121 South TIEs:
        Node South TIE:
          NodeTIEElement(level=1,
            neighbors(
              (ToF 21, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (ToF 22, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf121, level 0, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf122, level 0, cost 1, links(...))
            )
          )
        Prefix South TIE:
          PrefixTIEElement(prefixes(0/0, metric 1), (::/0, metric 1))

        Spine 121 North TIEs:
        Node North TIE:
          NodeTIEElement(level=1,
            neighbors(
              (ToF 21, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (ToF 22, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf121, level 0, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Leaf122, level 0, cost 1, links(...))
            )
          )
        Prefix North TIE:
          PrefixTIEElement(prefixes(Spine 121.loopback)

        Leaf112 North TIEs:

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 54]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

        Node North TIE:
          NodeTIEElement(level=0,
            neighbors(
              (Spine 111, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),
              (Spine 112, level 1, cost 1, links(...))
            )
          )
        Prefix North TIE:
          PrefixTIEElement(prefixes(Leaf112.loopback, Prefix112, Prefix_MH))

    Figure 15: Example TIEs Generated in a 2 Level Spine-and-Leaf
                               Topology

   It may not be obvious here as to why the Node South TIEs contain all
   the adjacencies of the corresponding node.  This will be necessary
   for algorithms further elaborated on in Section 6.3.9 and
   Section 6.8.7.

   For Node TIEs to carry more adjacencies than fit into an MTU-sized
   packet, the element _neighbors_ may contain a different set of
   neighbors in each TIE.  Those disjointed sets of neighbors MUST be
   joined during corresponding computation.  However, if the following
   occurs across multiple Node TIEs

   1.  _capabilities_ do not match *or*

   2.  _flags_ values do not match *or*

   3.  same neighbor repeats in multiple TIEs with different values

   The implementation is expected to use the value of any of the valid
   TIEs it received as it cannot control the arrival order of those
   TIEs.

   The _miscabled_links_ element SHOULD be included in every Node TIE,
   otherwise the behavior is undefined.

   A ToF node MUST include information on all other ToFs it is aware of
   through reflection.  The _same_plane_tofs_ element is used to carry
   this information.  To prevent MTU overrun problems, multiple Node
   TIEs can carry disjointed sets of ToFs which MUST be joined to form a
   single set.

   Different TIE types are carried in _TIEElement_.  Schema enum
   `common.TIETypeType` in _TIEID_ indicates which elements MUST be
   present in the _TIEElement_. In case of a mismatch between the
   _TIETypeType_ in the _TIEID_ and the present element, the unexpected
   elements MUST be ignored.  In case of lack of expected element in the

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 55]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   TIE an error MUST be reported and the TIE MUST be ignored.  The
   element _positive_disaggregation_prefixes_ and
   _positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes_ MUST be advertised
   southbound only and ignored in North TIEs.  The element
   _negative_disaggregation_prefixes_ MUST be propagated according to
   Section 6.5.2 southwards towards lower levels to heal pathological
   upper-level partitioning, otherwise traffic loss may occur in
   multiplane fabrics.  It MUST NOT be advertised within a North TIE and
   MUST be ignored otherwise.

6.3.3.  Flooding

   As described before, TIEs themselves are transported over UDP with
   the ports indicated in the LIE exchanges and using the destination
   address on which the LIE adjacency has been formed.

   TIEs are uniquely identified by the _TIEID_ schema element.  The
   _TIEID_ induces a total order achieved by comparing the elements in
   sequence defined in the element and comparing each value as an
   unsigned integer of corresponding length.  The _TIEHeader_ element
   contains a _seq_nr_ element to distinguish newer versions of same
   TIE.

   The TIEHEader can also carry an _origination_time_ schema element
   (for fabrics that utilize precision timing) which contains the
   absolute timestamp of when the TIE was generated and an
   _origination_lifetime_ to indicate the original lifetime when the TIE
   was generated.  When carried, they can be used for debugging or
   security purposes (e.g. to prevent lifetime modification attacks).
   Clock synchronization is considered in more detail in Section 6.8.4.

   _remaining_lifetime_ counts down to 0 from _origination_lifetime_.
   TIEs with lifetimes differing by less than _lifetime_diff2ignore_
   MUST be considered EQUAL (if all other fields are equal).  This
   constant MUST be larger than _purge_lifetime_ to avoid
   retransmissions.

   This normative ordering methodology is described in Figure 16 and
   MUST be used by all implementations.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 56]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

function Compare(X: TIEHeader, Y: TIEHeader) returns Ordering:

    seq_nr of a TIEHeader = TIEHeader.seq_nr

    TIEID of a TIEHeader = TIEHeader.TIEID
    direction of a TIEID = TIEID.direction

    # System ID
    originator of a TIEID = TIEID.originator

    # is of type TIETypeType
    tietype of a TIEID = TIEID.tietype
    tie_nr of a TIEID = TIEID.tie_nr

    if X.direction > Y.direction:
        return X is larger
    else if X.direction < Y.direction:
        return Y is larger
    else if X.originator > Y.originator:
        return X is larger
    else if X.originator < Y.originator:
        return Y is larger
    else:
        if X.tietype == Y.tietype:
            if X.tie_nr == Y.tie_nr:
                if X.seq_nr == Y.seq_nr:
                    X.lifetime_left = X.remaining_lifetime - time since TIE was received
                    Y.lifetime_left = Y.remaining_lifetime - time since TIE was received

                    if absolute_value_of(X.lifetime_left - Y.lifetime_left) <= common.lifetime_diff2ignore:
                        return Both are Equal

                    else:
                        return TIEHeader with larger lifetime_left is larger
                else:
                    return return TIEHeader with larger seq_nr is larger
            else:
                return TIEHeader with larger tie_nr is larger
        else:
            return TIEHeader with larger TIEType is larger

               Figure 16: TIEHeader Comparison Function

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 57]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   All valid TIE types are defined in _TIETypeType_.  This enum
   indicates what TIE type the TIE is carrying.  In case the value is
   not known to the receiver, the TIE MUST be re-flooded with scope
   identical to the scope of a prefix TIE.  This allows for future
   extensions of the protocol within the same major schema with types
   opaque to some nodes with some restrictions defined in Section 7.

6.3.3.1.  Normative Flooding Procedures

   On reception of a TIE with an undefined level value in the packet
   header the node MUST issue a warning and discard the packet.

   This section specifies the precise, normative flooding mechanism and
   can be omitted unless the reader is pursuing an implementation of the
   protocol or looks for a deep understanding of underlying information
   distribution mechanism.

   Flooding Procedures are described in terms of the flooding state of
   an adjacency and resulting operations on it driven by packet
   arrivals.  Implementations MUST implement a behavior that is
   externally indistinguishable from the FSMs and normative procedures
   given here.

   RIFT does not specify any kind of flood rate limiting.  To help with
   adjustment of flooding speeds the encoded packets provide hints to
   react accordingly to losses or overruns via
   _you_are_sending_too_quickly_ in the _LIEPacket_ and `Packet Number`
   in the security envelope described in Section 6.9.3.  Flooding of all
   corresponding topology exchange elements SHOULD be performed at the
   highest feasible rate but the rate of transmission MUST be throttled
   by reacting to packet elements and features of the system such as
   e.g. queue lengths or congestion indications in the protocol packets.

   A node SHOULD NOT send out any topology information elements if the
   adjacency is not in a "ThreeWay" state.  No further tightening of
   this rule is possible.  For example, link buffering may cause both
   LIEs and TIEs/TIDEs/TIREs to be re-ordered.

   A node MUST drop any received TIEs/TIDEs/TIREs unless it is in
   _ThreeWay_ state.

   TIEs generated by other nodes MUST be re-flooded.  TIDEs and TIREs
   MUST NOT be re-flooded.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 58]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.3.3.1.1.  FloodState Structure per Adjacency

   The structure contains conceptually for each adjacency the following
   elements.  The word "collection" or "queue" indicates a set of
   elements that can be iterated over:

   TIES_TX:
      Collection containing all the TIEs to transmit on the adjacency.

   TIES_ACK:
      Collection containing all the TIEs that have to be acknowledged on
      the adjacency.

   TIES_REQ:
      Collection containing all the TIE headers that have to be
      requested on the adjacency.

   TIES_RTX:
      Collection containing all TIEs that need retransmission with the
      corresponding time to retransmit.

   FILTERED_TIEDB:
      A filtered view of TIEDB, which retains for consideration only
      those headers permitted by is_tide_entry_filtered and which either
      have a lifetime left > 0 or have no content.

   Following words are used for well-known elements and procedures
   operating on this structure:

   TIE:
      Describes either a full RIFT TIE or just the _TIEHeader_ or
      _TIEID_ equivalent as defined in Section 7.3.  The corresponding
      meaning is unambiguously contained in the context of each
      algorithm.

   is_flood_reduced(TIE):
      returns whether a TIE can be flood reduced or not.

   is_tide_entry_filtered(TIE):
      returns whether a header should be propagated in TIDE according to
      flooding scopes.

   is_request_filtered(TIE):
      returns whether a TIE request should be propagated to neighbor or
      not according to flooding scopes.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 59]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   is_flood_filtered(TIE):
      returns whether a TIE requested be flooded to neighbor or not
      according to flooding scopes.

   try_to_transmit_tie(TIE):
      A.  if not is_flood_filtered(TIE) then

          1.  remove TIE from TIES_RTX if present

          2.  if TIE with same key is found on TIES_ACK then

              a.  if TIE is same or newer than TIE do nothing else

              b.  remove TIE from TIES_ACK and add TIE to TIES_TX

          3.  else insert TIE into TIES_TX

   ack_tie(TIE):
      remove TIE from all collections and then insert TIE into TIES_ACK.

   tie_been_acked(TIE):
      remove TIE from all collections.

   remove_from_all_queues(TIE):
      same as _tie_been_acked_.

   request_tie(TIE):
      if not is_request_filtered(TIE) then remove_from_all_queues(TIE)
      and add to TIES_REQ.

   move_to_rtx_list(TIE):
      remove TIE from TIES_TX and then add to TIES_RTX using TIE
      retransmission interval.

   clear_requests(TIEs):
      remove all TIEs from TIES_REQ.

   bump_own_tie(TIE):
      for self-originated TIE originate an empty or re-generate with
      version number higher than the one in TIE.

   The collection SHOULD be served with the following priorities if the
   system cannot process all the collections in real time:

   1.  Elements on TIES_ACK should be processed with highest priority

   2.  TIES_TX

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 60]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   3.  TIES_REQ and TIES_RTX should be processed with lowest priority

6.3.3.1.2.  TIDEs

   _TIEID_ and _TIEHeader_ space forms a strict total order (modulo
   incomparable sequence numbers as explained in Appendix A in the very
   unlikely event that can occur if a TIE is "stuck" in a part of a
   network while the originator reboots and reissues TIEs many times to
   the point its sequence# rolls over and forms incomparable distance to
   the "stuck" copy) which implies that a comparison relation is
   possible between two elements.  With that it is implicitly possible
   to compare TIEs, TIEHeaders and TIEIDs to each other whereas the
   shortest viable key is always implied.

6.3.3.1.2.1.  TIDE Generation

   As given by timer constant, periodically generate TIDEs by:

      NEXT_TIDE_ID: ID of next TIE to be sent in TIDE.

   a.  NEXT_TIDE_ID = MIN_TIEID

   b.  while NEXT_TIDE_ID not equal to MAX_TIEID do

       1.  HEADERS = Exactly TIRDEs_PER_PKT headers from FILTERED_TIEDB
           starting at NEXT_TIDE_ID, unless fewer than TIRDEs_PER_PKT
           remain, in which case all remaining headers.

       2.  if HEADERS is empty then START = MIN_TIEID else START = first
           element in HEADERS

       3.  if HEADERS' size less than TIRDEs_PER_PKT then END =
           MAX_TIEID else END = last element in HEADERS

       4.  send *sorted* HEADERS as TIDE setting START and END as its
           range

       5.  NEXT_TIDE_ID = END

   The constant _TIRDEs_PER_PKT_ SHOULD be computed per interface and
   used by the implementation to limit the amount of TIE headers per
   TIDE so the sent TIDE PDU does not exceed interface MTU.

   TIDE PDUs SHOULD be spaced on sending to prevent packet drops.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 61]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The algorithm will intentionally enter the loop once and send a
   single TIDE even when the database is empty, otherwise no TIDEs would
   be sent for in case of empty database and break intended
   synchronization.

6.3.3.1.2.2.  TIDE Processing

   On reception of TIDEs the following processing is performed:

      TXKEYS: Collection of TIE Headers to be sent after processing of
      the packet

      REQKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be requested after processing of
      the packet

      CLEARKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be removed from flood state
      queues

      LASTPROCESSED: Last processed TIEID in TIDE

      DBTIE: TIE in the Link State Database (LSDB) if found

   a.  LASTPROCESSED = TIDE.start_range

   b.  for every HEADER in TIDE do

       1.  DBTIE = find HEADER in current LSDB

       2.  if HEADER < LASTPROCESSED then report error and reset
           adjacency and return

       3.  put all TIEs in LSDB where (TIE.HEADER > LASTPROCESSED and
           TIE.HEADER < HEADER) into TXKEYS

       4.  LASTPROCESSED = HEADER

       5.  if DBTIE not found then

           I)   if originator is this node, then bump_own_tie

           II)  else put HEADER into REQKEYS

       6.  if DBTIE.HEADER < HEADER then

           I)  if originator is this node then bump_own_tie else

               i.   if this is a North TIE header from a northbound
                    neighbor then override DBTIE in LSDB with HEADER

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 62]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

               ii.  else put HEADER into REQKEYS

       7.  if DBTIE.HEADER > HEADER then put DBTIE.HEADER into TXKEYS

       8.  if DBTIE.HEADER = HEADER then

           I)   if DBTIE has content already then put DBTIE.HEADER into
                CLEARKEYS

           II)  else put HEADER into REQKEYS

   c.  put all TIEs in LSDB where (TIE.HEADER > LASTPROCESSED and
       TIE.HEADER <= TIDE.end_range) into TXKEYS

   d.  for all TIEs in TXKEYS try_to_transmit_tie(TIE)

   e.  for all TIEs in REQKEYS request_tie(TIE)

   f.  for all TIEs in CLEARKEYS remove_from_all_queues(TIE)

6.3.3.1.3.  TIREs

6.3.3.1.3.1.  TIRE Generation

   Elements from both TIES_REQ and TIES_ACK MUST be collected and sent
   out as fast as feasible as TIREs.  When sending TIREs with elements
   from TIES_REQ the _remaining_lifetime_ field in
   _TIEHeaderWithLifeTime_ MUST be set to 0 to force reflooding from the
   neighbor even if the TIEs seem to be same.

6.3.3.1.3.2.  TIRE Processing

   On reception of TIREs the following processing is performed:

      TXKEYS: Collection of TIE Headers to be send after processing of
      the packet

      REQKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs to be requested after processing of
      the packet

      ACKKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs that have been acked

      DBTIE: TIE in the LSDB if found

   a.  for every HEADER in TIRE do

       1.  DBTIE = find HEADER in current LSDB

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 63]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

       2.  if DBTIE not found then do nothing

       3.  if DBTIE.HEADER < HEADER then put HEADER into REQKEYS

       4.  if DBTIE.HEADER > HEADER then put DBTIE.HEADER into TXKEYS

       5.  if DBTIE.HEADER = HEADER then put DBTIE.HEADER into ACKKEYS

   b.  for all TIEs in TXKEYS try_to_transmit_tie(TIE)

   c.  for all TIEs in REQKEYS request_tie(TIE)

   d.  for all TIEs in ACKKEYS tie_been_acked(TIE)

6.3.3.1.4.  TIEs Processing on Flood State Adjacency

   On reception of TIEs the following processing is performed:

      ACKTIE: TIE to acknowledge

      TXTIE: TIE to transmit

      DBTIE: TIE in the LSDB if found

   a.  DBTIE = find TIE in current LSDB

   b.  if DBTIE not found then

       1.  if originator is this node then bump_own_tie with a short
           remaining lifetime

       2.  else insert TIE into LSDB and ACKTIE = TIE

       else

       1.  if DBTIE.HEADER = TIE.HEADER then

           i.   if DBTIE has content already then ACKTIE = TIE

           ii.  else process like the "DBTIE.HEADER < TIE.HEADER" case

       2.  if DBTIE.HEADER < TIE.HEADER then

           i.   if originator is this node then bump_own_tie

           ii.  else insert TIE into LSDB and ACKTIE = TIE

       3.  if DBTIE.HEADER > TIE.HEADER then

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 64]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

           i.   if DBTIE has content already then TXTIE = DBTIE

           ii.  else ACKTIE = DBTIE

   c.  if TXTIE is set then try_to_transmit_tie(TXTIE)

   d.  if ACKTIE is set then ack_tie(TIE)

6.3.3.1.5.  Sending TIEs

   On a periodic basis all TIEs with lifetime left > 0 MUST be sent out
   on the adjacency, removed from TIES_TX list and requeued onto
   TIES_RTX list.  The specific period is out of scope for this
   document.

6.3.3.1.6.  TIEs Processing In LSDB

   The Link State Database (LSDB) holds the most recent copy of TIEs
   received via flooding from according peers.  Consecutively, after
   version tie-breaking by LSDB, a peer receives from the LSDB the
   newest versions of TIEs received by other peers and processes them
   (without any filtering) just like receiving TIEs from its remote
   peer.  Such a publisher model can be implemented in several ways,
   either in a single thread of execution or in multiple parallel
   threads.

   LSDB can be logically considered as the entity aging out TIEs, i.e.
   being responsible to discard TIEs that are stored longer than
   _remaining_lifetime_ on their reception.

   LSDB is also expected to periodically re-originate the node's own
   TIEs.  Originating at an interval significantly shorter than
   _default_lifetime_ is RECOMMENDED to prevent TIE expiration by other
   nodes in the network which can lead to instabilities.

6.3.4.  TIE Flooding Scopes

   In a somewhat analogous fashion to link-local, area and domain
   flooding scopes, RIFT defines several complex "flooding scopes"
   depending on the direction and type of TIE propagated.

   Every North TIE is flooded northbound, providing a node at a given
   level with the complete topology of the Clos or Fat Tree network that
   is reachable southwards of it, including all specific prefixes.  This
   means that a packet received from a node at the same or lower level
   whose destination is covered by one of those specific prefixes will
   be routed directly towards the node advertising that prefix rather
   than sending the packet to a node at a higher level.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 65]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   A node's Node South TIEs, consisting of all node's adjacencies and
   prefix South TIEs limited to those related to default IP prefix and
   disaggregated prefixes, are flooded southbound in order to inform
   nodes one level down of connectivity of the higher level as well as
   reachability to the rest of the fabric.  In order to allow an E-W
   disconnected node in a given level to receive the South TIEs of other
   nodes at its level, every *NODE* South TIE is "reflected" northbound
   to the level from which it was received.  It should be noted that
   East-West links are included in South TIE flooding (except at the ToF
   level); those TIEs need to be flooded to satisfy algorithms in
   Section 6.4.  In that way nodes at same level can learn about each
   other using without a lower level except in case of leaf level.  The
   precise, normative flooding scopes are given in Table 3.  Those rules
   also govern what SHOULD be included in TIDEs on the adjacency.
   Again, East-West flooding scopes are identical to South flooding
   scopes except in case of ToF East-West links (rings) which are
   basically performing northbound flooding.

   Node South TIE "south reflection" enables support of positive
   disaggregation on failures as described in in Section 6.5 and
   flooding reduction in Section 6.3.9.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 66]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===========+======================+==============+=================+
   | Type /    | South                | North        | East-West       |
   | Direction |                      |              |                 |
   +===========+======================+==============+=================+
   | Node      | flood if level of    | flood if     | flood only if   |
   | South TIE | originator is        | level of     | this node is    |
   |           | equal to this        | originator   | not ToF         |
   |           | node                 | is higher    |                 |
   |           |                      | than this    |                 |
   |           |                      | node         |                 |
   +-----------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   | non-Node  | flood self-          | flood only   | flood only if   |
   | South TIE | originated only      | if neighbor  | self-originated |
   |           |                      | is           | and this node   |
   |           |                      | originator   | is not ToF      |
   |           |                      | of TIE       |                 |
   +-----------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   | all North | never flood          | flood always | flood only if   |
   | TIEs      |                      |              | this node is    |
   |           |                      |              | ToF             |
   +-----------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   | TIDE      | include at least     | include at   | if this node is |
   |           | all non-self         | least all    | ToF then        |
   |           | originated North     | Node South   | include all     |
   |           | TIE headers and      | TIEs and all | North TIEs,     |
   |           | self-originated      | South TIEs   | otherwise only  |
   |           | South TIE headers    | originated   | self-originated |
   |           | and Node South       | by peer and  | TIEs            |
   |           | TIEs of nodes at     | all North    |                 |
   |           | same level           | TIEs         |                 |
   +-----------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   | TIRE as   | request all North    | request all  | if this node is |
   | Request   | TIEs and all         | South TIEs   | ToF then apply  |
   |           | peer's self-         |              | North scope     |
   |           | originated TIEs      |              | rules,          |
   |           | and all Node         |              | otherwise South |
   |           | South TIEs           |              | scope rules     |
   +-----------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
   | TIRE as   | Ack all received     | Ack all      | Ack all         |
   | Ack       | TIEs                 | received     | received TIEs   |
   |           |                      | TIEs         |                 |
   +-----------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------+

                     Table 3: Normative Flooding Scopes

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 67]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   If the TIDE includes additional TIE headers beside the ones
   specified, the receiving neighbor must apply the corresponding filter
   to the received TIDE strictly and MUST NOT request the extra TIE
   headers that were not allowed by the flooding scope rules in its
   direction.

   To illustrate these rules, consider using the topology in Figure 2,
   with the optional link between spine 111 and spine 112, and the
   associated TIEs given in Figure 15.  The flooding from particular
   nodes of the TIEs is given in Table 4.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 68]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +============+==========+===========================================+
   | Local      | Neighbor | TIEs Flooded from Local to Neighbor Node  |
   | Node       | Node     |                                           |
   +============+==========+===========================================+
   | Leaf111    | Spine    | Leaf111 North TIEs, Spine 111 Node South  |
   |            | 112      | TIE                                       |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Leaf111    | Spine    | Leaf111 North TIEs, Spine 112 Node South  |
   |            | 111      | TIE                                       |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ...        | ...      | ...                                       |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Spine      | Leaf111  | Spine 111 South TIEs                      |
   | 111        |          |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Spine      | Leaf112  | Spine 111 South TIEs                      |
   | 111        |          |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Spine      | Spine    | Spine 111 South TIEs                      |
   | 111        | 112      |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Spine      | ToF 21   | Spine 111 North TIEs, Leaf111 North TIEs, |
   | 111        |          | Leaf112 North TIEs, ToF 22 Node South TIE |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Spine      | ToF 22   | Spine 111 North TIEs, Leaf111 North TIEs, |
   | 111        |          | Leaf112 North TIEs, ToF 21 Node South TIE |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ...        | ...      | ...                                       |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ToF 21     | Spine    | ToF 21 South TIEs                         |
   |            | 111      |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ToF 21     | Spine    | ToF 21 South TIEs                         |
   |            | 112      |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ToF 21     | Spine    | ToF 21 South TIEs                         |
   |            | 121      |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ToF 21     | Spine    | ToF 21 South TIEs                         |
   |            | 122      |                                           |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+
   | ...        | ...      | ...                                       |
   +------------+----------+-------------------------------------------+

             Table 4: Flooding some TIEs from example topology

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 69]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.3.5.  RAIN: RIFT Adjacency Inrush Notification

   The optional RIFT Adjacency Inrush Notification (RAIN) mechanism
   helps to prevent adjacencies from being overwhelmed by flooding on
   restart or bring-up with many southbound neighbors.  A node MAY set
   in its LIEs the corresponding _you_are_sending_too_quickly_ flag to
   indicate to the neighbor that it SHOULD flood Node TIEs with normal
   speed and significantly slow down the flooding of any other TIEs.
   The flag SHOULD be set only in the southbound direction.  The
   receiving node SHOULD accommodate the request to lessen the flooding
   load on the affected node if south of the sender and should ignore
   the indication if north of the sender.

   The distribution of Node TIEs at normal speed even at high load
   guarantees correct behavior of algorithms like disaggregation or
   default route origination.  Furthermore though, the use of this bit
   presents an inherent trade-off between processing load and
   convergence speed since significantly slowing down flooding of
   northbound prefixes from neighbors for an extended time will lead to
   traffic losses.

6.3.6.  Initial and Periodic Database Synchronization

   The initial exchange of RIFT includes periodic TIDE exchanges that
   contain description of the link state database and TIREs which
   perform the function of requesting unknown TIEs as well as confirming
   reception of flooded TIEs.  The content of TIDEs and TIREs is
   governed by Table 3.

6.3.7.  Purging and Roll-Overs

   When a node exits the network, if "unpurged", residual stale TIEs may
   exist in the network until their lifetimes expire (which in case of
   RIFT is by default a rather long period to prevent ongoing re-
   origination of TIEs in very large topologies).  RIFT does not have a
   "purging mechanism" based on sending specialized "purge" packets.  In
   other routing protocols such a mechanism has proven to be complex and
   fragile based on many years of experience.  RIFT simply issues a new,
   i.e., higher sequence number, empty version of the TIE with a short
   lifetime given by the _purge_lifetime_ constant and relies on each
   node to age out and delete each TIE copy independently.  Abundant
   amounts of memory are available today even on low-end platforms and
   hence keeping those relatively short-lived extra copies for a while
   is acceptable.  The information will age out and in the meantime all
   computations will deliver correct results if a node leaves the
   network due to the new information distributed by its adjacent nodes
   breaking bi-directional connectivity checks in different
   computations.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 70]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Once a RIFT node issues a TIE with an ID, it SHOULD preserve the ID
   as long as feasible (also when the protocol restarts), even if the
   TIE looses all content.  The re-advertisement of an empty TIE
   fulfills the purpose of purging any information advertised in
   previous versions.  The originator is free to not re-originate the
   corresponding empty TIE again or originate an empty TIE with
   relatively short lifetime to prevent large number of long-lived empty
   stubs polluting the network.  Each node MUST timeout and clean up the
   corresponding empty TIEs independently.

   Upon restart a node MUST be prepared to receive TIEs with its own
   System ID and supersede them with equivalent, newly generated, empty
   TIEs with a higher sequence number.  As above, the lifetime can be
   relatively short since it only needs to exceed the necessary
   propagation and processing delay by all the nodes that are within the
   TIE's flooding scope.

   TIE sequence numbers are rolled over using the method described in
   Appendix A .  First sequence number of any spontaneously originated
   TIE (i.e. not originated to override a detected older copy in the
   network) MUST be a reasonably unpredictable random number (for
   example [RFC4086]) in the interval [0, 2^30-1] which will prevent
   otherwise identical TIE headers to remain "stuck" in the network with
   content different from TIE originated after reboot.  In traditional
   link-state protocols this is delegated to a 16-bit checksum on packet
   content.  RIFT avoids this design due to the CPU burden presented by
   computation of such checksums and additional complications tied to
   the fact that the checksum must be "patched" into the packet after
   the generation of the content, a difficult proposition in binary
   hand-crafted formats already and highly incompatible with model-
   based, serialized formats.  The sequence number space is hence
   consciously chosen to be 64-bits wide to make the occurrence of a TIE
   with same sequence number but different content as much or even more
   unlikely than the checksum method.  To emulate the "checksum
   behavior" an implementation could choose to compute a 64-bit checksum
   or hash function over the TIE content and use that as part of the
   first sequence number after reboot.

6.3.8.  Southbound Default Route Origination

   Under certain conditions nodes issue a default route in their South
   Prefix TIEs with costs as computed in Section 6.8.7.1.

   A node X that

   1.  is *not* overloaded *and*

   2.  has southbound or East-West adjacencies

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 71]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   SHOULD originate in its south prefix TIE such a default route if and
   only if

   1.  all other nodes at X's' level are overloaded *or*

   2.  all other nodes at X's' level have NO northbound adjacencies *or*

   3.  X has computed reachability to a default route during N-SPF.

   The term "all other nodes at X's' level" describes obviously just the
   nodes at the same level in the PoD with a viable lower level
   (otherwise the Node South TIEs cannot be reflected.  The nodes in PoD
   1 and PoD 2 are "invisible" to each other).

   A node originating a southbound default route SHOULD install a
   default discard route if it did not compute a default route during
   N-SPF.  This basically means that the top of the fabric will drop
   traffic for unreachable addresses.

6.3.9.  Northbound TIE Flooding Reduction

   RIFT chooses only a subset of northbound nodes to propagate flooding
   and with that both balances it (to prevent 'hot' flooding links)
   across the fabric as well as reduces its volume.  The solution is
   based on several principles:

   1.  a node MUST flood self-originated North TIEs to all the reachable
       nodes at the level above which is called the node's "parents";

   2.  it is typically not necessary that all parents reflood the North
       TIEs to achieve a complete flooding of all the reachable nodes
       two levels above which we call the node's "grandparents";

   3.  to control the volume of its flooding two hops North and yet keep
       it robust enough, it is advantageous for a node to select a
       subset of its parents as "Flood Repeaters" (FRs), which combined
       together deliver two or more copies of its flooding to all of its
       parents, i.e. the originating node's grandparents;

   4.  nodes at the same level do *not* have to agree on a specific
       algorithm to select the FRs, but overall load balancing should be
       achieved so that different nodes at the same level should tend to
       select different parents as FRs (consideration of possible
       strategies in an unrelated but similar field can be found in
       [RFC2991]);

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 72]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   5.  there are usually many solutions to the problem of finding a set
       of FRs for a given node; the problem of finding the minimal set
       is (similar to) a NP-Complete problem and a globally optimal set
       may not be the minimal one if load-balancing with other nodes is
       an important consideration;

   6.  it is expected that there will often exist sets of equivalent
       nodes at a level L, defined as having a common set of parents at
       L+1.  Applying this observation at both L and L+1, an algorithm
       may attempt to split the larger problem in a sum of smaller
       separate problems;

   7.  it is expected that there will be from time to time a broken link
       between a parent and a grandparent, and in that case the parent
       is probably a poor FR due to its lower reliability.  An algorithm
       may attempt to eliminate parents with broken northbound
       adjacencies first in order to reduce the number of FRs.  Albeit
       it could be argued that relying on higher fanout FRs will slow
       flooding due to higher replication, load reliability of FR's
       links is likely a more pressing concern.

   In a fully connected Clos Network, this means that a node selects one
   arbitrary parent as FR and then a second one for redundancy.  The
   computation can be relatively simple and completely distributed
   without any need for synchronization amongst nodes.  In a "PoD"
   structure, where the Level L+2 is partitioned into silos of
   equivalent grandparents that are only reachable from respective
   parents, this means treating each silo as a fully connected Clos
   Network and solving the problem within the silo.

   In terms of signaling, a node has enough information to select its
   set of FRs; this information is derived from the node's parents' Node
   South TIEs, which indicate the parent's reachable northbound
   adjacencies to its own parents (the node's grandparents).  A node may
   send a LIE to a northbound neighbor with the optional boolean field
   _you_are_flood_repeater_ set to false, to indicate that the
   northbound neighbor is not a flood repeater for the node that sent
   the LIE.  In that case the northbound neighbor SHOULD NOT reflood
   northbound TIEs received from the node that sent the LIE.  If the
   _you_are_flood_repeater_ is absent or if _you_are_flood_repeater_ is
   set to true, then the northbound neighbor is a flood repeater for the
   node that sent the LIE and MUST reflood northbound TIEs received from
   that node.  The element _you_are_flood_repeater_ MUST be ignored if
   received from a northbound adjacency.

   This specification provides a simple default algorithm that SHOULD be
   implemented and used by default on every RIFT node.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 73]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  let |NA(Node) be the set of Northbound adjacencies of node Node
      and CN(Node) be the cardinality of |NA(Node);

   *  let |SA(Node) be the set of Southbound adjacencies of node Node
      and CS(Node) be the cardinality of |SA(Node);

   *  let |P(Node) be the set of node Node's parents;

   *  let |G(Node) be the set of node Node's grandparents.  Observe
      that |G(Node) = |P(|P(Node));

   *  let N be the child node at level L computing a set of FR;

   *  let P be a node at level L+1 and a parent node of N, i.e. bi-
      directionally reachable over adjacency ADJ(N, P);

   *  let G be a grandparent node of N, reachable transitively via a
      parent P over adjacencies ADJ(N, P) and ADJ(P, G).  Observe that N
      does not have enough information to check bidirectional
      reachability of ADJ(P, G);

   *  let R be a redundancy constant integer; a value of 2 or higher for
      R is RECOMMENDED;

   *  let S be a similarity constant integer; a value in range 0 .. 2
      for S is RECOMMENDED, the value of 1 SHOULD be used.  Two
      cardinalities are considered as equivalent if their absolute
      difference is less than or equal to S, i.e.  |a-b|<=S.

   *  let RND be a 64-bit random number (for example [RFC4086])
      generated by the system once on startup.

   The algorithm consists of the following steps:

   1.  Derive a 64-bits number by XOR'ing 'N's System ID with RND.

   2.  Derive a 16-bits pseudo-random unsigned integer PR(N) from the
       resulting 64-bits number by splitting it in 16-bits-long words
       W1, W2, W3, W4 (where W1 are the least significant 16 bits of the
       64-bits number, and W4 are the most significant 16 bits) and then
       XOR'ing the circularly shifted resulting words together:

       A.  (W1<<1) xor (W2<<2) xor (W3<<3) xor (W4<<4);

           where << is the circular shift operator.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 74]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   3.  Sort the parents by decreasing number of northbound adjacencies
       (using decreasing System ID of the parent as tie-breaker):
       sort |P(N) by decreasing CN(P), for all P in |P(N), as ordered
       array |A(N)

   4.  Partition |A(N) in subarrays |A_k(N) of parents with equivalent
       cardinality of northbound adjacencies (in other words with
       equivalent number of grandparents they can reach):

       A.  set k=0; // k is the ID of the subarrray

       B.  set i=0;

       C.  while i < CN(N) do

           i)    set j=i;

           ii)   while i < CN(N) and CN(|A(N)[j]) - CN(|A(N)[i]) <= S

                 a.  place |A(N)[i] in |A_k(N) // abstract action, maybe
                     noop

                 b.  set i=i+1;

           iii)  /* At this point j is the index in |A(N) of the first
                 member of |A_k(N) and (i-j) is C_k(N) defined as the
                 cardinality of |A_k(N) */

                 set k=k+1;

       /* At this point k is the total number of subarrays, initialized
       for the shuffling operation below */

   5.  shuffle individually each subarrays |A_k(N) of cardinality C_k(N)
       within |A(N) using the Durstenfeld variation of Fisher-Yates
       algorithm that depends on N's System ID:

       A.  while k > 0 do

           i)   for i from C_k(N)-1 to 1 decrementing by 1 do

                a.  set j to PR(N) modulo i;

                b.  exchange |A_k[j] and |A_k[i];

           ii)  set k=k-1;

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 75]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   6.  For each grandparent G, initialize a counter c(G) with the number
       of its south-bound adjacencies to elected flood repeaters (which
       is initially zero):

       A.  for each G in |G(N) set c(G) = 0;

   7.  Finally keep as FRs only parents that are needed to maintain the
       number of adjacencies between the FRs and any grandparent G equal
       or above the redundancy constant R:

       A.  for each P in reshuffled |A(N);

           i)  if there exists an adjacency ADJ(P, G) in |NA(P) such
               that c(G) < R then

               a.  place P in FR set;

               b.  for all adjacencies ADJ(P, G') in |NA(P) increment
                   c(G')

       B.  If any c(G) is still < R, it was not possible to elect a set
           of FRs that covers all grandparents with redundancy R

   Additional rules for flooding reduction:

   1.  The algorithm MUST be re-evaluated by a node on every change of
       local adjacencies or reception of a parent South TIE with changed
       adjacencies.  A node MAY apply a hysteresis to prevent excessive
       amount of computation during periods of network instability just
       like in the case of reachability computation.

   2.  Upon a change of the flood repeater set, a node SHOULD send out
       LIEs that grant flood repeater status to newly promoted nodes
       before it sends LIEs that revoke the status to the nodes that
       have been newly demoted.  This is done to prevent transient
       behavior where the full coverage of grandparents is not
       guaranteed.  Such a condition is sometimes unavoidable in case of
       lost LIEs but it will correct itself though at possible transient
       reduction in flooding propagation speeds.  The election can use
       the LIE FSM _FloodLeadersChanged_ event to notify LIE FSMs of
       necessity to update the sent LIEs.

   3.  A node MUST always flood its self-originated TIEs to all its
       neighbors.

   4.  A node receiving a TIE originated by a node for which it is not a
       flood repeater SHOULD NOT reflood such TIEs to its neighbors
       except for rules in Section 6.3.9, Paragraph 10, Item 6.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 76]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   5.  The indication of flood reduction capability MUST be carried in
       the Node TIEs in the _flood_reduction_ element and MAY be used to
       optimize the algorithm to account for nodes that will flood
       regardless.

   6.  A node generates TIDEs as usual but when receiving TIREs or TIDEs
       resulting in requests for a TIE of which the newest received copy
       came on an adjacency where the node was not flood repeater it
       SHOULD ignore such requests on first and only first request.
       Normally, the nodes that received the TIEs as flooding repeaters
       should satisfy the requesting node and with that no further TIREs
       for such TIEs will be generated.  Otherwise, the next set of
       TIDEs and TIREs MUST lead to flooding independent of the flood
       repeater status.  This solves a very difficult incast problem on
       nodes restarting with a very wide fanout, especially northbound.
       To retrieve the full database they often end up processing many
       in-rushing copies whereas this approach load-balances the
       incoming database between adjacent nodes and flood repeaters and
       should guarantee that two copies are sent by different nodes to
       ensure against any losses.

6.3.10.  Special Considerations

   First, due to the distributed, asynchronous nature of ZTP, it can
   create temporary convergence anomalies where nodes at higher levels
   of the fabric temporarily become lower than where they ultimately
   belong.  Since flooding can begin before ZTP is "finished" and in
   fact must do so given there is no global termination criteria for the
   unsychronized ZTP algorithm, information may end up temporarily in
   wrong layers.  A special clause when changing level takes care of
   that.

   More difficult is a condition where a node (e.g. a leaf) floods a TIE
   north towards its grandparent, then its parent reboots, partitioning
   the grandparent from leaf directly and then the leaf itself reboots.
   That can leave the grandparent holding the "primary copy" of the
   leaf's TIE.  Normally this condition is resolved easily by the leaf
   re-originating its TIE with a higher sequence number than it notices
   in the northbound TIEs, here however, when the parent comes back it
   won't be able to obtain leaf's North TIE from the grandparent easily
   and with that the leaf may not issue the TIE with a higher sequence
   number that can reach the grandparent for a long time.  Flooding
   procedures are extended to deal with the problem by the means of
   special clauses that override the database of a lower level with
   headers of newer TIEs received in TIDEs coming from the north.  Those
   headers are then propagated southbound towards the leaf to cause it
   to originate a higher sequence number of the TIE effectively
   refreshing it all the way up to ToF.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 77]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.4.  Reachability Computation

   A node has three possible sources of relevant information for
   reachability computation.  A node knows the full topology south of it
   from the received North Node TIEs or alternately north of it from the
   South Node TIEs.  A node has the set of prefixes with their
   associated distances and bandwidths from corresponding prefix TIEs.

   To compute prefix reachability, a node runs conceptually a northbound
   and a southbound SPF.  N-SPF and S-SPF notation denotes here the
   direction in which the computation front is progressing.

   Since neither computation can "loop", it is possible to compute non-
   equal-cost or even k-shortest paths [EPPSTEIN] and "saturate" the
   fabric to the extent desired.  This specification however uses
   simple, familiar SPF algorithms and concepts as example due to their
   prevalence in today's routing.

   For reachability computation purposes, RIFT considers all parallel
   links between two nodes to be of the same cost advertised in the
   _cost_ element of _NodeNeighborsTIEElement_. In case the neighbor has
   multiple parallel links at different cost, the largest distance
   (highest numerical value) MUST be advertised.  Given the range of
   thrift encodings, _infinite_distance_ is defined as the largest non-
   negative _MetricType_. Any link with metric larger than that (i.e.
   negative MetricType) MUST be ignored in computations.  Any link with
   metric set to _invalid_distance_ MUST also be ignored in computation.
   In case of a negatively distributed prefix the metric attribute MUST
   be set to _infinite_distance_ by the originator and it MUST be
   ignored by all nodes during computation except for the purpose of
   determining transitive propagation and building the corresponding
   routing table.

   A prefix can carry the _directly_attached_ attribute to indicate that
   the prefix is directly attached, i.e., should be routed to even if
   the node is in overload.  In case of a negatively distributed prefix
   this attribute MUST NOT be included by the originator and it MUST be
   ignored by all nodes during SPF computation.  If a prefix is locally
   originated the attribute _from_link_ can indicate the interface to
   which the address belongs to.  In case of a negatively distributed
   prefix this attribute MUST NOT be included by the originator and it
   MUST be ignored by all nodes during computation.  A prefix can also
   carry the _loopback_ attribute to indicate the said property.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 78]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Prefixes are carried in different types of TIEs indicating their
   type.  For same prefix being included in different TIE types tie-
   breaking is performed according to Section 6.8.1.  If the same prefix
   is included multiple times in multiple TIEs of the same type
   originating at the same node the resulting behavior is unspecified.

6.4.1.  Northbound Reachability SPF

   N-SPF MUST use exclusively northbound and East-West adjacencies in
   the computing node's node North TIEs (since if the node is a leaf it
   may not have generated a Node South TIE) when starting SPF.  Observe
   that N-SPF is really just a one hop variety since Node South TIEs are
   not re-flooded southbound beyond a single level (or East-West) and
   with that the computation cannot progress beyond adjacent nodes.

   Once progressing, the computation uses the next higher level's Node
   South TIEs to find corresponding adjacencies to verify backlink
   connectivity.  Two unidirectional links MUST be associated together
   to confirm bidirectional connectivity, a process often known as
   `backlink check`. As part of the check, both Node TIEs MUST contain
   the correct System IDs *and* expected levels.

   The default route found when crossing an E-W link SHOULD be used if
   and only if

   1.  the node itself does *not* have any northbound adjacencies *and*

   2.  the adjacent node has one or more northbound adjacencies

   This rule forms a "one-hop default route split-horizon" and prevents
   looping over default routes while allowing for "one-hop protection"
   of nodes that lost all northbound adjacencies except at the ToF where
   the links are used exclusively to flood topology information in
   multi-plane designs.

   Other south prefixes found when crossing E-W link MAY be used if and
   only if

   1.  no north neighbors are advertising same or a supersuming non-
       default prefix *and*

   2.  the node does not originate a non-default supersuming prefix
       itself.

   I.e., the E-W link can be used as a gateway of last resort for a
   specific prefix only.  Using south prefixes across E-W link can be
   beneficial e.g., on automatic disaggregation in pathological fabric
   partitioning scenarios.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 79]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   A detailed example can be found in Appendix B.4.

6.4.2.  Southbound Reachability SPF

   S-SPF MUST use the southbound adjacencies in the Node South TIEs
   exclusively, i.e. progresses towards nodes at lower levels.  Observe
   that E-W adjacencies are NEVER used in this computation.  This
   enforces the requirement that a packet traversing in a southbound
   direction must never change its direction.

   S-SPF MUST use northbound adjacencies in node North TIEs to verify
   backlink connectivity by checking for presence of the link beside
   correct System ID and level.

6.4.3.  East-West Forwarding Within a non-ToF Level

   Using south prefixes over horizontal links MAY occur if the N-SPF
   includes East-West adjacencies in computation.  It can protect
   against pathological fabric partitioning cases that leave only paths
   to destinations that would necessitate multiple changes of forwarding
   direction between north and south.

6.4.4.  East-West Links Within ToF Level

   E-W ToF links behave in terms of flooding scopes defined in
   Section 6.3.4 like northbound links and MUST be used exclusively for
   control plane information flooding.  Even though a ToF node could be
   tempted to use those links during southbound SPF and carry traffic
   over them this MUST NOT be attempted since it may, in anycast cases,
   lead to routing loops.  An implementation MAY try to resolve the
   looping problem by following on the ring strictly tie-broken
   shortest-paths only but the details are outside this specification.
   And even then, the problem of proper capacity provisioning of such
   links when they become traffic-bearing in case of failures is vexing
   and when used for forwarding purposes, they defeat statistical non-
   blocking guarantees that Clos is providing normally.

6.5.  Automatic Disaggregation on Link & Node Failures

6.5.1.  Positive, Non-transitive Disaggregation

   Under normal circumstances, a node's South TIEs contain just the
   adjacencies and a default route.  However, if a node detects that its
   default IP prefix covers one or more prefixes that are reachable
   through it but not through one or more other nodes at the same level,
   then it MUST explicitly advertise those prefixes in a South TIE.
   Otherwise, some percentage of the northbound traffic for those
   prefixes would be sent to nodes without corresponding reachability,

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 80]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   causing it to be dropped.  Even when traffic is not being dropped,
   the resulting forwarding could 'backhaul' packets through the higher
   level spines, clearly an undesirable condition affecting the blocking
   probabilities of the fabric.

   This specification refers to the process of advertising additional
   prefixes southbound as 'positive disaggregation'.  Such
   disaggregation is non-transitive, i.e., its' effects are always
   constrained to a single level of the fabric.  Naturally, multiple
   node or link failures can lead to several independent instances of
   positive disaggregation necessary to prevent looping or bow-tying the
   fabric.

   A node determines the set of prefixes needing disaggregation using
   the following steps:

   1.  A DAG computation in the southern direction is performed first.
       The North TIEs are used to find all of prefixes it can reach and
       the set of next-hops in the lower level for each of them.  Such a
       computation can be easily performed on a Fat Tree by setting all
       link costs in the southern direction to 1 and all northern
       directions to infinity.  We term set of those prefixes |R, and
       for each prefix, r, in |R, its set of next-hops is defined to
       be |H(r).

   2.  The node uses reflected South TIEs to find all nodes at the same
       level in the same PoD and the set of southbound adjacencies for
       each.  The set of nodes at the same level is termed |N and for
       each node, n, in |N, its set of southbound adjacencies is defined
       to be |A(n).

   3.  For a given r, if the intersection of |H(r) and |A(n), for any n,
       is empty then that prefix r must be explicitly advertised by the
       node in a South TIE.

   4.  Identical set of disaggregated prefixes is flooded on each of the
       node's southbound adjacencies.  In accordance with the normal
       flooding rules for a South TIE, a node at the lower level that
       receives this South TIE SHOULD NOT propagate it south-bound or
       reflect the disaggregated prefixes back over its adjacencies to
       nodes at the level from which it was received.

   To summarize the above in simplest terms: if a node detects that its
   default route encompasses prefixes for which one of the other nodes
   in its level has no possible next-hops in the level below, it has to
   disaggregate it to prevent traffic loss or suboptimal routing through
   such nodes.  Hence a node X needs to determine if it can reach a
   different set of south neighbors than other nodes at the same level,

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 81]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   which are connected to it via at least one common south neighbor.  If
   it can, then prefix disaggregation may be required.  If it can't,
   then no prefix disaggregation is needed.  An example of
   disaggregation is provided in Appendix B.3.

   Finally, a possible algorithm is described here:

   1.  Create partial_neighbors = (empty), a set of neighbors with
       partial connectivity to the node X's level from X's perspective.
       Each entry in the set is a south neighbor of X and a list of
       nodes of X.level that can't reach that neighbor.

   2.  A node X determines its set of southbound neighbors
       X.south_neighbors.

   3.  For each South TIE originated from a node Y that X has which is
       at X.level, if Y.south_neighbors is not the same as
       X.south_neighbors but the nodes share at least one southern
       neighbor, for each neighbor N in X.south_neighbors but not in
       Y.south_neighbors, add (N, (Y)) to partial_neighbors if N isn't
       there or add Y to the list for N.

   4.  If partial_neighbors is empty, then node X does not disaggregate
       any prefixes.  If node X is advertising disaggregated prefixes in
       its South TIE, X SHOULD remove them and re-advertise its South
       TIEs.

   A node X computes reachability to all nodes below it based upon the
   received North TIEs first.  This results in a set of routes, each
   categorized by (prefix, path_distance, next-hop set).  Alternately,
   for clarity in the following procedure, these can be organized by
   next-hop set as ((next-hops), {(prefix, path_distance)}).  If
   partial_neighbors isn't empty, then the procedure in Figure 17
   describes how to identify prefixes to disaggregate.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 82]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                disaggregated_prefixes = { empty }
                nodes_same_level = { empty }
                for each South TIE
                  if (South TIE.level == X.level and
                      X shares at least one S-neighbor with X)
                    add South TIE.originator to nodes_same_level
                    end if
                  end for

                for each next-hop-set NHS
                  isolated_nodes = nodes_same_level
                  for each NH in NHS
                    if NH in partial_neighbors
                      isolated_nodes =
                        intersection(isolated_nodes,
                                     partial_neighbors[NH].nodes)
                      end if
                    end for

                  if isolated_nodes is not empty
                    for each prefix using NHS
                      add (prefix, distance) to disaggregated_prefixes
                      end for
                    end if
                  end for

                copy disaggregated_prefixes to X's South TIE
                if X's South TIE is different
                  schedule South TIE for flooding
                  end if

              Figure 17: Computation of Disaggregated Prefixes

   Each disaggregated prefix is sent with the corresponding
   path_distance.  This allows a node to send the same South TIE to each
   south neighbor.  The south neighbor which is connected to that prefix
   will thus have a shorter path.

   Finally, to summarize the less obvious points partially omitted in
   the algorithms to keep them more tractable:

   1.  all neighbor relationships MUST perform backlink checks.

   2.  overload flag as introduced in Section 6.8.2 and carried in the
       _overload_ schema element have to be respected during the
       computation.  Nodes advertising themselves as overloaded MUST NOT
       be transited in reachability computation but MUST be used as
       terminal nodes with prefixes they advertise being reachable.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 83]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   3.  all the lower-level nodes are flooded the same disaggregated
       prefixes since RIFT does not build a South TIE per node which
       would complicate things unnecessarily.  The lower-level node that
       can compute a southbound route to the prefix will prefer it to
       the disaggregated route anyway based on route preference rules.

   4.  positively disaggregated prefixes do *not* have to propagate to
       lower levels.  With that the disturbance in terms of new flooding
       is contained to a single level experiencing failures.

   5.  disaggregated Prefix South TIEs are not "reflected" by the lower
       level.  Nodes within same level do *not* need to be aware which
       node computed the need for disaggregation.

   6.  The fabric is still supporting maximum load balancing properties
       while not trying to send traffic northbound unless necessary.

   In case positive disaggregation is triggered and due to the very
   stable but un-synchronized nature of the algorithm the nodes may
   issue the necessary disaggregated prefixes at different points in
   time.  This can lead for a short time to an "incast" behavior where
   the first advertising router based on the nature of longest prefix
   match will attract all the traffic.  Different implementation
   strategies can be used to lessen that effect, but those are outside
   the scope of this specification.

   It is worth observing that, in a single plane ToF, this
   disaggregation prevents traffic loss up to (K_LEAF * P) link failures
   in terms of Section 5.2 or, in other terms, it takes at minimum that
   many link failures to partition the ToF into multiple planes.

6.5.2.  Negative, Transitive Disaggregation for Fallen Leaves

   As explained in Section 5.3 failures in multi-plane ToF or more than
   (K_LEAF * P) links failing in single plane design can generate fallen
   leaves.  Such scenario cannot be addressed by positive disaggregation
   only and needs a further mechanism.

6.5.2.1.  Cabling of Multiple ToF Planes

   Returning in this section to designs with multiple planes as shown
   originally in Figure 3, Figure 18 highlights how the ToF is cabled in
   case of two planes by the means of dual-rings to distribute all the
   North TIEs within both planes.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 84]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

  ____________________________________________________________________________
  | [Plane A]    .  [Plane B]       .  [Plane C]     .  [Plane D]            |
  |..........................................................................|
  |      +-------------------------------------------------------------+     |
  |      | +---+ .           +---+  .          +---+ .           +---+ |     |
  |      +-+ n +-------------+ n +-------------+ n +-------------+ n +-+     |
  |        +--++ .           +-+++  .          +-+++ .           +--++       |
  |           || .             ||   .            ||  .              ||       |
  | +---------||---------------||----------------||---------------+ ||       |
  | | +---+   || .      +---+  ||   .     +---+  ||  .      +---+ | ||       |
  | +-+ 1 +---||--------+ 1 +--||---------+ 1 +--||---------+ 1 +-+ ||       |
  |   +--++   || .      +-+++  ||   .     +-+++  ||  .      +-+++   ||       |
  |      ||   || .        ||   ||   .       ||   ||  .        ||    ||       |
  |      ||   || .        ||   ||   .       ||   ||  .        ||    ||       |

              Figure 18: Topologically Connected Planes

   Section 5.3 already describes how failures in multi-plane fabrics can
   lead to traffic loss that normal positive disaggregation cannot fix.
   The mechanism of negative, transitive disaggregation incorporated in
   RIFT provides the corresponding solution and next section explains
   the involved mechanisms in more detail.

6.5.2.2.  Transitive Advertisement of Negative Disaggregates

   A ToF node discovering that it cannot reach a fallen leaf SHOULD
   disaggregate all the prefixes of that leaf.  It uses for that purpose
   negative prefix South TIEs that are, as usual, flooded southwards
   with the scope defined in Section 6.3.4.

   Transitively, a node explicitly loses connectivity to a prefix when
   none of its children advertises it and when the prefix is negatively
   disaggregated by all of its parents.  When that happens, the node
   originates the negative prefix further down south.  Since the
   mechanism applies recursively south the negative prefix may propagate
   transitively all the way down to the leaf.  This is necessary since
   leaves connected to multiple planes by means of disjointed paths may
   have to choose the correct plane at the very bottom of the fabric to
   make sure that they don't send traffic towards another leaf using a
   plane where it is "fallen" which would make traffic loss unavoidable.

   When connectivity is restored, a node that disaggregated a prefix
   withdraws the negative disaggregation by the usual mechanism of re-
   advertising TIEs omitting the negative prefix.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 85]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.5.2.3.  Computation of Negative Disaggregates

   Negative prefixes can in fact be advertised due to two different
   triggers.  This will be described consecutively.

   The first origination reason is a computation that uses all the node
   North TIEs to build the set of all reachable nodes by reachability
   computation over the complete graph and including horizontal ToF
   links.  The computation uses the node itself as root.  This is
   compared with the result of the normal southbound SPF as described in
   Section 6.4.2.  The difference are the fallen leaves and all their
   attached prefixes are advertised as negative prefixes southbound if
   the node does not consider the prefix to be reachable within the
   southbound SPF.

   The second origination reason hinges on the understanding how the
   negative prefixes are used within the computation as described in
   Figure 19.  When attaching the negative prefixes at a certain point
   in time the negative prefix may find itself with all the viable nodes
   from the shorter match nexthop being pruned.  In other words, all its
   northbound neighbors provided a negative prefix advertisement.  This
   is the trigger to advertise this negative prefix transitively south
   and is normally caused by the node being in a plane where the prefix
   belongs to a fabric leaf that has "fallen" in this plane.  Obviously,
   when one of the northbound switches withdraws its negative
   advertisement, the node has to withdraw its transitively provided
   negative prefix as well.

6.6.  Attaching Prefixes

   After an SPF is run, it is necessary to attach the resulting
   reachability information in form of prefixes.  For S-SPF, prefixes
   from a North TIE are attached to the originating node with that
   node's next-hop set and a distance equal to the prefix's cost plus
   the node's minimized path distance.  The RIFT route database, a set
   of (prefix, prefix-type, attributes, path_distance, next-hop set),
   accumulates these results.

   N-SPF prefixes from each South TIE need to also be added to the RIFT
   route database.  The N-SPF is really just a stub so the computing
   node needs simply to determine, for each prefix in an South TIE that
   originated from adjacent node, what next-hops to use to reach that
   node.  Since there may be parallel links, the next-hops to use can be
   a set; presence of the computing node in the associated Node South
   TIE is sufficient to verify that at least one link has bidirectional
   connectivity.  The set of minimum cost next-hops from the computing
   node X to the originating adjacent node is determined.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 86]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Each prefix has its cost adjusted before being added into the RIFT
   route database.  The cost of the prefix is set to the cost received
   plus the cost of the minimum distance next-hop to that neighbor while
   considering its attributes such as mobility per Section 6.8.4.  Then
   each prefix can be added into the RIFT route database with the next-
   hop set; ties are broken based upon type first and then distance and
   further on _PrefixAttributes_. Only the best combination is used for
   forwarding.  RIFT route preferences are normalized by the enum
   _RouteType_ in Thrift [thrift] model given in Section 7.

   An example implementation for node X follows:

      for each South TIE
         if South TIE.level > X.level
            next_hop_set = set of minimum cost links to the
                South TIE.originator
            next_hop_cost = minimum cost link to
                South TIE.originator
            end if
         for each prefix P in the South TIE
            P.cost = P.cost + next_hop_cost
            if P not in route_database:
              add (P, P.cost, P.type,
                   P.attributes, next_hop_set) to route_database
              end if
            if (P in route_database):
              if route_database[P].cost > P.cost or
                    route_database[P].type > P.type:
                update route_database[P] with (P, P.type, P.cost,
                                               P.attributes,
                                               next_hop_set)
              else if route_database[P].cost == P.cost and
                    route_database[P].type == P.type:
                update route_database[P] with (P, P.type,
                                               P.cost, P.attributes,
                   merge(next_hop_set, route_database[P].next_hop_set))
              else
                // Not preferred route so ignore
                end if
              end if
            end for
         end for

       Figure 19: Adding Routes from South TIE Positive and Negative
                                  Prefixes

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 87]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   After the positive prefixes are attached and tie-broken, negative
   prefixes are attached and used in case of northbound computation,
   ideally from the shortest length to the longest.  The nexthop
   adjacencies for a negative prefix are inherited from the longest
   positive prefix that aggregates it, and subsequently adjacencies to
   nodes that advertised negative for this prefix are removed.

   The rule of inheritance MUST be maintained when the nexthop list for
   a prefix is modified, as the modification may affect the entries for
   matching negative prefixes of immediate longer prefix length.  For
   instance, if a nexthop is added, then by inheritance it must be added
   to all the negative routes of immediate longer prefixes length unless
   it is pruned due to a negative advertisement for the same next hop.
   Similarly, if a nexthop is deleted for a given prefix, then it is
   deleted for all the immediately aggregated negative routes.  This
   will recurse in the case of nested negative prefix aggregations.

   The rule of inheritance MUST also be maintained when a new prefix of
   intermediate length is inserted, or when the immediately aggregating
   prefix is deleted from the routing table, making an even shorter
   aggregating prefix the one from which the negative routes now inherit
   their adjacencies.  As the aggregating prefix changes, all the
   negative routes MUST be recomputed, and then again the process may
   recurse in case of nested negative prefix aggregations.

   Although these operations can be computationally expensive, the
   overall load on devices in the network is low because these
   computations are not run very often, as positive route advertisements
   are always preferred over negative ones.  This prevents recursion in
   most cases because positive reachability information never inherits
   next hops.

   To make the negative disaggregation less abstract and provide an
   example ToP node T1 with 4 ToF parents S1..S4 as represented in
   Figure 20 are considered further:

                    +----+    +----+    +----+    +----+          N
                    | S1 |    | S2 |    | S3 |    | S4 |          ^
                    +----+    +----+    +----+    +----+       W< + >E
                     |         |         |         |              v
                     |+--------+         |         |              S
                     ||+-----------------+         |
                     |||+----------------+---------+
                     ||||
                    +----+
                    | T1 |
                    +----+

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 88]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                    Figure 20: A ToP Node with 4 Parents

   If all ToF nodes can reach all the prefixes in the network; with
   RIFT, they will normally advertise a default route south.  An
   abstract Routing Information Base (RIB), more commonly known as a
   routing table, stores all types of maintained routes including the
   negative ones and "tie-breaks" for the best one, whereas an abstract
   Forwarding table (FIB) retains only the ultimately computed
   "positive" routing instructions.  In T1, those tables would look as
   illustrated in Figure 21:

                                   +---------+
                                   | Default |
                                   +---------+
                                        |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        +---> | Via S1 |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        +---> | Via S2 |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        +---> | Via S3 |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        |
                                        |     +--------+
                                        +---> | Via S4 |
                                              +--------+

                          Figure 21: Abstract RIB

   In case T1 receives a negative advertisement for prefix 2001:db8::/32
   from S1 a negative route is stored in the RIB (indicated by a ~
   sign), while the more specific routes to the complementing ToF nodes
   are installed in FIB.  RIB and FIB in T1 now look as illustrated in
   Figure 22 and Figure 23, respectively:

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 89]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

           +---------+                 +-----------------+
           | Default | <-------------- | ~2001:db8::/32  |
           +---------+                 +-----------------+
                |                               |
                |     +--------+                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S1 |                +---> | Via S1 |
                |     +--------+                      +--------+
                |
                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S2 |
                |     +--------+
                |
                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S3 |
                |     +--------+
                |
                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S4 |
                      +--------+

        Figure 22: Abstract RIB after Negative 2001:db8::/32 from S1

   The negative 2001:db8::/32 prefix entry inherits from ::/0, so the
   positive more specific routes are the complements to S1 in the set of
   next-hops for the default route.  That entry is composed of S2, S3,
   and S4, or, in other words, it uses all entries in the default route
   with a "hole punched" for S1 into them.  These are the next hops that
   are still available to reach 2001:db8::/32, now that S1 advertised
   that it will not forward 2001:db8::/32 anymore.  Ultimately, those
   resulting next-hops are installed in FIB for the more specific route
   to 2001:db8::/32 as illustrated below:

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 90]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

           +---------+                  +---------------+
           | Default |                  | 2001:db8::/32 |
           +---------+                  +---------------+
                |                               |
                |     +--------+                |
                +---> | Via S1 |                |
                |     +--------+                |
                |                               |
                |     +--------+                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S2 |                +---> | Via S2 |
                |     +--------+                |     +--------+
                |                               |
                |     +--------+                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S3 |                +---> | Via S3 |
                |     +--------+                |     +--------+
                |                               |
                |     +--------+                |     +--------+
                +---> | Via S4 |                +---> | Via S4 |
                      +--------+                      +--------+

        Figure 23: Abstract FIB after Negative 2001:db8::/32 from S1

   To illustrate matters further consider T1 receiving a negative
   advertisement for prefix 2001:db8:1::/48 from S2, which is stored in
   RIB again.  After the update, the RIB in T1 is illustrated in
   Figure 24:

 +---------+        +----------------+         +------------------+
 | Default | <----- | ~2001:db8::/32 | <------ | ~2001:db8:1::/48 |
 +---------+        +----------------+         +------------------+
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |
      +---> | Via S1 |      +---> | Via S1 |            |
      |     +--------+            +--------+            |
      |                                                 |
      |     +--------+                                  |     +--------+
      +---> | Via S2 |                                  +---> | Via S2 |
      |     +--------+                                        +--------+
      |
      |     +--------+
      +---> | Via S3 |
      |     +--------+
      |
      |     +--------+
      +---> | Via S4 |
            +--------+

    Figure 24: Abstract RIB after Negative 2001:db8:1::/48 from S2

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 91]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Negative 2001:db8:1::/48 inherits from 2001:db8::/32 now, so the
   positive more specific routes are the complements to S2 in the set of
   next hops for 2001:db8::/32, which are S3 and S4, or, in other words,
   all entries of the parent with the negative holes "punched in" again.
   After the update, the FIB in T1 shows as illustrated in Figure 25:

 +---------+         +---------------+         +-----------------+
 | Default |         | 2001:db8::/32 |         | 2001:db8:1::/48 |
 +---------+         +---------------+         +-----------------+
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |                           |
      +---> | Via S1 |      |                           |
      |     +--------+      |                           |
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |
      +---> | Via S2 |      +---> | Via S2 |            |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |     +--------+
      +---> | Via S3 |      +---> | Via S3 |            +---> | Via S3 |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |     +--------+
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |     +--------+
      +---> | Via S4 |      +---> | Via S4 |            +---> | Via S4 |
            +--------+            +--------+                  +--------+

    Figure 25: Abstract FIB after Negative 2001:db8:1::/48 from S2

   Further, assume that S3 stops advertising its service as default
   gateway.  The entry is removed from RIB as usual.  In order to update
   the FIB, it is necessary to eliminate the FIB entry for the default
   route, as well as all the FIB entries that were created for negative
   routes pointing to the RIB entry being removed (::/0).  This is done
   recursively for 2001:db8::/32 and then for, 2001:db8:1::/48.  The
   related FIB entries via S3 are removed, as illustrated in Figure 26.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 92]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

 +---------+         +---------------+         +-----------------+
 | Default |         | 2001:db8::/32 |         | 2001:db8:1::/48 |
 +---------+         +---------------+         +-----------------+
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |                           |
      +---> | Via S1 |      |                           |
      |     +--------+      |                           |
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |
      +---> | Via S2 |      +---> | Via S2 |            |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |
      |                     |                           |
      |                     |                           |
      |                     |                           |
      |                     |                           |
      |                     |                           |
      |     +--------+      |     +--------+            |     +--------+
      +---> | Via S4 |      +---> | Via S4 |            +---> | Via S4 |
            +--------+            +--------+                  +--------+

               Figure 26: Abstract FIB after Loss of S3

   Say that at that time, S4 would also disaggregate prefix
   2001:db8:1::/48.  This would mean that the FIB entry for
   2001:db8:1::/48 becomes a discard route, and that would be the signal
   for T1 to disaggregate prefix 2001:db8:1::/48 negatively in a
   transitive fashion with its own children.

   Finally, the case occurs where S3 becomes available again as a
   default gateway, and a negative advertisement is received from S4
   about prefix 2001:db8:2::/48 as opposed to 2001:db8:1::/48.  Again, a
   negative route is stored in the RIB, and the more specific route to
   the complementing ToF nodes are installed in FIB.  Since
   2001:db8:2::/48 inherits from 2001:db8::/32, the positive FIB routes
   are chosen by removing S4 from S2, S3, S4.  The abstract FIB in T1
   now shows as illustrated in Figure 27:

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 93]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                                                +-----------------+
                                                | 2001:db8:2::/48 |
                                                +-----------------+
                                                        |
  +---------+       +---------------+    +-----------------+
  | Default |       | 2001:db8::/32 |    | 2001:db8:1::/48 |
  +---------+       +---------------+    +-----------------+
       |                    |                    |      |
       |     +--------+     |                    |      |     +--------+
       +---> | Via S1 |     |                    |      +---> | Via S2 |
       |     +--------+     |                    |      |     +--------+
       |                    |                    |      |
       |     +--------+     |     +--------+     |      |     +--------+
       +---> | Via S2 |     +---> | Via S2 |     |      +---> | Via S3 |
       |     +--------+     |     +--------+     |            +--------+
       |                    |                    |
       |     +--------+     |     +--------+     |     +--------+
       +---> | Via S3 |     +---> | Via S3 |     +---> | Via S3 |
       |     +--------+     |     +--------+     |     +--------+
       |                    |                    |
       |     +--------+     |     +--------+     |     +--------+
       +---> | Via S4 |     +---> | Via S4 |     +---> | Via S4 |
             +--------+            +--------+          +--------+

     Figure 27: Abstract FIB after Negative 2001:db8:2::/48 from S4

6.7.  Optional Zero Touch Provisioning (RIFT ZTP)

   Each RIFT node can operate in zero touch provisioning (ZTP) mode,
   i.e. it has no RIFT specific configuration (unless it is a ToF or it
   is explicitly configured to operate in the overall topology as leaf
   and/or support leaf-2-leaf procedures) and it will fully
   automatically derive necessary RIFT parameters itself after being
   attached to the topology.  Manually configured nodes and nodes
   operating using RIFT ZTP can be mixed freely and will form a valid
   topology if achievable.

   The derivation of the level of each node happens based on offers
   received from its neighbors whereas each node (with possibly
   exceptions of configured leaves) tries to attach at the highest
   possible point in the fabric.  This guarantees that even if the
   diffusion front of offers reaches a node from "below" faster than
   from "above", it will greedily abandon already negotiated level
   derived from nodes topologically below it and properly peer with
   nodes above.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 94]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The fabric is very consciously numbered from the top down to allow
   for PoDs of different heights and to minimize the number of
   configuration necessary, in this case just a TOP_OF_FABRIC flag on
   every node at the top of the fabric.

   This section describes the necessary concepts and procedures of RIFT
   ZTP operation.

6.7.1.  Terminology

   The interdependencies between the different flags and the configured
   level can be somewhat vexing at first and it may take multiple reads
   of the glossary to comprehend them.

   Automatic Level Derivation:
      Procedures which allow nodes without level configured to derive it
      automatically.  Only applied if CONFIGURED_LEVEL is undefined.

   UNDEFINED_LEVEL:
      A "null" value that indicates that the level has not been
      determined and has not been configured.  Schemas normally indicate
      that by a missing optional value without an available defined
      default.

   LEAF_ONLY:
      An optional configuration flag that can be configured on a node to
      make sure it never leaves the "bottom of the hierarchy".
      TOP_OF_FABRIC flag and CONFIGURED_LEVEL cannot be defined at the
      same time as this flag.  It implies CONFIGURED_LEVEL value of
      _leaf_level_. It is indicated in the _leaf_only_ schema element.

   TOP_OF_FABRIC:
      A configuration flag that MUST be provided on all ToF nodes.
      LEAF_FLAG and CONFIGURED_LEVEL cannot be defined at the same time
      as this flag.  It implies a CONFIGURED_LEVEL value.  In fact, it
      is basically a shortcut for configuring same level at all ToF
      nodes which is unavoidable since an initial 'seed' is needed for
      other ZTP nodes to derive their level in the topology.  The flag
      plays an important role in fabrics with multiple planes to enable
      successful negative disaggregation (Section 6.5.2).  It is carried
      in the _top_of_fabric_ schema element.  A standards conform RIFT
      implementation implies a CONFIGURED_LEVEL value of
      _top_of_fabric_level_ in case of TOP_OF_FABRIC.  This value is
      kept reasonably low to allow for fast ZTP re-convergence on
      failures.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 95]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   CONFIGURED_LEVEL:
      A level value provided manually.  When this is defined (i.e. it is
      not an UNDEFINED_LEVEL) the node is not participating in ZTP in
      the sense of deriving its own level based on other nodes'
      information.  TOP_OF_FABRIC flag is ignored when this value is
      defined.  LEAF_ONLY can be set only if this value is undefined or
      set to _leaf_level_.

   DERIVED_LEVEL:
      Level value computed via automatic level derivation when
      CONFIGURED_LEVEL is equal to UNDEFINED_LEVEL.

   LEAF_2_LEAF:
      An optional flag that can be configured on a node to make sure it
      supports procedures defined in Section 6.8.9.  It is a capability
      that implies LEAF_ONLY and the corresponding restrictions.
      TOP_OF_FABRIC flag is ignored when set at the same time as this
      flag.  It is carried in the _leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures_
      schema flag.

   LEVEL_VALUE:
      With ZTP, the original definition of "level" in Section 3.1 is
      both extended and relaxed.  First, level is defined now as
      LEVEL_VALUE and is the first defined value of CONFIGURED_LEVEL
      followed by DERIVED_LEVEL.  Second, it is possible for nodes to be
      more than one level apart to form adjacencies if any of the nodes
      is at least LEAF_ONLY.

   Valid Offered Level (VOL):
      A neighbor's level received in a valid LIE (i.e. passing all
      checks for adjacency formation while disregarding all clauses
      involving level values) persisting for the duration of the
      holdtime interval on the LIE.  Observe that offers from nodes
      offering level value of _leaf_level_ do not constitute VOLs (since
      no valid DERIVED_LEVEL can be obtained from those and consequently
      _not_a_ztp_offer_ flag MUST be ignored).  Offers from LIEs with
      _not_a_ztp_offer_ being true are not VOLs either.  If a node
      maintains parallel adjacencies to the neighbor, VOL on each
      adjacency is considered as equivalent, i.e. the newest VOL from
      any such adjacency updates the VOL received from the same node.

   Highest Available Level (HAL):
      Highest defined level value received from all VOLs received.

   Highest Available Level Systems (HALS):
      Set of nodes offering HAL VOLs.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 96]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Highest Adjacency ThreeWay (HAT):
      Highest neighbor level of all the formed _ThreeWay_ adjacencies
      for the node.

6.7.2.  Automatic System ID Selection

   RIFT nodes require a 64-bit System ID which SHOULD be derived as
   EUI-64 MA-L derive according to [EUI64].  The organizationally
   governed portion of this ID (24 bits) can be used to generate
   multiple IDs if required to indicate more than one RIFT instance.

   As matter of operational concern, the router MUST ensure that such
   identifier is not changing very frequently (or at least not without
   sending all its TIEs with fairly short lifetimes, i.e. purging them)
   since otherwise the network may be left with large amounts of stale
   TIEs in other nodes (though this is not necessarily a serious problem
   if the procedures described in Section 9 are implemented).

6.7.3.  Generic Fabric Example

   ZTP forces considerations of an incorrectly or unusually cabled
   fabric and how such a topology can be forced into a "lattice"
   structure which a fabric represents (with further restrictions).  A
   necessary and sufficient physical cabling is shown in Figure 28.  The
   assumption here is that all nodes are in the same PoD.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 97]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                  +---+
                  | A |                      s   = TOP_OF_FABRIC
                  | s |                      L   = LEAF_ONLY
                  ++-++                      L2L = LEAF_2_LEAF
                   | |
                +--+ +--+
                |       |
             +--++     ++--+
             | E |     | F |
             |   +-+   |   +-----------+
             ++--+ |   ++-++           |
              |    |    | |            |
              | +-------+ |            |
              | |  |      |            |
              | |  +----+ |            |
              | |       | |            |
             ++-++     ++-++           |
             | I +-----+ J |           |
             |   |     |   +-+         |
             ++-++     +--++ |         |
              | |         |  |         |
              +---------+ |  +------+  |
                |       | |         |  |
                +-----------------+ |  |
                        | |       | |  |
                       ++-++     ++-++ |
                       | X +-----+ Y +-+
                       |L2L|     | L |
                       +---+     +---+

               Figure 28: Generic ZTP Cabling Considerations

   First, RIFT must anchor the "top" of the cabling and that's what the
   TOP_OF_FABRIC flag at node A is for.  Then things look smooth until
   the protocol has to decide whether node Y is at the same level as I,
   J (and as consequence, X is south of it) or at the same level as X.
   This is unresolvable here until we "nail down the bottom" of the
   topology.  To achieve that the protocol chooses to use in this
   example the leaf flags in X and Y.  In case where Y would not have a
   leaf flag it will try to elect highest level offered and end up being
   in same level as I and J.

6.7.4.  Level Determination Procedure

   A node starting up with UNDEFINED_VALUE (i.e. without a
   CONFIGURED_LEVEL or any leaf or TOP_OF_FABRIC flag) MUST follow those
   additional procedures:

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 98]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   1.  It advertises its LEVEL_VALUE on all LIEs (observe that this can
       be UNDEFINED_LEVEL which in terms of the schema is simply an
       omitted optional value).

   2.  It computes HAL as numerically highest available level in all
       VOLs.

   3.  It chooses then MAX(HAL-1,0) as its DERIVED_LEVEL.  The node then
       starts to advertise this derived level.

   4.  A node that lost all adjacencies with HAL value MUST hold down
       computation of new DERIVED_LEVEL for at least one second unless
       it has no VOLs from southbound adjacencies.  After the holddown
       timer expired, it MUST discard all received offers, recompute
       DERIVED_LEVEL and announce it to all neighbors.

   5.  A node MUST reset any adjacency that has changed the level it is
       offering and is in _ThreeWay_ state.

   6.  A node that changed its defined level value MUST readvertise its
       own TIEs (since the new _PacketHeader_ will contain a different
       level than before).  The sequence number of each TIE MUST be
       increased.

   7.  After a level has been derived the node MUST set the
       _not_a_ztp_offer_ on LIEs towards all systems offering a VOL for
       HAL.

   8.  A node that changed its level SHOULD flush from its link state
       database TIEs of all other nodes, otherwise stale information may
       persist on "direction reversal", i.e., nodes that seemed south
       are now north or east-west.  This will not prevent the correct
       operation of the protocol but could be slightly confusing
       operationally.

   A node starting with LEVEL_VALUE being 0 (i.e., it assumes a leaf
   function by being configured with the appropriate flags or has a
   CONFIGURED_LEVEL of 0) MUST follow those additional procedures:

   1.  It computes HAT per procedures above but does *not* use it to
       compute DERIVED_LEVEL.  HAT is used to limit adjacency formation
       per Section 6.2.

   It MAY also follow modified procedures:

   1.  It may pick a different strategy to choose VOL, e.g.  use the VOL
       value with highest number of VOLs.  Such strategies are only
       possible since the node always remains "at the bottom of the

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024               [Page 99]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

       fabric" while another layer could "invert" the fabric by picking
       its preferred VOL in a different fashion than always trying to
       achieve the highest viable level.

6.7.5.  RIFT ZTP FSM

   This section specifies the precise, normative ZTP FSM and can be
   omitted unless the reader is pursuing an implementation of the
   protocol.  For additional clarity a graphical representation of the
   ZTP FSM is depicted in Figure 29.  It may also be helpful to refer to
   the normative schema in Section 7.

   Initial state is ComputeBestOffer.

         Enter
           |
           v
       +------------------+
       | ComputeBestOffer |
       |                  |<----+
       |                  |     | BetterHAL
       |                  |     | BetterHAT
       |                  |     | ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel
       |                  |     | ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications
       |                  |     | LostHAT
       |                  |     | NeighborOffer
       |                  |     | ShortTic
       |                  |-----+
       |                  |
       |                  |<---------------------
       |                  |---------------------> (UpdatingClients)
       |                  | ComputationDone
       +------------------+
           ^   |
           |   | LostHAL
           |   V
       (HoldingDown)

       (ComputeBestOffer)
           |   ^
           |   | ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel
           |   | ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications
           |   | HoldDownExpired
           V   |
       +------------------+
       | HoldingDown      |
       |                  |<----+
       |                  |     | BetterHAL

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 100]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

       |                  |     | BetterHAT
       |                  |     | ComputationDone
       |                  |     | LostHAL
       |                  |     | LostHat
       |                  |     | NeighborOffer
       |                  |     | ShortTic
       |                  |-----+
       +------------------+
           ^
           |
         (UpdatingClients)

       (ComputeBestOffer)
           |   ^
           |   | BetterHAL
           |   | BetterHAT
           |   | LostHAT
           |   | ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications
           |   | ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel
           V   |
       +------------------+
       | UpdatingClients  |
       |                  |<----+
       |                  |     |
       |                  |     | NeighborOffer
       |                  |     | ShortTic
       |                  |-----+
       +------------------+
           |
           | LostHAL
           V
       (HoldingDown)

                          Figure 29: RIFT ZTP FSM

   The following words are used for well-known procedures:

   *  PUSH Event: queues an event to be executed by the FSM upon exit of
      this action

   *  COMPARE_OFFERS: checks whether based on current offers and held
      last results, the events BetterHAL/LostHAL/BetterHAT/LostHAT are
      necessary and returns them

   *  UPDATE_OFFER: store current offer with adjacency holdtime as
      lifetime and COMPARE_OFFERS, then PUSH corresponding events

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 101]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  LEVEL_COMPUTE: compute best offered or configured level and HAL/
      HAT, if anything changed PUSH ComputationDone

   *  REMOVE_OFFER: remove the corresponding offer and COMPARE_OFFERS,
      PUSH corresponding events

   *  PURGE_OFFERS: REMOVE_OFFER for all held offers, COMPARE OFFERS,
      PUSH corresponding events

   *  PROCESS_OFFER:

      1.  if no level offered then REMOVE_OFFER

      2.  else

          1.  if offered level > leaf then UPDATE_OFFER

          2.  else REMOVE_OFFER

   States:

   *  ComputeBestOffer: processes received offers to derive ZTP
      variables

   *  HoldingDown: holding down while receiving updates

   *  UpdatingClients: updates other FSMs on the same node with
      computation results

   Events:

   *  ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications: node locally configured with new
      leaf flags.

   *  ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel: node locally configured with a defined
      level

   *  NeighborOffer: a new neighbor offer with optional level and
      neighbor state.

   *  BetterHAL: better HAL computed internally.

   *  BetterHAT: better HAT computed internally.

   *  LostHAL: lost last HAL in computation.

   *  LostHAT: lost HAT in computation.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 102]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  ComputationDone: computation performed.

   *  HoldDownExpired: holddown timer expired.

   *  ShortTic: one second timer tick.  This event is provided to the
      FSM once a second by an implementation-specific mechanism that is
      outside the scope of this specification.  This event is quietly
      ignored if the relevant transition does not exist.

   Actions:

   *  on ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel in HoldingDown finishes in
      ComputeBestOffer: store configured level

   *  on BetterHAT in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on ShortTic in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: remove expired
      offers and if holddown timer expired PUSH_EVENT HoldDownExpired

   *  on NeighborOffer in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown:
      PROCESS_OFFER

   *  on ComputationDone in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no
      action

   *  on BetterHAL in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on LostHAT in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on LostHAL in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on HoldDownExpired in HoldingDown finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      PURGE_OFFERS

   *  on ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications in HoldingDown finishes in
      ComputeBestOffer: store leaf flags

   *  on LostHAT in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      LEVEL_COMPUTE

   *  on NeighborOffer in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      PROCESS_OFFER

   *  on BetterHAT in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      LEVEL_COMPUTE

   *  on ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications in ComputeBestOffer finishes in
      ComputeBestOffer: store leaf flags and LEVEL_COMPUTE

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 103]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  on LostHAL in ComputeBestOffer finishes in HoldingDown: if any
      southbound adjacencies present then update holddown timer to
      normal duration else fire holddown timer immediately

   *  on ShortTic in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      remove expired offers

   *  on ComputationDone in ComputeBestOffer finishes in
      UpdatingClients: no action

   *  on ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel in ComputeBestOffer finishes in
      ComputeBestOffer: store configured level and LEVEL_COMPUTE

   *  on BetterHAL in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      LEVEL_COMPUTE

   *  on ShortTic in UpdatingClients finishes in UpdatingClients: remove
      expired offers

   *  on LostHAL in UpdatingClients finishes in HoldingDown: if any
      southbound adjacencies are present then update holddown timer to
      normal duration else fire holddown timer immediately

   *  on BetterHAT in UpdatingClients finishes in ComputeBestOffer: no
      action

   *  on BetterHAL in UpdatingClients finishes in ComputeBestOffer: no
      action

   *  on ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel in UpdatingClients finishes in
      ComputeBestOffer: store configured level

   *  on ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications in UpdatingClients finishes in
      ComputeBestOffer: store leaf flags

   *  on NeighborOffer in UpdatingClients finishes in UpdatingClients:
      PROCESS_OFFER

   *  on LostHAT in UpdatingClients finishes in ComputeBestOffer: no
      action

   *  on Entry into ComputeBestOffer: LEVEL_COMPUTE

   *  on Entry into UpdatingClients: update all LIE FSMs with
      computation results

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 104]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.7.6.  Resulting Topologies

   The procedures defined in Section 6.7.4 will lead to the RIFT
   topology and levels depicted in Figure 30.

                              +---+
                              | A |
                              | 24|
                              ++-++
                               | |
                            +--+ +--+
                            |       |
                         +--++     ++--+
                         | E |     | F |
                         | 23+-+   | 23+-----------+
                         ++--+ |   ++-++           |
                          |    |    | |            |
                          | +-------+ |            |
                          | |  |      |            |
                          | |  +----+ |            |
                          | |       | |            |
                         ++-++     ++-++           |
                         | I +-----+ J |           |
                         | 22|     | 22|           |
                         ++--+     +--++           |
                          |           |            |
                          +---------+ |            |
                                    | |            |
                                   ++-++     +---+ |
                                   | X |     | Y +-+
                                   | 0 |     | 0 |
                                   +---+     +---+

               Figure 30: Generic ZTP Topology Autoconfigured

   In case where the LEAF_ONLY restriction on Y is removed the outcome
   would be very different however and result in Figure 31.  This
   demonstrates basically that auto configuration makes miscabling
   detection hard and with that can lead to undesirable effects in cases
   where leaves are not "nailed" by the appropriately configured flags
   and arbitrarily cabled.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 105]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                               +---+
                               | A |
                               | 24|
                               ++-++
                                | |
                             +--+ +--+
                             |       |
                          +--++     ++--+
                          | E |     | F |
                          | 23+-+   | 23+-------+
                          ++--+ |   ++-++       |
                           |    |    | |        |
                           | +-------+ |        |
                           | |  |      |        |
                           | |  +----+ |        |
                           | |       | |        |
                          ++-++     ++-++     +-+-+
                          | I +-----+ J +-----+ Y |
                          | 22|     | 22|     | 22|
                          ++-++     +--++     ++-++
                           | |         |       | |
                           | +-----------------+ |
                           |           |         |
                           +---------+ |         |
                                     | |         |
                                    ++-++        |
                                    | X +--------+
                                    | 0 |
                                    +---+

               Figure 31: Generic ZTP Topology Autoconfigured

6.8.  Further Mechanisms

6.8.1.  Route Preferences

   Since RIFT distinguishes between different route types such as e.g.
   external routes from other protocols and additionally advertises
   special types of routes on disaggregation, the protocol MUST tie-
   break internally different types on a clear preference scale to
   prevent traffic loss or loops.  The preferences are given in the
   schema type _RouteType_.

   Table Table 5 contains the route type as derived from the TIE type
   carrying it.  Entries are sorted from the most preferred route type
   to the least preferred route type.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 106]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

        +==================================+======================+
        | TIE Type                         | Resulting Route Type |
        +==================================+======================+
        | None                             | Discard              |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | Local Interface                  | LocalPrefix          |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | S-PGP                            | South PGP            |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | N-PGP                            | North PGP            |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | North Prefix                     | NorthPrefix          |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | North External Prefix            | NorthExternalPrefix  |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | South Prefix and South Positive  | SouthPrefix          |
        | Disaggregation                   |                      |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | South External Prefix and South  | SouthExternalPrefix  |
        | Positive External Disaggregation |                      |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+
        | South Negative Prefix            | NegativeSouthPrefix  |
        +----------------------------------+----------------------+

                  Table 5: TIEs and Contained Route Types

6.8.2.  Overload Bit

   Overload attribute is specified in the packet encoding schema
   (Section 7) in the _overload_ flag.

   The overload flag MUST be respected by all necessary SPF
   computations.  A node with the overload flag set SHOULD advertise all
   locally hosted prefixes both northbound and southbound, all other
   southbound prefixes SHOULD NOT be advertised.

   Leaf nodes SHOULD set the overload attribute on all originated Node
   TIEs.  If spine nodes were to forward traffic not intended for the
   local node, the leaf node would not be able to prevent routing/
   forwarding loops as it does not have the necessary topology
   information to do so.

6.8.3.  Optimized Route Computation on Leaves

   Leaf nodes only have visibility to directly connected nodes and
   therefore are not required to run "full" SPF computations.  Instead,
   prefixes from neighboring nodes can be gathered to run a "partial"
   SPF computation in order to build the routing table.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 107]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Leaf nodes SHOULD only hold their own N-TIEs, and in cases of L2L
   implementations, the N-TIEs of their East/West neighbors.  Leaf nodes
   MUST hold all S-TIEs from their neighbors.

   Normally, a full network graph is created based on local N-TIEs and
   remote S-TIEs that it receives from neighbors, at which time,
   necessary SPF computations are performed.  Instead, leaf nodes can
   simply compute the minimum cost and next-hop set of each leaf
   neighbor by examining its local adjacencies.  Associated N-TIEs are
   used to determine bi-directionality and derive the next-hop set.
   Cost is then derived from the minimum cost of the local adjacency to
   the neighbor and the prefix cost.

   Leaf nodes would then attach necessary prefixes as described in
   Section 6.6.

6.8.4.  Mobility

   The RIFT control plane MUST maintain the real time status of every
   prefix, to which port it is attached, and to which leaf node that
   port belongs.  This is still true in cases of IP mobility where the
   point of attachment may change several times a second.

   There are two classic approaches to explicitly maintain this
   information, "timestamp" and "sequence counter" as follows:

   timestamp:
      With this method, the infrastructure SHOULD record the precise
      time at which the movement is observed.  One key advantage of this
      technique is that it has no dependency on the mobile device.  One
      drawback is that the infrastructure MUST be precisely synchronized
      in order to be able to compare timestamps as the points of
      attachment change.  This could be accomplished by utilizing
      Precision Time Protocol (PTP) IEEE Std. 1588 [IEEEstd1588] or
      802.1AS [IEEEstd8021AS] which is designed for bridged LANs.  Both
      the precision of the synchronization protocol and the resolution
      of the timestamp must beat the shortest possible roaming time on
      the fabric.  Another drawback is that the presence of a mobile
      device may only be observed asynchronously, such as when it starts
      using an IP protocol like ARP [RFC0826], IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
      [RFC4861], IPv6 Stateless Address Configuration [RFC4862], DHCP
      [RFC2131], or DHCPv6 [RFC8415].

   sequence counter:
      With this method, a mobile device notifies its point of attachment
      on arrival with a sequence counter that is incremented upon each
      movement.  On the positive side, this method does not have a
      dependency on a precise sense of time, since the sequence of

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 108]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      movements is kept in order by the mobile device.  The disadvantage
      of this approach is the need for support for protocols that may be
      used by the mobile device to register its presence to the leaf
      node with the capability to provide a sequence counter.  Well-
      known issues with sequence counters such as wrapping and
      comparison rules MUST be addressed properly.  Sequence numbers
      MUST be compared by a single homogenous source to make operation
      feasible.  Sequence number comparison from multiple heterogeneous
      sources would be extremely difficult to implement.

   RIFT supports a hybrid approach by using an optional
   'PrefixSequenceType' attribute (that is also called a
   _monotonic_clock_ in the schema) that consists of a timestamp and
   optional sequence number field.  In case of a negatively distributed
   prefix this attribute MUST NOT be included by the originator and it
   MUST be ignored by all nodes during computation.  When this attribute
   is present (observe that per data schema the attribute itself is
   optional but in case it is included the 'timestamp' field is
   required):

   *  The leaf node MAY advertise a timestamp of the latest sighting of
      a prefix, e.g., by snooping IP protocols or the node using the
      time at which it advertised the prefix.  RIFT transports the
      timestamp within the desired prefix North TIEs as [IEEEstd1588]
      timestamp.

   *  RIFT MAY interoperate with "Registration Extensions for 6LoWPAN
      Neighbor Discovery" [RFC8505], which provides a method for
      registering a prefix with a sequence number called a Transaction
      ID (TID).  In such cases, RIFT SHOULD transport the derived TID
      without modification.

   *  RIFT also defines an abstract negative clock (ASNC) (also called
      an 'undefined' clock).  The ASNC MUST be considered older than any
      other defined clock.  By default, when a node receives a prefix
      North TIE that does not contain a 'PrefixSequenceType' attribute,
      it MUST interpret the absence as the ASNC.

   *  Any prefix present on the fabric in multiple nodes that have the
      *same* clock is considered as anycast.

   *  RIFT specification assumes that all nodes are being synchronized
      within at least 200 milliseconds or less.  This is achievable
      through the use of NTP [RFC5905].  An implementation MAY provide a
      way to reconfigure a domain to a different value, and provides for
      this purpose a variable called MAXIMUM_CLOCK_DELTA.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 109]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.8.4.1.  Clock Comparison

   All monotonic clock values MUST be compared to each other using the
   following rules:

   1.  The ASNC is older than any other value except ASNC *and*

   2.  Clocks with timestamp differing by more than MAXIMUM_CLOCK_DELTA
       are comparable by using the timestamps only *and*

   3.  Clocks with timestamps differing by less than MAXIMUM_CLOCK_DELTA
       are comparable by using their TIDs only *and*

   4.  An undefined TID is always older than any other TID *and*

   5.  TIDs are compared using rules of [RFC8505].

6.8.4.2.  Interaction between Time Stamps and Sequence Counters

   For attachment changes that occur less frequently (e.g., once per
   second), the timestamp that the RIFT infrastructure captures should
   be enough to determine the most current discovery.  If the point of
   attachment changes faster than the maximum drift of the time stamping
   mechanism (i.e., MAXIMUM_CLOCK_DELTA), then a sequence number SHOULD
   be used to enable necessary precision to determine currency.

   The sequence counter in [RFC8505] is encoded as one octet and wraps
   around using Appendix A.

   Within the resolution of MAXIMUM_CLOCK_DELTA, sequence counter values
   captured during 2 sequential iterations of the same timestamp SHOULD
   be comparable.  This means that with default values, a node may move
   up to 127 times in a 200 millisecond period and the clocks will
   remain comparable.  This allows the RIFT infrastructure to explicitly
   assert the most up-to-date advertisement.

6.8.4.3.  Anycast vs. Unicast

   A unicast prefix can be attached to at most one leaf, whereas an
   anycast prefix may be reachable via more than one leaf.

   If a monotonic clock attribute is provided on the prefix, then the
   prefix with the *newest* clock value is strictly preferred.  An
   anycast prefix does not carry a clock or all clock attributes MUST be
   the same under the rules of Section 6.8.4.1.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 110]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   It is important that in mobility events the leaf is re-flooding as
   quickly as possible to communicate the absence of the prefix that
   moved.

   Without support for [RFC8505] movements on the fabric within
   intervals smaller than 100msec will be interpreted as anycast.

6.8.4.4.  Overlays and Signaling

   RIFT is agnostic to any overlay technologies and their associated
   control and transports that run on top of it (e.g.  VXLAN).  It is
   expected that leaf nodes and possibly ToF nodes can perform necessary
   data plane encapsulation.

   In the context of mobility, overlays provide another possible
   solution to avoid injecting mobile prefixes into the fabric as well
   as improving scalability of the deployment.  It makes sense to
   consider overlays for mobility solutions in IP fabrics.  As an
   example, a mobility protocol such as LISP [RFC9300] [RFC9301] may
   inform the ingress leaf of the location of the egress leaf in real
   time.

   Another possibility is to consider that mobility as an underlay
   service and support it in RIFT to an extent.  The load on the fabric
   increases with the amount of mobility obviously since a move forces
   flooding and computation on all nodes in the scope of the move so
   tunneling from leaf to the ToF may be desired to speed up convergence
   times.

6.8.5.  Key/Value (KV) Store

6.8.5.1.  Southbound

   RIFT supports the southbound distribution of key-value pairs that can
   be used to distribute information to facilitate higher levels of
   functionality (e.g. distribution of configuration information).  KV
   South TIEs may arrive from multiple nodes and therefore MUST execute
   the following tie-breaking rules for each key:

   1.  Only KV TIEs received from nodes to which a bi-directional
       adjacency exists MUST be considered.

   2.  For each valid KV South TIEs that contains the same key, the
       value within the South TIE with the highest level will be
       preferred.  If the levels are identical, the highest originating
       System ID will be preferred.  In the case of overlapping keys in
       the winning South TIE, the behavior is undefined.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 111]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Consider that if a node goes down, nodes south of it will lose
   associated adjacencies causing them to disregard corresponding KVs.
   New KV South TIEs are advertised to prevent stale information being
   used by nodes that are further south.  KV advertisements southbound
   are not a result of independent computation by every node over the
   same set of South TIEs, but a diffused computation.

6.8.5.2.  Northbound

   Certain use cases necessitate distribution of essential KV
   information that is generated by the leaves in the northbound
   direction.  Such information is flooded in KV North TIEs.  Since the
   originator of the KV North TIEs is preserved during flooding, the
   corresponding mechanism will define, if necessary, tie-breaking rules
   depending on the semantics of the information.

   Only KV TIEs from nodes that are reachable via multiplane
   reachability computation mentioned in Section 6.5.2.3 SHOULD be
   considered.

6.8.6.  Interactions with BFD

   RIFT MAY incorporate BFD [RFC5881] to react quickly to link failures.
   In such case, the following procedures are introduced:

      After RIFT _ThreeWay_ hello adjacency convergence a BFD session
      MAY be formed automatically between the RIFT endpoints without
      further configuration using the exchanged discriminators that are
      equal to the _local_id_ in the _LIEPacket_. The capability of the
      remote side to support BFD is carried in the LIEs in
      _LinkCapabilities_.

      In case an established BFD session goes Down after it was Up, RIFT
      adjacency SHOULD be re-initialized and subsequently started from
      Init after it receives a consecutive BFD Up.

      In case of parallel links between nodes each link MAY run its own
      independent BFD session or they MAY share a session.  The specific
      manner in which this is implemented is outside the scope of this
      document.

      If link identifiers or BFD capabilities change, both the LIE and
      any BFD sessions SHOULD be brought down and back up again.  In
      case only the advertised capabilities change, the node MAY choose
      to persist the BFD session.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 112]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      Multiple RIFT instances MAY choose to share a single BFD session,
      in such cases the behavior for which discriminators are used is
      undefined.  However, RIFT MAY advertise the same link ID for the
      same interface in multiple instances to "share" discriminators.

      The BFD TTL follows [RFC5082].

6.8.7.  Fabric Bandwidth Balancing

   A well understood problem in fabrics is that, in case of link
   failures, it would be ideal to rebalance how much traffic is sent to
   switches in the next level based on available ingress and egress
   bandwidth.

   RIFT supports a light-weight mechanism that can deal with the problem
   based on the fact that RIFT is loop-free.

6.8.7.1.  Northbound Direction

   Every RIFT node SHOULD compute the amount of northbound bandwidth
   available through neighbors at a higher level and modify the distance
   received on default route from these neighbors.  The bandwidth is
   advertised in _NodeNeighborsTIEElement_ element which represents the
   sum of the bandwidths of all the parallel links to a neighbor.
   Default routes with differing distances SHOULD be used to support
   weighted ECMP forwarding.  Such a distance is called Bandwidth
   Adjusted Distance (BAD).  This is best illustrated by a simple
   example.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 113]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                       100  x             100 100 MBits
                        |   x              |   |
                      +-+---+-+          +-+---+-+
                      |       |          |       |
                      |Spin111|          |Spin112|
                      +-+---+++          ++----+++
                        |x  ||           ||    ||
                        ||  |+---------------+ ||
                        ||  +---------------+| ||
                        ||               || || ||
                        ||               || || ||
                       -----All Links 10 MBit-------
                        ||               || || ||
                        ||               || || ||
                        ||  +------------+| || ||
                        ||  |+------------+ || ||
                        |x  ||              || ||
                      +-+---+++          +--++-+++
                      |       |          |       |
                      |Leaf111|          |Leaf112|
                      +-------+          +-------+

                       Figure 32: Balancing Bandwidth

   Figure 32 depicts an example topology where links between leaf and
   spine nodes are 10 MBit/s and links from spine nodes northbound are
   100 MBit/s.  It includes parallel link failure between Leaf 111 and
   Spine 111 and as a result, Leaf 111 wants to forward more traffic
   toward Spine 112.  Additionally, it includes as well an uplink
   failure on Spine 111.

   The local modification of the received default route distance from
   upper level is achieved by running a relatively simple algorithm
   where the bandwidth is weighted exponentially, while the distance on
   the default route represents a multiplier for the bandwidth weight
   for easy operational adjustments.

   On a node, L, use Node TIEs to compute from each non-overloaded
   northbound neighbor N to compute 3 values:

      L_N_u: sum of the bandwidth available from L to N (to account for
      parallel links)

      N_u: sum of the uplink bandwidth available on N

      T_N_u: L_N_u * OVERSUBSCRIPTION_CONSTANT + N_u

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 114]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   For all T_N_u determine the corresponding M_N_u as
   log_2(next_power_2(T_N_u)) and determine MAX_M_N_u as maximum value
   of all such M_N_u values.

   For each advertised default route from a node N modify the advertised
   distance D to BAD = D * (1 + MAX_M_N_u - M_N_u) and use BAD instead
   of distance D to weight balance default forwarding towards N.

   For the example above, a simple table of values will help in
   understanding of the concept.  The implicit assumption here is that
   all default route distances are advertised with D=1 and that
   OVERSUBSCRIPTION_CONSTANT = 1.

               +=========+===========+=======+=======+=====+
               | Node    | N         | T_N_u | M_N_u | BAD |
               +=========+===========+=======+=======+=====+
               | Leaf111 | Spine 111 | 110   | 7     | 2   |
               +---------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+
               | Leaf111 | Spine 112 | 220   | 8     | 1   |
               +---------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+
               | Leaf112 | Spine 111 | 120   | 7     | 2   |
               +---------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+
               | Leaf112 | Spine 112 | 220   | 8     | 1   |
               +---------+-----------+-------+-------+-----+

                          Table 6: BAD Computation

   If a calculation produces a result exceeding the range of the type,
   e.g. bandwidth, the result is set to the highest possible value for
   that type.

   BAD SHOULD only be computed for default routes.  A node MAY compute
   and use BAD for any disaggregated prefixes or other RIFT routes.  A
   node MAY use a different algorithm to weight northbound traffic based
   on bandwidth.  If a different algorithm is used, its successful
   behavior MUST NOT depend on uniformity of algorithm or
   synchronization of BAD computations across the fabric.  E.g. it is
   conceivable that leaves could use real time link loads gathered by
   analytics to change the amount of traffic assigned to each default
   route next hop.

   A change in available bandwidth will only affect, at most, two levels
   down in the fabric, i.e., the blast radius of bandwidth adjustments
   is constrained no matter the fabric's height.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 115]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.8.7.2.  Southbound Direction

   Due to its loop free nature, during South SPF, a node MAY account for
   maximum available bandwidth on nodes in lower levels and modify the
   amount of traffic offered to the next level's southbound nodes.  It
   is worth considering that such computations may be more effective if
   standardized, but do not have to be.  As long as a packet continues
   to flow southbound, it will take some viable, loop-free path to reach
   its destination.

6.8.8.  Label Binding

   A node MAY advertise in its LIEs, a locally significant, downstream
   assigned, interface specific label.  One use of such a label is a
   hop-by-hop encapsulation allowing forwarding planes to be easily
   distinguished among multiple RIFT instances.

6.8.9.  Leaf to Leaf Procedures

   RIFT implementations SHOULD support special East-West adjacencies
   between leaf nodes.  Leaf nodes supporting these procedures MUST:

      advertise the LEAF_2_LEAF flag in its node capabilities *and*

      set the overload flag on all leaf's Node TIEs *and*

      flood only a node's own north and south TIEs over E-W leaf
      adjacencies *and*

      always use E-W leaf adjacency in all SPF computations *and*

      install a discard route for any advertised aggregate routes in a
      leaf's TIE *and*

      never form southbound adjacencies.

   This will allow the E-W leaf nodes to exchange traffic strictly for
   the prefixes advertised in each other's north prefix TIEs since the
   southbound computation will find the reverse direction in the other
   node's TIE and install its north prefixes.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 116]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

6.8.10.  Address Family and Multi Topology Considerations

   Multi-Topology (MT)[RFC5120] and Multi-Instance (MI)[RFC8202]
   concepts are used today in link-state routing protocols to support
   several domains on the same physical topology.  RIFT supports this
   capability by carrying transport ports in the LIE protocol exchanges.
   Multiplexing of LIEs can be achieved by either choosing varying
   multicast addresses or ports on the same address.

   BFD interactions in Section 6.8.6 are implementation dependent when
   multiple RIFT instances run on the same link.

6.8.11.  One-Hop Healing of Levels with East-West Links

   Based on the rules defined in Section 6.4, Section 6.3.8 and given
   the presence of E-W links, RIFT can provide a one-hop protection for
   nodes that have lost all their northbound links.  This can also be
   applied to multi-plane designs where complex link set failures occur
   at the ToF when links are exclusively used for flooding topology
   information.  Appendix B.4 outlines this behavior.

6.9.  Security

6.9.1.  Security Model

   An inherent property of any security and ZTP architecture is the
   resulting trade-off in regard to integrity verification of the
   information distributed through the fabric vs. provisioning and auto-
   configuration requirements.  At a minimum the security of an
   established adjacency should be ensured.  The stricter the security
   model the more provisioning must take over the role of ZTP.

   RIFT supports the following security models to allow for flexible
   control by the operator.

   *  The most security conscious operators may choose to have control
      over which ports interconnect between a given pair of nodes, such
      a model is called the "Port-Association Model" (PAM).  This is
      achievable by configuring each pair of directly connected ports
      with a designated shared key or public/private key pair.

   *  In physically secure data center locations, operators may choose
      to control connectivity between entire nodes, called here the
      "Node-Association Model" (NAM).  A benefit of this model is that
      it allows for simplified port sparing.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 117]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   *  In the most relaxed environments, an operator may only choose to
      control which nodes join a particular fabric.  This is denoted as
      the "Fabric-Association Model" (FAM).  This is achievable by using
      a single shared secret across the entire fabric.  Such flexibility
      makes sense when servers are considered as leaf devices, as those
      are replaced more often than network nodes.  In addition, this
      model allows for simplified node sparing.

   *  These models may be mixed throughout the fabric depending upon
      security requirements at various levels of the fabric and
      willingness to accept increased provisioning complexity.

   In order to support the cases mentioned above, RIFT implementations
   supports, through operator control, mechanisms that allow for:

   a.  specification of the appropriate level in the fabric,

   b.  discovery and reporting of missing connections,

   c.  discovery and reporting of unexpected connections while
       preventing them from forming insecure adjacencies.

   Operators may only choose to configure the level of each node, but
   not explicitly configure which connections are allowed.  In this
   case, RIFT will only allow adjacencies to establish between nodes
   that are in adjacent levels.  Operators with the lowest security
   requirements may not use any configuration to specify which
   connections are allowed.  Nodes in such fabrics could rely fully on
   ZTP and only established adjacencies between nodes in adjacent
   levels.  Figure 33 illustrates inherent tradeoffs between the
   different security models.

   Some level of link quality verification may be required prior to an
   adjacency being used for forwarding.  For example, an implementation
   may require that a BFD session comes up before advertising the
   adjacency.

   For the cases outlined above, RIFT has two approaches to enforce that
   a local port is connected to the correct port on the correct remote
   node.  One approach is to piggy-back on RIFT's authentication
   mechanism.  Assuming the provisioning model (e.g.  YANG) is flexible
   enough, operators can choose to provision a unique authentication key
   for the following conceptual models:

   a.  each pair of ports in "port-association model" or

   b.  each pair of switches in "node-association model" or

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 118]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   c.  the entire fabric in "fabric-association model".

   The other approach is to rely on the System ID, port-id and level
   fields in the LIE message to validate an adjacency against the
   expected cabling topology, and optionally introduce some new rules in
   the FSM to allow the adjacency to come up if the expectations are
   met.

                   ^                 /\                  |
                  /|\               /  \                 |
                   |               /    \                |
                   |              / PAM  \               |
               Increasing        /        \          Increasing
               Integrity        +----------+         Flexibility
                   &           /    NAM     \            &
              Increasing      +--------------+         Less
              Provisioning   /      FAM       \     Configuration
                   |        /                  \         |
                   |       +--------------------+       \|/
                   |      /  Zero Configuration  \       v
                         +------------------------+

                         Figure 33: Security Model

6.9.2.  Security Mechanisms

   RIFT Security goals are to ensure:

   1.  authentication

   2.  message integrity

   3.  the prevention of replay attacks

   4.  low processing overhead

   5.  efficient messaging

   Message confidentiality is a non-goal.

   The model in the previous section allows a range of security key
   types that are analogous to the various security association models.
   PAM and NAM allow security associations at the port or node level
   using symmetric or asymmetric keys that are pre-installed.  FAM
   argues for security associations to be applied only at a group level
   or to be refined once the topology has been established.  RIFT does
   not specify how security keys are installed or updated, though it
   does specify how the key can be used to achieve security goals.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 119]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The protocol has provisions for "weak" nonces to prevent replay
   attacks and includes authentication mechanisms comparable to
   [RFC5709] and [RFC7987].

6.9.3.  Security Envelope

   A serialized schema _ProtocolPacket_ MUST be carried in a secure
   envelope illustrated in Figure 34.  The _ProtocolPacket_ MUST be
   serialized using the default Thrift's Binary Protocol.  Any value in
   the packet following a security fingerprint MUST be used by a
   receiver only after the appropriate fingerprint has been validated
   against the data covered by it and the advertised key bare exceptions
   arising from operational exigencies where, based on local
   configuration, a node MAY allow for the envelope's integrity checks
   to be skipped and behavior specified in Section 6.9.6.  This means
   that for all packets, in case the node is configured to validate the
   outer fingerprint, an invalid fingerprint will lead to packet
   rejection.  Further, in case of reception of a TIE, and the receiver
   being configured to validate the originator by checking the TIE
   Origin Security Envelope Header fingerprint, an invalid inner
   fingerprint will lead to the rejection of the packet.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 120]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

       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

      UDP Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Source Port         |       RIFT destination port   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Outer Security Envelope Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           RIFT MAGIC          |         Packet Number         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Reserved   |  RIFT Major   | Outer Key ID  | Fingerprint   |
      |               |    Version    |               |    Length     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~       Security Fingerprint covers all following content       ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Weak Nonce Local              | Weak Nonce Remote             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Remaining TIE Lifetime (all 1s in case of LIE)     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      TIE Origin Security Envelope Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              TIE Origin Key ID                |  Fingerprint  |
      |                                               |    Length     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~       Security Fingerprint covers all following content       ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Serialized RIFT Model Object
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                Serialized RIFT Model Object                   ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 34: Security Envelope

   RIFT MAGIC:
      16 bits.  Constant value of 0xA1F7 that allows easy classification
      of RIFT packets independent of the UDP port used.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 121]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Packet Number:
      16 bits.  An optional, per adjacency, per packet type number set
      using the sequence number arithmetic defined in Appendix A.  If
      the arithmetic in Appendix A is not used the node MUST set the
      value to _undefined_packet_number_. This number can be used to
      detect losses and misordering in flooding for either operational
      purposes or in implementation to adjust flooding behavior to
      current link or buffer quality.  This number MUST NOT be used to
      discard or validate the correctness of packets.  Packet numbers
      are incremented on each interface and within that for each type of
      packet independently.  This allows parallelizing packet generation
      and processing for different types within an implementation if so
      desired.

   RIFT Major Version:
      8 bits.  This value MUST be set to `protocol_major_version`
      defined in the schema and used to serialize the object contained.
      It allows checking whether protocol versions are compatible on
      both sides, i.e., which schema version is necessary to decode the
      serialized object.  An implementation MUST drop packets with
      unexpected values and MAY report a problem.  The specification of
      how an implementation may negotiate the schema's major version is
      outside the scope of this document.

   Outer Key ID:
      8 bits to allow key rollovers.  This implies key type and
      algorithm.  Value _invalid_key_value_key_ means that no valid
      fingerprint was computed.  This Key ID scope is local to the nodes
      on both ends of the adjacency.

   TIE Origin Key ID:
      24 bits.  This implies key type and used algorithm.  Value
      _invalid_key_value_key_ means that no valid fingerprint was
      computed.  This Key ID scope is global to the RIFT instance since
      it may imply the originator of the TIE so the contained object
      does not have to be de-serialized to obtain the originator.

   Length of Fingerprint:
      8 bits.  Length in 32-bit multiples of the following fingerprint
      (not including lifetime or weak nonces).  It allows the structure
      to be navigated when an unknown key type is present.  To clarify,
      a common corner case when this value is set to 0 is when it
      signifies an empty (0 bytes long) security fingerprint.

   Security Fingerprint:
      32 bits * Length of Fingerprint.  This is a signature that is
      computed over all data following after it.  If the significant
      bits of fingerprint are fewer than the 32 bits padded length then

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 122]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

      the significant bits MUST be left aligned and remaining bits on
      the right padded with 0s.  When using PKI (Public Key
      Infrastructure) the Security fingerprint originating node uses its
      private key to create the signature.  The original packet can then
      be verified provided the public key is shared and current.
      Methodology to negotiate, distribute, or roll over keys are
      outside the scope of this document.

   Remaining TIE Lifetime:
      32 bits.  In case of anything but TIEs this field MUST be set to
      all ones and Origin Security Envelope Header MUST NOT be present
      in the packet.  For TIEs this field represents the remaining
      lifetime of the TIE and Origin Security Envelope Header MUST be
      present in the packet.

   Weak Nonce Local:
      16 bits.  Local Weak Nonce of the adjacency as advertised in LIEs.

   Weak Nonce Remote:
      16 bits.  Remote Weak Nonce of the adjacency as received in LIEs.

   TIE Origin Security Envelope Header:
      It MUST be present if and only if the Remaining TIE Lifetime field
      is *not* all ones.  It carries through the originators Key ID and
      corresponding fingerprint of the object to protect TIE from
      modification during flooding.  This ensures origin validation and
      integrity (but does not provide validation of a chain of trust).

   Observe that due to the schema migration rules per Section 7 the
   contained model can be always decoded if the major version matches
   and the envelope integrity has been validated.  Consequently,
   description of the TIE is available to flood it properly including
   unknown TIE types.

6.9.4.  Weak Nonces

   The protocol uses two 16-bit nonces to salt generated signatures.
   The term "nonce" is used a bit loosely since RIFT nonces are not
   being changed in every packet as often common in cryptography.  For
   efficiency purposes they are changed at a high enough frequency to
   dwarf practical replay attack attempts.  And hence, such nonces are
   called from this point on "weak" nonces.

   Any implementation including RIFT security MUST generate and wrap
   around local nonces properly.  When a nonce increment leads to
   _undefined_nonce_ value, the value MUST be incremented again
   immediately.  All implementations MUST reflect the neighbor's nonces.
   An implementation SHOULD increment a chosen nonce on every LIE FSM

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 123]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   transition that ends up in a different state from the previous one
   and MUST increment its nonce at least every
   _nonce_regeneration_interval_ (such considerations allow for
   efficient implementations without opening a significant security
   risk).  When flooding TIEs, the implementation MUST use recent (i.e.
   within allowed difference) nonces reflected in the LIE exchange.  The
   schema specifies in _maximum_valid_nonce_delta_ the maximum allowable
   nonce value difference on a packet compared to reflected nonces in
   the LIEs.  Any packet received with nonces deviating more than the
   allowed delta MUST be discarded without further computation of
   signatures to prevent computation load attacks.  The delta is either
   a negative or positive difference that a mirrored nonce can deviate
   from local value to be considered valid.  If nonces are not changed
   on every packet but at the maximum interval on both sides this opens
   statistically a _maximum_valid_nonce_delta_/2 window for identical
   LIEs, TIE and TI(x)E replays.  The interval cannot be too small since
   LIE FSM may change states fairly quickly during ZTP without sending
   LIEs and additionally, UDP can both loose as well as misorder
   packets.

   In cases where a secure implementation does not receive signatures or
   receives undefined nonces from a neighbor (indicating that it does
   not support or verify signatures), it is a matter of local policy as
   to how those packets are treated.  A secure implementation MAY refuse
   forming an adjacency with an implementation that is not advertising
   signatures or valid nonces, or it MAY continue signing local packets
   while accepting a neighbor's packets without further security
   validation.

   As a necessary exception, an implementation MUST advertise the remote
   nonce value as _undefined_nonce_ when the FSM is not in _TwoWay_ or
   _ThreeWay_ state and accept an _undefined_nonce_ for its local nonce
   value on packets in any other state than _ThreeWay_.

   As an optional optimization, an implementation MAY send one LIE with
   previously negotiated neighbor's nonce to try to speed up a
   neighbor's transition from _ThreeWay_ to _OneWay_ and MUST revert to
   sending _undefined_nonce_ after that.

6.9.5.  Lifetime

   Reflooding same TIE version quickly with small variations in its
   lifetime may lead to an excessive number of security fingerprint
   computations.  To avoid this, the application generating the
   fingerprints for flooded TIEs MAY round the value down to the next
   _rounddown_lifetime_interval_ on the packet header to reuse previous
   computation results.  TIEs flooded with such rounded lifetimes only
   will limit the amount of computations necessary during transitions

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 124]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   that lead to advertisement of same TIEs with same information within
   a short period of time.

6.9.6.  Security Association Changes

   No mechanism is specified to convert a security envelope for the same
   Key ID from one algorithm to another once the envelope is
   operational.  The recommended procedure to change to a new algorithm
   is to take the adjacency down, make the necessary changes, and bring
   the adjacency back up.  Obviously, an implementation MAY choose to
   stop verifying security envelope for the duration of algorithm change
   to keep the adjacency up but since this introduces a security
   vulnerability window, such roll-over SHOULD NOT be recommended.
   Other approaches, such as accepting multiple algorithms for same key
   for a configured time window are possible but in the realm of
   implementation choices rather than protocol specification.

7.  Information Elements Schema

   This section introduces the schema for information elements.  The IDL
   is Thrift [thrift].

   On schema changes that

   1.   change field numbers *or*

   2.   add new *required* fields *or*

   3.   remove any fields *or*

   4.   change lists into sets, unions into structures *or*

   5.   change multiplicity of fields *or*

   6.   changes type or name of any field *or*

   7.   change data types of the type of any field *or*

   8.   adds, changes or removes a default value of any *existing* field
        *or*

   9.   removes or changes any defined constant or constant value *or*

   10.  changes any enumeration type except extending
        `common.TIETypeType` (use of enumeration types is generally
        discouraged) *or*

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 125]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   11.  adds new TIE type to _TIETypeType_ with flooding scope different
        from prefix TIE flooding scope

   major version of the schema MUST increase.  All other changes MUST
   increase minor version within the same major.

   Introducing an optional field does not cause a major version increase
   even if the fields inside the structure are optional with defaults.

   All signed integer as forced by Thrift [thrift] support must be cast
   for internal purposes to equivalent unsigned values without
   discarding the signedness bit.  An implementation SHOULD try to avoid
   using the signedness bit when generating values.

   The schema is normative.

7.1.  Backwards-Compatible Extension of Schema

   The set of rules in Section 7 guarantees that every decoder can
   process serialized content generated by a higher minor version of the
   schema and with that the protocol can progress without a 'flag-day'.
   Contrary to that, content serialized using a major version X is *not*
   expected to be decodable by any implementation using decoder for a
   model with a major version lower than X.  Schema negotiation and
   translation within RIFT is outside the scope of this document.

   Additionally, based on the propagated minor version in encoded
   content and added optional node capabilities new TIE types or even
   de-facto mandatory fields can be introduced without progressing the
   major version albeit only nodes supporting such new extensions would
   decode them.  Given the model is encoded at the source and never re-
   encoded flooding through nodes not understanding any new extensions
   will preserve the corresponding fields.  However, it is important to
   understand that a higher minor version of a schema does *not*
   guarantee that capabilities introduced in lower minors of the same
   major are supported.  The _node_capabilities_ field is used to
   indicate which capabilities are supported.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 126]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Specifically, the schema SHOULD add elements to _NodeCapabilities_
   field future capabilities to indicate whether it will support
   interpretation of schema extensions on the same major revision if
   they are present.  Such fields MUST be optional and have an implicit
   or explicit false default value.  If a future capability changes
   route selection or generates conditions that cause packet loss if
   some nodes are not supporting it then a major version increment will
   be however unavoidable.  _NodeCapabilities_ shown in LIE MUST match
   the capabilities shown in the Node TIEs, otherwise the behavior is
   unspecified.  A node detecting the mismatch SHOULD generate a
   notification.

   Alternately or additionally, new optional fields can be introduced
   into e.g. _NodeTIEElement_ if a special field is chosen to indicate
   via its presence that an optional feature is enabled (since
   capability to support a feature does not necessarily mean that the
   feature is actually configured and operational).

   To support new TIE types without increasing the major version
   enumeration _TIEElement_ can be extended with new optional elements
   for new `common.TIETypeType` values as long the scope of the new TIE
   matches the prefix TIE scope.  In case it is necessary to understand
   whether all nodes can parse the new TIE type a node capability MUST
   be added in _NodeCapabilities_ to prevent a non-homogenous network.

7.2.  common.thrift

/**
    Thrift file with common definitions for RIFT
*/

namespace py common

/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned 64 bits.
 */
typedef i64      SystemIDType
typedef i32      IPv4Address
typedef i32      MTUSizeType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned
    rolling over number */
typedef i64      SeqNrType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      LifeTimeInSecType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i8       LevelType
typedef i16      PacketNumberType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      PodType

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 127]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned.
/** this has to be long enough to accomodate prefix */
typedef binary   IPv6Address
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i16      UDPPortType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      TIENrType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned
          This is carried in the
          security envelope and must hence fit into 8 bits. */
typedef i8       VersionType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i16      MinorVersionType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      MetricType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned
          and unstructured */
typedef i64      RouteTagType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unstructured
          label value */
typedef i32      LabelType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      BandwithInMegaBitsType
/** @note Key Value Key ID type */
typedef i32      KeyIDType
/** node local, unique identification for a link (interface/tunnel
  * etc. Basically anything RIFT runs on). This is kept
  * at 32 bits so it aligns with BFD [RFC5880] discriminator size.
  */
typedef i32    LinkIDType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned,
          especially since we have the /128 IPv6 case. */
typedef i8     PrefixLenType
/** timestamp in seconds since the epoch */
typedef i64    TimestampInSecsType
/** security nonce.
    @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as rolling
          over unsigned value */
typedef i16    NonceType
/** LIE FSM holdtime type */
typedef i16    TimeIntervalInSecType
/** Transaction ID type for prefix mobility as specified by RFC6550,
    value MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned  */
typedef i8     PrefixTransactionIDType
/** Timestamp per IEEE 802.1AS, all values MUST be interpreted in
    implementation as unsigned.  */
struct IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType {
    1: required     i64     AS_sec;

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 128]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    2: optional     i32     AS_nsec;
}
/** generic counter type */
typedef i64 CounterType
/** Platform Interface Index type, i.e. index of interface on hardware,
    can be used e.g. with RFC5837 */
typedef i32 PlatformInterfaceIndex

/** Flags indicating node configuration in case of ZTP.
 */
enum HierarchyIndications {
    /** forces level to `leaf_level` and enables according procedures */
    leaf_only                            = 0,
    /** forces level to `leaf_level` and enables according procedures */
    leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures = 1,
    /** forces level to `top_of_fabric` and enables according
        procedures */
    top_of_fabric                        = 2,
}

const PacketNumberType  undefined_packet_number    = 0
/** used when node is configured as top of fabric in ZTP.*/
const LevelType   top_of_fabric_level              = 24
/** default bandwidth on a link */
const BandwithInMegaBitsType  default_bandwidth    = 100
/** fixed leaf level when ZTP is not used */
const LevelType   leaf_level                  = 0
const LevelType   default_level               = leaf_level
const PodType     default_pod                 = 0
const LinkIDType  undefined_linkid            = 0

/** invalid key for key value */
const KeyIDType   invalid_key_value_key    = 0
/** default distance used */
const MetricType  default_distance         = 1
/** any distance larger than this will be considered infinity */
const MetricType  infinite_distance       = 0x7FFFFFFF
/** represents invalid distance */
const MetricType  invalid_distance        = 0
const bool overload_default               = false
const bool flood_reduction_default        = true
/** default LIE FSM LIE TX internval time */
const TimeIntervalInSecType   default_lie_tx_interval  = 1
/** default LIE FSM holddown time */
const TimeIntervalInSecType   default_lie_holdtime  = 3
/** multipler for default_lie_holdtime to hold down multiple neighbors */
const i8                      multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler = 4
/** default ZTP FSM holddown time */

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 129]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

const TimeIntervalInSecType   default_ztp_holdtime  = 1
/** by default LIE levels are ZTP offers */
const bool default_not_a_ztp_offer        = false
/** by default everyone is repeating flooding */
const bool default_you_are_flood_repeater = true
/** 0 is illegal for SystemID */
const SystemIDType IllegalSystemID        = 0
/** empty set of nodes */
const set<SystemIDType> empty_set_of_nodeids = {}
/** default lifetime of TIE is one week */
const LifeTimeInSecType default_lifetime      = 604800
/** default lifetime when TIEs are purged is 5 minutes */
const LifeTimeInSecType purge_lifetime        = 300
/** optional round down interval when TIEs are sent with security signatures
    to prevent excessive computation. **/
const LifeTimeInSecType rounddown_lifetime_interval = 60
/** any `TieHeader` that has a smaller lifetime difference
    than this constant is equal (if other fields equal). */
const LifeTimeInSecType lifetime_diff2ignore  = 400

/** default UDP port to run LIEs on */
const UDPPortType     default_lie_udp_port       =  914
/** default UDP port to receive TIEs on, that can be peer specific */
const UDPPortType     default_tie_udp_flood_port =  915

/** default MTU link size to use */
const MTUSizeType     default_mtu_size           = 1400
/** default link being BFD capable */
const bool            bfd_default                = true

/** type used to target nodes with key value */
typedef i64 KeyValueTargetType

/** default target for key value are all nodes. */
const KeyValueTargetType    keyvaluetarget_default = 0
/** value for _all leaves_ addressing. Represented by all bits set. */
const KeyValueTargetType    keyvaluetarget_all_south_leaves = -1

/** undefined nonce, equivalent to missing nonce */
const NonceType       undefined_nonce            = 0;
/** outer security Key ID, MUST be interpreted as in implementation
    as unsigned */
typedef i8            OuterSecurityKeyID
/** security Key ID, MUST be interpreted as in implementation
    as unsigned */
typedef i32           TIESecurityKeyID
/** undefined key */
const TIESecurityKeyID undefined_securitykey_id   = 0;

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 130]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

/** Maximum delta (negative or positive) that a mirrored nonce can
    deviate from local value to be considered valid. */
const i16                     maximum_valid_nonce_delta   = 5;
const TimeIntervalInSecType   nonce_regeneration_interval = 300;

/** Direction of TIEs. */
enum TieDirectionType {
    Illegal           = 0,
    South             = 1,
    North             = 2,
    DirectionMaxValue = 3,
}

/** Address family type. */
enum AddressFamilyType {
   Illegal                = 0,
   AddressFamilyMinValue  = 1,
   IPv4                   = 2,
   IPv6                   = 3,
   AddressFamilyMaxValue  = 4,
}

/** IPv4 prefix type. */
struct IPv4PrefixType {
    1: required IPv4Address    address;
    2: required PrefixLenType  prefixlen;
}

/** IPv6 prefix type. */
struct IPv6PrefixType {
    1: required IPv6Address    address;
    2: required PrefixLenType  prefixlen;
}

/** IP address type. */
union IPAddressType {
    /** Content is IPv4 */
    1: optional IPv4Address   ipv4address;
    /** Content is IPv6 */
    2: optional IPv6Address   ipv6address;
}

/** Prefix advertisement.

    @note: for interface
        addresses the protocol can propagate the address part beyond
        the subnet mask and on reachability computation that has to
        be normalized. The non-significant bits can be used

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 131]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

        for operational purposes.
*/
union IPPrefixType {
    1: optional IPv4PrefixType   ipv4prefix;
    2: optional IPv6PrefixType   ipv6prefix;
}

/** Sequence of a prefix in case of move.
 */
struct PrefixSequenceType {
    1: required IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType  timestamp;
    /** Transaction ID set by client in e.g. in 6LoWPAN. */
    2: optional PrefixTransactionIDType   transactionid;
}

/** Type of TIE.
*/
enum TIETypeType {
    Illegal                                     = 0,
    TIETypeMinValue                             = 1,
    /** first legal value */
    NodeTIEType                                 = 2,
    PrefixTIEType                               = 3,
    PositiveDisaggregationPrefixTIEType         = 4,
    NegativeDisaggregationPrefixTIEType         = 5,
    PGPrefixTIEType                             = 6,
    KeyValueTIEType                             = 7,
    ExternalPrefixTIEType                       = 8,
    PositiveExternalDisaggregationPrefixTIEType = 9,
    TIETypeMaxValue                             = 10,
}

/** RIFT route types.
    @note: The only purpose of those values is to introduce an
           ordering whereas an implementation can choose internally
           any other values as long the ordering is preserved
 */
enum RouteType {
    Illegal               =  0,
    RouteTypeMinValue     =  1,
    /** First legal value. */
    /** Discard routes are most preferred */
    Discard               =  2,

    /** Local prefixes are directly attached prefixes on the
     *  system such as e.g. interface routes.
     */
    LocalPrefix           =  3,

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 132]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    /** Advertised in S-TIEs */
    SouthPGPPrefix        =  4,
    /** Advertised in N-TIEs */
    NorthPGPPrefix        =  5,
    /** Advertised in N-TIEs */
    NorthPrefix           =  6,
    /** Externally imported north */
    NorthExternalPrefix   =  7,
    /** Advertised in S-TIEs, either normal prefix or positive
        disaggregation */
    SouthPrefix           =  8,
    /** Externally imported south */
    SouthExternalPrefix   =  9,
    /** Negative, transitive prefixes are least preferred */
    NegativeSouthPrefix   = 10,
    RouteTypeMaxValue     = 11,
}

enum   KVTypes {
    Experimental = 1,
    WellKnown    = 2,
    OUI          = 3,
}

7.3.  encoding.thrift

/**
    Thrift file for packet encodings for RIFT
*/

include "common.thrift"

namespace py encoding

/** Represents protocol encoding schema major version */
const common.VersionType protocol_major_version = 8
/** Represents protocol encoding schema minor version */
const common.MinorVersionType protocol_minor_version =  0

/** Common RIFT packet header. */
struct PacketHeader {
    /** Major version of protocol. */
    1: required common.VersionType      major_version =
            protocol_major_version;
    /** Minor version of protocol. */
    2: required common.MinorVersionType minor_version =
            protocol_minor_version;
    /** Node sending the packet, in case of LIE/TIRE/TIDE

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 133]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

        also the originator of it. */
    3: required common.SystemIDType  sender;
    /** Level of the node sending the packet, required on everything
        except LIEs. Lack of presence on LIEs indicates UNDEFINED_LEVEL
        and is used in ZTP procedures.
     */
    4: optional common.LevelType            level;
}

/** Prefix community. */
struct Community {
    /** Higher order bits */
    1: required i32          top;
    /** Lower order bits */
    2: required i32          bottom;
}

/** Neighbor structure.  */
struct Neighbor {
    /** System ID of the originator. */
    1: required common.SystemIDType        originator;
    /** ID of remote side of the link. */
    2: required common.LinkIDType          remote_id;
}

/** Capabilities the node supports. */
struct NodeCapabilities {
    /** Must advertise supported minor version dialect that way. */
    1: required common.MinorVersionType        protocol_minor_version =
            protocol_minor_version;
    /** indicates that node supports flood reduction. */
    2: optional bool                           flood_reduction =
            common.flood_reduction_default;
    /** indicates place in hierarchy, i.e. top-of-fabric or
        leaf only (in ZTP) or support for leaf-2-leaf
        procedures. */
    3: optional common.HierarchyIndications    hierarchy_indications;

}

/** Link capabilities. */
struct LinkCapabilities {
    /** Indicates that the link is supporting BFD. */
    1: optional bool                           bfd =
            common.bfd_default;
    /** Indicates whether the interface will support IPv4 forwarding. */
    2: optional bool                           ipv4_forwarding_capable =

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 134]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

            true;
}

/** RIFT LIE Packet.

    @note: this node's level is already included on the packet header
*/
struct LIEPacket {
    /** Node or adjacency name. */
    1: optional string                    name;
    /** Local link ID. */
    2: required common.LinkIDType         local_id;
    /** UDP port to which we can receive flooded TIEs. */
    3: required common.UDPPortType        flood_port =
            common.default_tie_udp_flood_port;
    /** Layer 2 MTU, used to discover mismatch. */
    4: optional common.MTUSizeType        link_mtu_size =
            common.default_mtu_size;
    /** Local link bandwidth on the interface. */
    5: optional common.BandwithInMegaBitsType
            link_bandwidth = common.default_bandwidth;
    /** Reflects the neighbor once received to provide
        3-way connectivity. */
    6: optional Neighbor                  neighbor;
    /** Node's PoD. */
    7: optional common.PodType            pod =
            common.default_pod;
    /** Node capabilities supported. */
   10: required NodeCapabilities          node_capabilities;
   /** Capabilities of this link. */
   11: optional LinkCapabilities          link_capabilities;
   /** Required holdtime of the adjacency, i.e. for how
       long a period should adjacency be kept up without valid LIE reception. */
   12: required common.TimeIntervalInSecType
            holdtime = common.default_lie_holdtime;
   /** Optional, unsolicited, downstream assigned locally significant label
       value for the adjacency. */
   13: optional common.LabelType          label;
    /** Indicates that the level on the LIE must not be used
        to derive a ZTP level by the receiving node. */
   21: optional bool                      not_a_ztp_offer =
            common.default_not_a_ztp_offer;
   /** Indicates to northbound neighbor that it should
       be reflooding TIEs received from this node to achieve flood
       reduction and balancing for northbound flooding. */
   22: optional bool                      you_are_flood_repeater =
             common.default_you_are_flood_repeater;
   /** Indicates to neighbor to flood node TIEs only and slow down

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 135]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

       all other TIEs. Ignored when received from southbound neighbor. */
   23: optional bool                      you_are_sending_too_quickly =
             false;
   /** Instance name in case multiple RIFT instances running on same
       interface. */
   24: optional string                    instance_name;
   /** It provides the optional ID of the Fabric configured. This MUST match the information advertised
       on the node element. */
   35: optional common.FabricIDType       fabric_id = common.default_fabric_id;

}

/** LinkID pair describes one of parallel links between two nodes. */
struct LinkIDPair {
    /** Node-wide unique value for the local link. */
    1: required common.LinkIDType      local_id;
    /** Received remote link ID for this link. */
    2: required common.LinkIDType      remote_id;

    /** Describes the local interface index of the link. */
   10: optional common.PlatformInterfaceIndex platform_interface_index;
   /** Describes the local interface name. */
   11: optional string                        platform_interface_name;
   /** Indicates whether the link is secured, i.e. protected by
       outer key, absence of this element means no indication,
       undefined outer key means not secured. */
   12: optional common.OuterSecurityKeyID
                trusted_outer_security_key;
   /** Indicates whether the link is protected by established
       BFD session. */
   13: optional bool                          bfd_up;
   /** Optional indication which address families are up on the
       interface */
   14: optional set<common.AddressFamilyType>
                       address_families;
}

/** Unique ID of a TIE. */
struct TIEID {
    /** direction of TIE */
    1: required common.TieDirectionType    direction;
    /** indicates originator of the TIE */
    2: required common.SystemIDType        originator;
    /** type of the tie */
    3: required common.TIETypeType         tietype;
    /** number of the tie */
    4: required common.TIENrType           tie_nr;
}

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 136]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

/** Header of a TIE. */
struct TIEHeader {
    /** ID of the tie. */
    2: required TIEID                             tieid;
    /** Sequence number of the tie. */
    3: required common.SeqNrType                  seq_nr;

    /** Absolute timestamp when the TIE was generated. */
   10: optional common.IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType   origination_time;
   /** Original lifetime when the TIE was generated.  */
   12: optional common.LifeTimeInSecType          origination_lifetime;
}

/** Header of a TIE as described in TIRE/TIDE.
*/
struct TIEHeaderWithLifeTime {
    1: required     TIEHeader                       header;
    /** Remaining lifetime. */
    2: required     common.LifeTimeInSecType        remaining_lifetime;
}

/** TIDE with *sorted* TIE headers. */
struct TIDEPacket {
    /** First TIE header in the tide packet. */
    1: required TIEID                       start_range;
    /** Last TIE header in the tide packet. */
    2: required TIEID                       end_range;
    /** _Sorted_ list of headers. */
    3: required list<TIEHeaderWithLifeTime>
                     headers;
}

/** TIRE packet */
struct TIREPacket {
    1: required set<TIEHeaderWithLifeTime>
                     headers;
}

/** neighbor of a node */
struct NodeNeighborsTIEElement {
    /** level of neighbor */
    1: required common.LevelType                level;
    /**  Cost to neighbor. Ignore anything equal/larger than `infinite_distance` or equal `invalid_distance` */
    3: optional common.MetricType               cost
                = common.default_distance;
    /** can carry description of multiple parallel links in a TIE */
    4: optional set<LinkIDPair>
                         link_ids;

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 137]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    /** total bandwith to neighbor as sum of all parallel links */
    5: optional common.BandwithInMegaBitsType
                bandwidth = common.default_bandwidth;
}

/** Indication flags of the node. */
struct NodeFlags {
    /** Indicates that node is in overload, do not transit traffic
        through it. */
     1: optional bool         overload = common.overload_default;
}

/** Description of a node. */
struct NodeTIEElement {
    /** Level of the node. */
    1: required common.LevelType            level;
    /** Node's neighbors. Multiple node TIEs can carry disjoint sets of neighbors. */
    2: required map<common.SystemIDType,
                NodeNeighborsTIEElement>    neighbors;
    /** Capabilities of the node. */
    3: required NodeCapabilities            capabilities;
    /** Flags of the node. */
    4: optional NodeFlags                   flags;
    /** Optional node name for easier operations. */
    5: optional string                      name;
    /** PoD to which the node belongs. */
    6: optional common.PodType              pod;
    /** optional startup time of the node */
    7: optional common.TimestampInSecsType  startup_time;

    /** If any local links are miscabled, this indication is flooded. */
   10: optional set<common.LinkIDType>
                     miscabled_links;

   /** ToFs in the same plane. Only carried by ToF. Multiple Node TIEs can carry disjoint sets of ToFs
       which MUST be joined to form a single set. */
   12: optional set<common.SystemIDType>
                     same_plane_tofs;

   /** It provides the optional ID of the Fabric configured */
   20: optional common.FabricIDType             fabric_id = common.default_fabric_id;

}

/** Attributes of a prefix. */
struct PrefixAttributes {
    /** Distance of the prefix. */

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 138]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    2: required common.MetricType            metric
            = common.default_distance;
    /** Generic unordered set of route tags, can be redistributed
        to other protocols or use within the context of real time
        analytics. */
    3: optional set<common.RouteTagType>
                      tags;
    /** Monotonic clock for mobile addresses.  */
    4: optional common.PrefixSequenceType    monotonic_clock;
    /** Indicates if the prefix is a node loopback. */
    6: optional bool                         loopback = false;
    /** Indicates that the prefix is directly attached. */
    7: optional bool                         directly_attached = true;
    /** link to which the address belongs to.  */
   10: optional common.LinkIDType            from_link;
    /** Optional, per prefix significant label. */
   12: optional common.LabelType             label;
}

/** TIE carrying prefixes */
struct PrefixTIEElement {
    /** Prefixes with the associated attributes. */
    1: required map<common.IPPrefixType, PrefixAttributes> prefixes;
}

/** Defines the targeted nodes and the value carried. */
struct KeyValueTIEElementContent {
    1: optional common.KeyValueTargetType        targets = common.keyvaluetarget_default;
    2: optional binary                           value;
}

/** Generic key value pairs. */
struct KeyValueTIEElement {
    1: required map<common.KeyIDType, KeyValueTIEElementContent>    keyvalues;
}

/** Single element in a TIE. */
union TIEElement {
    /** Used in case of enum common.TIETypeType.NodeTIEType. */
    1: optional NodeTIEElement     node;
    /** Used in case of enum common.TIETypeType.PrefixTIEType. */
    2: optional PrefixTIEElement          prefixes;
    /** Positive prefixes (always southbound). */
    3: optional PrefixTIEElement   positive_disaggregation_prefixes;
    /** Transitive, negative prefixes (always southbound) */
    5: optional PrefixTIEElement   negative_disaggregation_prefixes;
    /** Externally reimported prefixes. */
    6: optional PrefixTIEElement          external_prefixes;

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 139]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

    /** Positive external disaggregated prefixes (always southbound). */
    7: optional PrefixTIEElement
            positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes;
    /** Key-Value store elements. */
    9: optional KeyValueTIEElement keyvalues;
}

/** TIE packet */
struct TIEPacket {
    1: required TIEHeader  header;
    2: required TIEElement element;
}

/** Content of a RIFT packet. */
union PacketContent {
    1: optional LIEPacket     lie;
    2: optional TIDEPacket    tide;
    3: optional TIREPacket    tire;
    4: optional TIEPacket     tie;
}

/** RIFT packet structure. */
struct ProtocolPacket {
    1: required PacketHeader  header;
    2: required PacketContent content;
}

8.  Further Details on Implementation

8.1.  Considerations for Leaf-Only Implementation

   RIFT can and is intended to be stretched to the lowest level in the
   IP fabric to integrate ToRs or even servers.  Since those entities
   would run as leaves only, it is worth to observe that a leaf only
   version is significantly simpler to implement and requires much less
   resources:

   1.  Leaf nodes only need to maintain a multipath default route under
       normal circumstances.  However, in cases of catastrophic
       partitioning, leaf nodes SHOULD be capable of accommodating all
       the leaf routes in their own PoD to prevent traffic loss.

   2.  Leaf nodes hold only their own North TIEs and the South TIEs of
       Level 1 nodes they are connected to.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 140]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   3.  Leaf nodes do not have to support any type of disaggregation
       computation or propagation.

   4.  Leaf nodes are not required to support the overload flag.

   5.  Leaf nodes do not need to originate S-TIEs unless optional leaf-
       2-leaf features are desired.

8.2.  Considerations for Spine Implementation

   Nodes that do not act as ToF are not required to discover fallen
   leaves by comparing reachable destinations with peers and therefore
   do not need to run the computation of disaggregated routes based on
   that discovery.  On the other hand, non-ToF nodes need to respect
   disaggregated routes advertised from the north.  In the case of
   negative disaggregation, spines nodes need to generate southbound
   disaggregated routes when all parents are lost for a fallen leaf.

9.  Security Considerations

9.1.  General

   One can consider attack vectors where a router may reboot many times
   while changing its System ID and pollute the network with many stale
   TIEs or TIEs that are sent with very long lifetimes and not cleaned
   up when the routes vanish.  Those attack vectors are not unique to
   RIFT.  Given large memory footprints available today those attacks
   should be relatively benign.  Otherwise, a node SHOULD implement a
   strategy of discarding contents of all TIEs that were not present in
   the SPF tree over a certain, configurable period of time.  Since the
   protocol is self-stabilizing and will advertise the presence of such
   TIEs to its neighbors, they can be re-requested again if a
   computation finds that it has an adjacency formed towards the System
   ID of the discarded TIEs.

9.2.  Time to Live and Hop Limit Values

   RIFT explicitly requires the use of a TTL/HL value of 1 *or* 255 when
   sending/receiving LIEs and TIEs so that implementors have a choice
   between the two.

   Using a TTL/HL value of 255 does come with security concerns, but
   those risks are addressed in [RFC5082].  However, this approach may
   still have difficulties with some forwarding implementations (e.g.
   incorrectly processing TTL/HL, loops within forwarding plane itself,
   etc.).

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 141]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   It is for this reason that RIFT also allows implementations to use a
   TTL/HL of 1.  Attacks that exploit this by spoofing it from several
   hops away are indeed possible, but are exceptionally difficult to
   engineer.  Replay attacks are another potential attack vector, but as
   described in the subsequent security sections, RIFT is well protected
   against such attacks.  Additionally, for link-local scoped multicast
   addresses used for LIE the value of 1 presents a more consistent
   choice.

9.3.  Malformed Packets

   The protocol protects packets extensively through optional signatures
   and nonces so if the possibility of maliciously injected malformed or
   replayed packets exist in a deployment, this conclusively protects
   against such attacks.

   Even with the security envelope, since RIFT relies on Thrift encoders
   and decoders generated automatically from IDL it is conceivable that
   errors in such encoders/decoders could be discovered and lead to
   delivery of corrupted packets or reception of packets that cannot be
   decoded.  Misformatted packets lead normally to decoder returning an
   error condition to the caller and with that the packet is basically
   unparsable with no other choice but to discard it.  Should the
   unlikely scenario occur of the decoder being forced to abort the
   protocol this is neither better nor worse than today's behavior of
   other protocols.

9.4.  RIFT ZTP

   Section 6.7 presents many attack vectors in untrusted environments,
   starting with nodes that oscillate their level offers to the
   possibility of nodes offering a _ThreeWay_ adjacency with the highest
   possible level value and a very long holdtime trying to put itself
   "on top of the lattice" thereby allowing it to gain access to the
   whole southbound topology.  Session authentication mechanisms are
   necessary in environments where this is possible and RIFT provides
   the security envelope to ensure this if so desired.

9.5.  Lifetime

   RIFT removes lifetime modification and replay attack vectors by
   protecting the lifetime behind a signature computed over it and
   additional nonce combination which results in the inability of an
   attacker to artificially shorten the _remaining_lifetime_.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 142]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

9.6.  Packet Number

   An optional defined value number that is carried in the security
   envelope without any encryption protection and is hence vulnerable to
   replay and modification attacks.  Contrary to nonces, this number
   must change on every packet and would present a very high
   cryptographic load if signed.  The attack vector packet number
   present is relatively benign.  Changing the packet number by a man-
   in-the-middle attack will only affect operational validation tools
   and possibly some performance optimizations on flooding.  It is
   expected that an implementation detecting too many "fake losses" or
   "misorderings" due to the attack on the packet number would simply
   suppress its further processing.

9.7.  Outer Fingerprint Attacks

   A node can try to inject LIE packets observing a conversation on the
   wire by using the outer Key ID albeit it cannot generate valid
   signatures in case it changes the integrity of the message so the
   only possible attack is DoS due to excessive LIE validation.

   A node can try to replay previous LIEs with changed state that it
   recorded but the attack is hard to replicate since the nonce
   combination must match the ongoing exchange and is then limited to a
   single flap only since both nodes will advance their nonces in case
   the adjacency state changed.  Even in the most unlikely case the
   attack length is limited due to both sides periodically increasing
   their nonces.

   Generally, since weak nonces are not changed on every packet for
   performance reasons a conceivable attack vector by a man-in-the-
   middle is to flood a receiving node with maximum bandwidth of
   recently observed packets, both LIEs as well as TIEs.  In a scenario
   where such attacks are likely _maximum_valid_nonce_delta_ can be
   implemented as configurable, small value and
   _nonce_regeneration_interval_ configured to very small value as well.
   This will likely present a significant computational load on large
   fabrics under normal operation.

9.8.  TIE Origin Fingerprint DoS Attacks

   A compromised node can attempt to generate "fake TIEs" using other
   nodes' TIE origin key identifiers.  Albeit the ultimate validation of
   the origin fingerprint will fail in such scenarios and not progress
   further than immediately peering nodes, the resulting denial of
   service attack seems unavoidable since the TIE origin Key ID is only
   protected by the, here assumed to be compromised, node.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 143]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

9.9.  Host Implementations

   It can be reasonably expected that with the proliferation of RotH
   servers, rather than dedicated networking devices, will represent a
   significant amount of RIFT devices.  Given their normally far wider
   software envelope and access granted to them, such servers are also
   far more likely to be compromised and present an attack vector on the
   protocol.  Hijacking of prefixes to attract traffic is a trust
   problem and cannot be easily addressed within the protocol if the
   trust model is breached, i.e. the server presents valid credentials
   to form an adjacency and issue TIEs.  In an even more devious way,
   the servers can present DoS (or even DDoS) vectors of issuing too
   many LIE packets, flooding large amounts of North TIEs, and
   attempting similar resource overrun attacks.  A prudent
   implementation forming adjacencies to leaves should implement
   thresholds mechanisms and raise warnings when, e.g., a leaf is
   advertising an excess number of TIEs or prefixes.  Additionally, such
   implementation could refuse any topology information except the
   node's own TIEs and authenticated, reflected South Node TIEs at own
   level.

   To isolate possible attack vectors on the leaf to the largest
   possible extent a dedicated leaf-only implementation could run
   without any configuration by hard-coding a well-known adjacency key
   (which can be always rolled-over by the means of, e.g., well-known
   key-value distributed from top of the fabric), leaf level value and
   always setting overload flag.  All other values can be derived by
   automatic means as described above.

9.9.1.  IPv4 Broadcast and IPv6 All Routers Multicast Implementations

   Section 6.2 describes an optional implementation that supports LIE
   exchange over IPv4 broadcast addresses and/or the IPv6 all routers
   multicast address.  It is important to consider that if an
   implementation supports this, the attack surface widens as LIEs may
   be propagated to devices outside of the intended RIFT topology.  This
   may leave RIFT nodes susceptible to the various attack vectors
   already described in this section.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requests multicast address assignments and
   standard port numbers.  Additionally, registries for the schema are
   requested and suggested values provided that reflect the numbers
   allocated in the given schema.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 144]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

10.1.  Requested Multicast and Port Numbers

   This document requests allocation in the 'IPv4 Multicast Address
   Space' registry the suggested value of 224.0.0.121 as
   'ALL_V4_RIFT_ROUTERS' and in the 'IPv6 Multicast Address Space'
   registry the suggested value of ff02::a1f7 as 'ALL_V6_RIFT_ROUTERS'.

   This document requests the following allocations from the "Service
   Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry":

   _RIFT LIE Port_

       Service Name: rift-lies
       Transport Protocol(s): UDP
       Assignee: Tony Przygienda (prz@juniper.net)
       Contact: Jordan Head (jhead@juniper.net)
       Description: Routing in Fat Trees Link Information Element
       Reference: This Document
       Port Number: 914

   _RIFT TIE Port_

       Service Name: rift-ties
       Transport Protocol(s): UDP
       Assignee: Tony Przygienda (prz@juniper.net)
       Contact: Jordan Head (jhead@juniper.net)
       Description: Routing in Fat Trees Topology Information Element
       Reference: This Document
       Port Number: 915

10.2.  Requested Registries with Assigned Values

   This section requests registries that help govern the schema via
   usual IANA registry procedures.  A top-level group named 'RIFT'
   should hold the corresponding registries requested in the following
   sections with their pre-defined values.  Registry values are stored
   with their minimum and maximum version in which they are available.
   All values not provided as to be considered `Unassigned`. The range
   of every registry is a 16-bit integer.  Allocation of new values is
   performed via `Expert Review` action in case of major or minor Change
   per rules in Section 7.  Any other allocation is performed via
   'Specification Required'.

   The registries do not contain in some cases necessary information
   such as whether the fields are optional or required, what units are
   used or what datatype is involved.  This information is encoded in
   the normative schema itself by the means of IDL syntax or necessary
   type definitions and their names.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 145]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

10.2.1.  Registry RIFT/Versions

   This registry stores all RIFT protocol schema major and minor
   versions including the reference to the document introducing the
   version.  This means as well that if multiple documents extend rift
   schema they have to serialize using this registry to increase the
   minor or major versions sequentially.

   +================+===================================+
   | Schema Version |                         Reference |
   +================+===================================+
   |            8.0 | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ |
   |                | draft-ietf-rift-rift/ Section 7   |
   +----------------+-----------------------------------+

                          Table 7

10.2.2.  Registry RIFT/common/AddressFamilyType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonAddressFamilyType.

   Address family type.

   +=======================+=======+=============+=========+=========+
   | Name                  | Value | Min. Schema |    Max. | Comment |
   |                       |       |     Version |  Schema |         |
   |                       |       |             | Version |         |
   +=======================+=======+=============+=========+=========+
   | Illegal               |     0 |         8.0 |         |         |
   +-----------------------+-------+-------------+---------+---------+
   | AddressFamilyMinValue |     1 |         8.0 |         |         |
   +-----------------------+-------+-------------+---------+---------+
   | IPv4                  |     2 |         8.0 |         |         |
   +-----------------------+-------+-------------+---------+---------+
   | IPv6                  |     3 |         8.0 |         |         |
   +-----------------------+-------+-------------+---------+---------+
   | AddressFamilyMaxValue |     4 |         8.0 |         |         |
   +-----------------------+-------+-------------+---------+---------+

                                 Table 8

10.2.3.  Registry RIFT/common/HierarchyIndications

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonHierarchyIndications.

   Flags indicating node configuration in case of ZTP.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 146]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +====================================+=====+=======+=======+=======+
   |Name                                |Value|   Min.|   Max.|Comment|
   |                                    |     | Schema| Schema|       |
   |                                    |     |Version|Version|       |
   +====================================+=====+=======+=======+=======+
   |leaf_only                           |    0|    8.0|       |       |
   +------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures|    1|    8.0|       |       |
   +------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |top_of_fabric                       |    2|    8.0|       |       |
   +------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+

                                 Table 9

10.2.4.  Registry RIFT/common/IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonIEEE8021ASTimeStampType.

   Timestamp per IEEE 802.1AS, all values MUST be interpreted in
   implementation as unsigned.

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |          |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | AS_sec   |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | AS_nsec  |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                Table 10

10.2.5.  Registry RIFT/common/IPAddressType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonIPAddressType.

   IP address type.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 147]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +=============+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name        | Value |         Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |             |       |             Version |     Version |         |
   +=============+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved    |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |             |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +-------------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | ipv4address |     1 |                 8.0 |             | Content |
   |             |       |                     |             | is ipv4 |
   +-------------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | ipv6address |     2 |                 8.0 |             | Content |
   |             |       |                     |             | is ipv6 |
   +-------------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                  Table 11

10.2.6.  Registry RIFT/common/IPPrefixType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonIPPrefixType.

   Prefix advertisement.

   @note: for interface addresses the protocol can propagate the address
   part beyond the subnet mask and on reachability computation that has
   to be normalized.  The non-significant bits can be used for
   operational purposes.

   +============+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name       | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |            |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +============+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved   |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |            |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +------------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | ipv4prefix |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +------------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | ipv6prefix |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +------------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                 Table 12

10.2.7.  Registry RIFT/common/IPv4PrefixType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonIPv4PrefixType.

   IPv4 prefix type.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 148]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name      | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |           |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +===========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved  |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |           |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | address   |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | prefixlen |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                 Table 13

10.2.8.  Registry RIFT/common/IPv6PrefixType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonIPv6PrefixType.

   IPv6 prefix type.

   +===========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name      | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |           |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +===========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved  |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |           |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | address   |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | prefixlen |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                 Table 14

10.2.9.  Registry RIFT/common/KVTypes

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonKVTypes.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 149]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +==============+=======+=============+=============+=========+
   | Name         | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |              |       |     Version |     Version |         |
   +==============+=======+=============+=============+=========+
   | Experimental |     1 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +--------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | WellKnown    |     2 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +--------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | OUI          |     3 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +--------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+

                              Table 15

10.2.10.  Registry RIFT/common/PrefixSequenceType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonPrefixSequenceType.

   Sequence of a prefix in case of move.

   +===============+=======+=============+==========+==================+
   | Name          | Value |        Min. |     Max. | Comment          |
   |               |       |      Schema |   Schema |                  |
   |               |       |     Version |  Version |                  |
   +===============+=======+=============+==========+==================+
   | Reserved      |     0 |         8.0 |      All |                  |
   |               |       |             | Versions |                  |
   +---------------+-------+-------------+----------+------------------+
   | timestamp     |     1 |         8.0 |          |                  |
   +---------------+-------+-------------+----------+------------------+
   | transactionid |     2 |         8.0 |          |   Transaction id |
   |               |       |             |          | set by client in |
   |               |       |             |          | e.g. in 6lowpan. |
   +---------------+-------+-------------+----------+------------------+

                                  Table 16

10.2.11.  Registry RIFT/common/RouteType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonRouteType.

   RIFT route types.  @note: The only purpose of those values is to
   introduce an ordering whereas an implementation can choose internally
   any other values as long the ordering is preserved

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 150]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +=====================+=======+=============+=============+=========+
   | Name                | Value | Min. Schema |        Max. | Comment |
   |                     |       |     Version |      Schema |         |
   |                     |       |             |     Version |         |
   +=====================+=======+=============+=============+=========+
   | Illegal             |     0 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | RouteTypeMinValue   |     1 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | Discard             |     2 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | LocalPrefix         |     3 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | SouthPGPPrefix      |     4 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | NorthPGPPrefix      |     5 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | NorthPrefix         |     6 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | NorthExternalPrefix |     7 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | SouthPrefix         |     8 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | SouthExternalPrefix |     9 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | NegativeSouthPrefix |    10 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | RouteTypeMaxValue   |    11 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +---------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+

                                  Table 17

10.2.12.  Registry RIFT/common/TIETypeType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonTIETypeType.

   Type of TIE.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 151]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===========================================+=====+=======+=======+=======+
   |Name                                       |Value|   Min.|   Max.|Comment|
   |                                           |     | Schema| Schema|       |
   |                                           |     |Version|Version|       |
   +===========================================+=====+=======+=======+=======+
   |Illegal                                    |    0|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |TIETypeMinValue                            |    1|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |NodeTIEType                                |    2|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |PrefixTIEType                              |    3|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |PositiveDisaggregationPrefixTIEType        |    4|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |NegativeDisaggregationPrefixTIEType        |    5|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |PGPrefixTIEType                            |    6|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |KeyValueTIEType                            |    7|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |ExternalPrefixTIEType                      |    8|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |PositiveExternalDisaggregationPrefixTIEType|    9|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+
   |TIETypeMaxValue                            |   10|    8.0|       |       |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+-------+

                                  Table 18

10.2.13.  Registry RIFT/common/TieDirectionType

   The name of the registry should be RIFTCommonTieDirectionType.

   Direction of TIEs.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 152]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===================+=======+=============+=============+=========+
   | Name              | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |                   |       |     Version |     Version |         |
   +===================+=======+=============+=============+=========+
   | Illegal           |     0 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | South             |     1 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | North             |     2 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+
   | DirectionMaxValue |     3 |         8.0 |             |         |
   +-------------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------+

                                 Table 19

10.2.14.  Registry RIFT/encoding/Community

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingCommunity.

   Prefix community.

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+============+
   | Name     | Value |         Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment    |
   |          |       |             Version |     Version |            |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+============+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |            |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |            |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+------------+
   | top      |     1 |                 8.0 |             |     Higher |
   |          |       |                     |             | order bits |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+------------+
   | bottom   |     2 |                 8.0 |             |      Lower |
   |          |       |                     |             | order bits |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+------------+

                                  Table 20

10.2.15.  Registry RIFT/encoding/KeyValueTIEElement

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingKeyValueTIEElement.

   Generic key value pairs.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 153]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name      | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |           |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +===========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved  |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |           |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | keyvalues |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +-----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                 Table 21

10.2.16.  Registry RIFT/encoding/KeyValueTIEElementContent

   The name of the registry should be
   RIFTEncodingKeyValueTIEElementContent.

   Defines the targeted nodes and the value carried.

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |          |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | targets  |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | value    |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                Table 22

10.2.17.  Registry RIFT/encoding/LIEPacket

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingLIEPacket.

   RIFT LIE Packet.

   @note: this node's level is already included on the packet header

   +=============================+=====+=======+========+=============+
   | Name                        |Value|   Min.|    Max.|Comment      |
   |                             |     | Schema|  Schema|             |
   |                             |     |Version| Version|             |
   +=============================+=====+=======+========+=============+
   | Reserved                    |    0|    8.0|     All|             |
   |                             |     |       |Versions|             |

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 154]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | name                        |    1|    8.0|        |      Node or|
   |                             |     |       |        |    adjacency|
   |                             |     |       |        |        name.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | local_id                    |    2|    8.0|        |   Local link|
   |                             |     |       |        |          id.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | flood_port                  |    3|    8.0|        |  Udp port to|
   |                             |     |       |        | which we can|
   |                             |     |       |        |      receive|
   |                             |     |       |        |flooded ties.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | link_mtu_size               |    4|    8.0|        | Layer 2 mtu,|
   |                             |     |       |        |      used to|
   |                             |     |       |        |     discover|
   |                             |     |       |        |    mismatch.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | link_bandwidth              |    5|    8.0|        |   Local link|
   |                             |     |       |        | bandwidth on|
   |                             |     |       |        |          the|
   |                             |     |       |        |   interface.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | neighbor                    |    6|    8.0|        | Reflects the|
   |                             |     |       |        |neighbor once|
   |                             |     |       |        |  received to|
   |                             |     |       |        |provide 3-way|
   |                             |     |       |        |connectivity.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | pod                         |    7|    8.0|        |  Node's pod.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | node_capabilities           |   10|    8.0|        |         Node|
   |                             |     |       |        | capabilities|
   |                             |     |       |        |   supported.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | link_capabilities           |   11|    8.0|        | Capabilities|
   |                             |     |       |        |of this link.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | holdtime                    |   12|    8.0|        |     Required|
   |                             |     |       |        |  holdtime of|
   |                             |     |       |        |          the|
   |                             |     |       |        |   adjacency,|
   |                             |     |       |        | i.e. for how|
   |                             |     |       |        |long a period|
   |                             |     |       |        |       should|
   |                             |     |       |        | adjacency be|
   |                             |     |       |        |      kept up|
   |                             |     |       |        |without valid|

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 155]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   |                             |     |       |        |          lie|
   |                             |     |       |        |   reception.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | label                       |   13|    8.0|        |    Optional,|
   |                             |     |       |        | unsolicited,|
   |                             |     |       |        |   downstream|
   |                             |     |       |        |     assigned|
   |                             |     |       |        |      locally|
   |                             |     |       |        |  significant|
   |                             |     |       |        |  label value|
   |                             |     |       |        |      for the|
   |                             |     |       |        |   adjacency.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | not_a_ztp_offer             |   21|    8.0|        |    Indicates|
   |                             |     |       |        |     that the|
   |                             |     |       |        | level on the|
   |                             |     |       |        | lie must not|
   |                             |     |       |        |   be used to|
   |                             |     |       |        | derive a ztp|
   |                             |     |       |        | level by the|
   |                             |     |       |        |    receiving|
   |                             |     |       |        |        node.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | you_are_flood_repeater      |   22|    8.0|        | Indicates to|
   |                             |     |       |        |   northbound|
   |                             |     |       |        |neighbor that|
   |                             |     |       |        | it should be|
   |                             |     |       |        |   reflooding|
   |                             |     |       |        |ties received|
   |                             |     |       |        |    from this|
   |                             |     |       |        |      node to|
   |                             |     |       |        |achieve flood|
   |                             |     |       |        |reduction and|
   |                             |     |       |        |balancing for|
   |                             |     |       |        |   northbound|
   |                             |     |       |        |    flooding.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | you_are_sending_too_quickly |   23|    8.0|        | Indicates to|
   |                             |     |       |        |  neighbor to|
   |                             |     |       |        |   flood node|
   |                             |     |       |        |ties only and|
   |                             |     |       |        |slow down all|
   |                             |     |       |        |  other ties.|
   |                             |     |       |        | ignored when|
   |                             |     |       |        |received from|
   |                             |     |       |        |   southbound|
   |                             |     |       |        |    neighbor.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 156]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   | instance_name               |   24|    8.0|        |Instance name|
   |                             |     |       |        |      in case|
   |                             |     |       |        |multiple rift|
   |                             |     |       |        |    instances|
   |                             |     |       |        |   running on|
   |                             |     |       |        |         same|
   |                             |     |       |        |   interface.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+
   | fabric_id                   |   35|    8.0|        |  It provides|
   |                             |     |       |        | the optional|
   |                             |     |       |        |    id of the|
   |                             |     |       |        |       fabric|
   |                             |     |       |        |  configured.|
   |                             |     |       |        |    this must|
   |                             |     |       |        |    match the|
   |                             |     |       |        |  information|
   |                             |     |       |        |advertised on|
   |                             |     |       |        |     the node|
   |                             |     |       |        |     element.|
   +-----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+-------------+

                                 Table 23

10.2.18.  Registry RIFT/encoding/LinkCapabilities

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingLinkCapabilities.

   Link capabilities.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 157]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +=========================+=====+=========+==========+==============+
   | Name                    |Value|    Min. |     Max. | Comment      |
   |                         |     |  Schema |   Schema |              |
   |                         |     | Version |  Version |              |
   +=========================+=====+=========+==========+==============+
   | Reserved                |    0|     8.0 |      All |              |
   |                         |     |         | Versions |              |
   +-------------------------+-----+---------+----------+--------------+
   | bfd                     |    1|     8.0 |          |    Indicates |
   |                         |     |         |          |     that the |
   |                         |     |         |          |      link is |
   |                         |     |         |          |   supporting |
   |                         |     |         |          |         bfd. |
   +-------------------------+-----+---------+----------+--------------+
   | ipv4_forwarding_capable |    2|     8.0 |          |    Indicates |
   |                         |     |         |          |  whether the |
   |                         |     |         |          |    interface |
   |                         |     |         |          |         will |
   |                         |     |         |          |      support |
   |                         |     |         |          |         ipv4 |
   |                         |     |         |          |  forwarding. |
   +-------------------------+-----+---------+----------+--------------+

                                  Table 24

10.2.19.  Registry RIFT/encoding/LinkIDPair

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingLinkIDPair.

   LinkID pair describes one of parallel links between two nodes.

   +============================+=====+=======+========+===============+
   | Name                       |Value|   Min.|    Max.| Comment       |
   |                            |     | Schema|  Schema|               |
   |                            |     |Version| Version|               |
   +============================+=====+=======+========+===============+
   | Reserved                   |    0|    8.0|     All|               |
   |                            |     |       |Versions|               |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | local_id                   |    1|    8.0|        |     Node-wide |
   |                            |     |       |        |  unique value |
   |                            |     |       |        |       for the |
   |                            |     |       |        |   local link. |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | remote_id                  |    2|    8.0|        |      Received |
   |                            |     |       |        |   remote link |
   |                            |     |       |        |   id for this |
   |                            |     |       |        |         link. |

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 158]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | platform_interface_index   |   10|    8.0|        |     Describes |
   |                            |     |       |        |     the local |
   |                            |     |       |        |     interface |
   |                            |     |       |        |  index of the |
   |                            |     |       |        |         link. |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | platform_interface_name    |   11|    8.0|        |     Describes |
   |                            |     |       |        |     the local |
   |                            |     |       |        |     interface |
   |                            |     |       |        |         name. |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | trusted_outer_security_key |   12|    8.0|        |     Indicates |
   |                            |     |       |        |   whether the |
   |                            |     |       |        |       link is |
   |                            |     |       |        |      secured, |
   |                            |     |       |        |          i.e. |
   |                            |     |       |        |  protected by |
   |                            |     |       |        |    outer key, |
   |                            |     |       |        |    absence of |
   |                            |     |       |        |  this element |
   |                            |     |       |        |      means no |
   |                            |     |       |        |   indication, |
   |                            |     |       |        |     undefined |
   |                            |     |       |        |     outer key |
   |                            |     |       |        |     means not |
   |                            |     |       |        |      secured. |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | bfd_up                     |   13|    8.0|        |     Indicates |
   |                            |     |       |        |   whether the |
   |                            |     |       |        |       link is |
   |                            |     |       |        |  protected by |
   |                            |     |       |        |   established |
   |                            |     |       |        |  bfd session. |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+
   | address_families           |   14|    8.0|        |      Optional |
   |                            |     |       |        |    indication |
   |                            |     |       |        |         which |
   |                            |     |       |        |       address |
   |                            |     |       |        |  families are |
   |                            |     |       |        |     up on the |
   |                            |     |       |        |    interface. |
   +----------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------+

                                  Table 25

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 159]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

10.2.20.  Registry RIFT/encoding/Neighbor

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingNeighbor.

   Neighbor structure.

   +============+=======+=============+=============+=================+
   | Name       | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment         |
   |            |       |     Version |     Version |                 |
   +============+=======+=============+=============+=================+
   | Reserved   |     0 |         8.0 |         All |                 |
   |            |       |             |    Versions |                 |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
   | originator |     1 |         8.0 |             |    System id of |
   |            |       |             |             | the originator. |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
   | remote_id  |     2 |         8.0 |             |    Id of remote |
   |            |       |             |             |     side of the |
   |            |       |             |             |           link. |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+

                                 Table 26

10.2.21.  Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeCapabilities

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingNodeCapabilities.

   Capabilities the node supports.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 160]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +========================+=====+=======+==========+=================+
   | Name                   |Value|   Min.|     Max. | Comment         |
   |                        |     | Schema|   Schema |                 |
   |                        |     |Version|  Version |                 |
   +========================+=====+=======+==========+=================+
   | Reserved               |    0|    8.0|      All |                 |
   |                        |     |       | Versions |                 |
   +------------------------+-----+-------+----------+-----------------+
   | protocol_minor_version |    1|    8.0|          |  Must advertise |
   |                        |     |       |          |       supported |
   |                        |     |       |          |   minor version |
   |                        |     |       |          |    dialect that |
   |                        |     |       |          |            way. |
   +------------------------+-----+-------+----------+-----------------+
   | flood_reduction        |    2|    8.0|          |  Indicates that |
   |                        |     |       |          |   node supports |
   |                        |     |       |          |           flood |
   |                        |     |       |          |      reduction. |
   +------------------------+-----+-------+----------+-----------------+
   | hierarchy_indications  |    3|    8.0|          |       Indicates |
   |                        |     |       |          |        place in |
   |                        |     |       |          |      hierarchy, |
   |                        |     |       |          |    i.e. top-of- |
   |                        |     |       |          |  fabric or leaf |
   |                        |     |       |          |   only (in ztp) |
   |                        |     |       |          |  or support for |
   |                        |     |       |          |     leaf-2-leaf |
   |                        |     |       |          |     procedures. |
   +------------------------+-----+-------+----------+-----------------+

                                  Table 27

10.2.22.  Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeFlags

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingNodeFlags.

   Indication flags of the node.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 161]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +==========+=======+=========+==========+===========================+
   | Name     | Value |    Min. |     Max. | Comment                   |
   |          |       |  Schema |   Schema |                           |
   |          |       | Version |  Version |                           |
   +==========+=======+=========+==========+===========================+
   | Reserved |     0 |     8.0 |      All |                           |
   |          |       |         | Versions |                           |
   +----------+-------+---------+----------+---------------------------+
   | overload |     1 |     8.0 |          |       Indicates that node |
   |          |       |         |          |        is in overload, do |
   |          |       |         |          |       not transit traffic |
   |          |       |         |          |               through it. |
   +----------+-------+---------+----------+---------------------------+

                                  Table 28

10.2.23.  Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeNeighborsTIEElement

   The name of the registry should be
   RIFTEncodingNodeNeighborsTIEElement.

   neighbor of a node

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 162]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===========+=======+=========+==========+==========================+
   | Name      | Value |    Min. |     Max. | Comment                  |
   |           |       |  Schema |   Schema |                          |
   |           |       | Version |  Version |                          |
   +===========+=======+=========+==========+==========================+
   | Reserved  |     0 |     8.0 |      All |                          |
   |           |       |         | Versions |                          |
   +-----------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------------+
   | level     |     1 |     8.0 |          |       Level of neighbor. |
   +-----------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------------+
   | cost      |     3 |     8.0 |          |        Cost to neighbor. |
   |           |       |         |          |          ignore anything |
   |           |       |         |          |     equal or larger than |
   |           |       |         |          |      `infinite_distance` |
   |           |       |         |          |             and equal to |
   |           |       |         |          |      `invalid_distance`. |
   +-----------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------------+
   | link_ids  |     4 |     8.0 |          |      Carries description |
   |           |       |         |          |     of multiple parallel |
   |           |       |         |          |          links in a tie. |
   +-----------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------------+
   | bandwidth |     5 |     8.0 |          |        Total bandwith to |
   |           |       |         |          |       neighbor as sum of |
   |           |       |         |          |      all parallel links. |
   +-----------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------------+

                                  Table 29

10.2.24.  Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeTIEElement

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingNodeTIEElement.

   Description of a node.

   +=================+=======+=========+==========+====================+
   | Name            | Value |    Min. |     Max. | Comment            |
   |                 |       |  Schema |   Schema |                    |
   |                 |       | Version |  Version |                    |
   +=================+=======+=========+==========+====================+
   | Reserved        |     0 |     8.0 |      All |                    |
   |                 |       |         | Versions |                    |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | level           |     1 |     8.0 |          |       Level of the |
   |                 |       |         |          |              node. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | neighbors       |     2 |     8.0 |          |  Node's neighbors. |
   |                 |       |         |          |      multiple node |
   |                 |       |         |          |     ties can carry |

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 163]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   |                 |       |         |          |   disjoint sets of |
   |                 |       |         |          |         neighbors. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | capabilities    |     3 |     8.0 |          |    Capabilities of |
   |                 |       |         |          |          the node. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | flags           |     4 |     8.0 |          |       Flags of the |
   |                 |       |         |          |              node. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | name            |     5 |     8.0 |          |      Optional node |
   |                 |       |         |          |    name for easier |
   |                 |       |         |          |        operations. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | pod             |     6 |     8.0 |          |   Pod to which the |
   |                 |       |         |          |      node belongs. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | startup_time    |     7 |     8.0 |          |   Optional startup |
   |                 |       |         |          |   time of the node |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | miscabled_links |    10 |     8.0 |          |       If any local |
   |                 |       |         |          |          links are |
   |                 |       |         |          |    miscabled, this |
   |                 |       |         |          |      indication is |
   |                 |       |         |          |           flooded. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | same_plane_tofs |    12 |     8.0 |          |   Tofs in the same |
   |                 |       |         |          |        plane. only |
   |                 |       |         |          |    carried by tof. |
   |                 |       |         |          |      multiple node |
   |                 |       |         |          |     ties can carry |
   |                 |       |         |          |   disjoint sets of |
   |                 |       |         |          |    tofs which must |
   |                 |       |         |          |  be joined to form |
   |                 |       |         |          |      a single set. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+
   | fabric_id       |    20 |     8.0 |          |    It provides the |
   |                 |       |         |          |     optional id of |
   |                 |       |         |          |         the fabric |
   |                 |       |         |          |         configured |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------------+

                                  Table 30

10.2.25.  Registry RIFT/encoding/PacketContent

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingPacketContent.

   Content of a RIFT packet.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 164]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |          |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | lie      |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | tide     |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | tire     |     3 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | tie      |     4 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                Table 31

10.2.26.  Registry RIFT/encoding/PacketHeader

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingPacketHeader.

   Common RIFT packet header.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 165]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===============+=======+=========+==========+===================+
   | Name          | Value |    Min. |     Max. | Comment           |
   |               |       |  Schema |   Schema |                   |
   |               |       | Version |  Version |                   |
   +===============+=======+=========+==========+===================+
   | Reserved      |     0 |     8.0 |      All |                   |
   |               |       |         | Versions |                   |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------+-------------------+
   | major_version |     1 |     8.0 |          |  Major version of |
   |               |       |         |          |         protocol. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------+-------------------+
   | minor_version |     2 |     8.0 |          |  Minor version of |
   |               |       |         |          |         protocol. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------+-------------------+
   | sender        |     3 |     8.0 |          |  Node sending the |
   |               |       |         |          |   packet, in case |
   |               |       |         |          |  of lie/tire/tide |
   |               |       |         |          |          also the |
   |               |       |         |          | originator of it. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------+-------------------+
   | level         |     4 |     8.0 |          | Level of the node |
   |               |       |         |          |       sending the |
   |               |       |         |          |  packet, required |
   |               |       |         |          |     on everything |
   |               |       |         |          | except lies. lack |
   |               |       |         |          |    of presence on |
   |               |       |         |          |    lies indicates |
   |               |       |         |          |   undefined_level |
   |               |       |         |          |    and is used in |
   |               |       |         |          |   ztp procedures. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------+-------------------+

                                Table 32

10.2.27.  Registry RIFT/encoding/PrefixAttributes

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingPrefixAttributes.

   Attributes of a prefix.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 166]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +===================+=======+=========+==========+==================+
   | Name              | Value |    Min. |     Max. | Comment          |
   |                   |       |  Schema |   Schema |                  |
   |                   |       | Version |  Version |                  |
   +===================+=======+=========+==========+==================+
   | Reserved          |     0 |     8.0 |      All |                  |
   |                   |       |         | Versions |                  |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | metric            |     2 |     8.0 |          |  Distance of the |
   |                   |       |         |          |          prefix. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | tags              |     3 |     8.0 |          |          Generic |
   |                   |       |         |          |    unordered set |
   |                   |       |         |          |   of route tags, |
   |                   |       |         |          |           can be |
   |                   |       |         |          |    redistributed |
   |                   |       |         |          |         to other |
   |                   |       |         |          |     protocols or |
   |                   |       |         |          |   use within the |
   |                   |       |         |          |  context of real |
   |                   |       |         |          |  time analytics. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | monotonic_clock   |     4 |     8.0 |          |  Monotonic clock |
   |                   |       |         |          |       for mobile |
   |                   |       |         |          |       addresses. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | loopback          |     6 |     8.0 |          |     Indicates if |
   |                   |       |         |          |  the prefix is a |
   |                   |       |         |          |   node loopback. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | directly_attached |     7 |     8.0 |          |   Indicates that |
   |                   |       |         |          |    the prefix is |
   |                   |       |         |          |         directly |
   |                   |       |         |          |        attached. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | from_link         |    10 |     8.0 |          |    Link to which |
   |                   |       |         |          |      the address |
   |                   |       |         |          |      belongs to. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+
   | label             |    12 |     8.0 |          |    Optional, per |
   |                   |       |         |          |           prefix |
   |                   |       |         |          |      significant |
   |                   |       |         |          |           label. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+----------+------------------+

                                  Table 33

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 167]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

10.2.28.  Registry RIFT/encoding/PrefixTIEElement

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingPrefixTIEElement.

   TIE carrying prefixes

   +==========+=======+=============+=============+================+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment        |
   |          |       |     Version |     Version |                |
   +==========+=======+=============+=============+================+
   | Reserved |     0 |         8.0 |         All |                |
   |          |       |             |    Versions |                |
   +----------+-------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
   | prefixes |     1 |         8.0 |             |  Prefixes with |
   |          |       |             |             | the associated |
   |          |       |             |             |    attributes. |
   +----------+-------+-------------+-------------+----------------+

                                Table 34

10.2.29.  Registry RIFT/encoding/ProtocolPacket

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingProtocolPacket.

   RIFT packet structure.

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |          |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | header   |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | content  |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                Table 35

10.2.30.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIDEPacket

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIDEPacket.

   TIDE with *sorted* TIE headers.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 168]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +=============+=======+=============+=============+===============+
   | Name        | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment       |
   |             |       |     Version |     Version |               |
   +=============+=======+=============+=============+===============+
   | Reserved    |     0 |         8.0 |         All |               |
   |             |       |             |    Versions |               |
   +-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
   | start_range |     1 |         8.0 |             |     First tie |
   |             |       |             |             | header in the |
   |             |       |             |             |  tide packet. |
   +-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
   | end_range   |     2 |         8.0 |             |      Last tie |
   |             |       |             |             | header in the |
   |             |       |             |             |  tide packet. |
   +-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
   | headers     |     3 |         8.0 |             | _sorted_ list |
   |             |       |             |             |   of headers. |
   +-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+

                                 Table 36

10.2.31.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEElement

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIEElement.

   Single element in a TIE.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 169]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +=========================================+=====+=======+========+=================================+
   |Name                                     |Value|   Min.|    Max.|Comment                          |
   |                                         |     | Schema|  Schema|                                 |
   |                                         |     |Version| Version|                                 |
   +=========================================+=====+=======+========+=================================+
   |Reserved                                 |    0|    8.0|     All|                                 |
   |                                         |     |       |Versions|                                 |
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |node                                     |    1|    8.0|        |             Used in case of enum|
   |                                         |     |       |        |  common.tietypetype.nodetietype.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |prefixes                                 |    2|    8.0|        |             Used in case of enum|
   |                                         |     |       |        |common.tietypetype.prefixtietype.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |positive_disaggregation_prefixes         |    3|    8.0|        |        Positive prefixes (always|
   |                                         |     |       |        |                     southbound).|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |negative_disaggregation_prefixes         |    5|    8.0|        |    Transitive, negative prefixes|
   |                                         |     |       |        |              (always southbound)|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |external_prefixes                        |    6|    8.0|        |  Externally reimported prefixes.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes|    7|    8.0|        |  Positive external disaggregated|
   |                                         |     |       |        |    prefixes (always southbound).|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+
   |keyvalues                                |    9|    8.0|        |        Key-value store elements.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+--------+---------------------------------+

                                  Table 37

10.2.32.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEHeader

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIEHeader.

   Header of a TIE.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 170]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +======================+=======+=========+==========+==============+
   | Name                 | Value |    Min. |     Max. | Comment      |
   |                      |       |  Schema |   Schema |              |
   |                      |       | Version |  Version |              |
   +======================+=======+=========+==========+==============+
   | Reserved             |     0 |     8.0 |      All |              |
   |                      |       |         | Versions |              |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------+
   | tieid                |     2 |     8.0 |          |   Id of tie. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------+
   | seq_nr               |     3 |     8.0 |          |     Sequence |
   |                      |       |         |          |    number of |
   |                      |       |         |          |         tie. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------+
   | origination_time     |    10 |     8.0 |          |     Absolute |
   |                      |       |         |          |    timestamp |
   |                      |       |         |          | when tie was |
   |                      |       |         |          |   generated. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------+
   | origination_lifetime |    12 |     8.0 |          |     Original |
   |                      |       |         |          |     lifetime |
   |                      |       |         |          | when tie was |
   |                      |       |         |          |   generated. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+----------+--------------+

                                 Table 38

10.2.33.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEHeaderWithLifeTime

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIEHeaderWithLifeTime.

   Header of a TIE as described in TIRE/TIDE.

   +====================+=======+=============+==========+===========+
   | Name               | Value | Min. Schema |     Max. | Comment   |
   |                    |       |     Version |   Schema |           |
   |                    |       |             |  Version |           |
   +====================+=======+=============+==========+===========+
   | Reserved           |     0 |         8.0 |      All |           |
   |                    |       |             | Versions |           |
   +--------------------+-------+-------------+----------+-----------+
   | header             |     1 |         8.0 |          |           |
   +--------------------+-------+-------------+----------+-----------+
   | remaining_lifetime |     2 |         8.0 |          | Remaining |
   |                    |       |             |          | lifetime. |
   +--------------------+-------+-------------+----------+-----------+

                                 Table 39

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 171]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

10.2.34.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEID

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIEID.

   Unique ID of a TIE.

   +============+=======+=============+=============+============+
   | Name       | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Comment    |
   |            |       |     Version |     Version |            |
   +============+=======+=============+=============+============+
   | Reserved   |     0 |         8.0 |         All |            |
   |            |       |             |    Versions |            |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+------------+
   | direction  |     1 |         8.0 |             |  Direction |
   |            |       |             |             |    of tie. |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+------------+
   | originator |     2 |         8.0 |             |  Indicates |
   |            |       |             |             | originator |
   |            |       |             |             |    of tie. |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+------------+
   | tietype    |     3 |         8.0 |             |    Type of |
   |            |       |             |             |       tie. |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+------------+
   | tie_nr     |     4 |         8.0 |             |  Number of |
   |            |       |             |             |       tie. |
   +------------+-------+-------------+-------------+------------+

                               Table 40

10.2.35.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEPacket

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIEPacket.

   TIE packet

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |          |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | header   |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | element  |     2 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                Table 41

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 172]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

10.2.36.  Registry RIFT/encoding/TIREPacket

   The name of the registry should be RIFTEncodingTIREPacket.

   TIRE packet

   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Name     | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Comment |
   |          |       |                     |     Version |         |
   +==========+=======+=====================+=============+=========+
   | Reserved |     0 |                 8.0 |         All |         |
   |          |       |                     |    Versions |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+
   | headers  |     1 |                 8.0 |             |         |
   +----------+-------+---------------------+-------------+---------+

                                Table 42

11.  Acknowledgments

   A new routing protocol in its complexity is not a product of a parent
   but of a village as the author list shows already.  However, many
   more people provided input, fine-combed the specification based on
   their experience in design, implementation or application of
   protocols in IP fabrics.  This section will make an inadequate
   attempt in recording their contribution.

   Many thanks to Naiming Shen for some of the early discussions around
   the topic of using IGPs for routing in topologies related to Clos.
   Russ White to be especially acknowledged for the key conversation on
   epistemology that allowed to tie current asynchronous distributed
   systems theory results to a modern protocol design presented in this
   scope.  Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Jeffrey Zhang, Krzysztof
   Szarkowicz, Nagendra Kumar, Melchior Aelmans, Kaushal Tank, Will
   Jones, Moin Ahmed, Sandy Zhang, Donald Eastlake provided thoughtful
   comments that improved the readability of the document and found good
   amount of corners where the light failed to shine.  Kris Price was
   first to mention single router, single arm default considerations.
   Jeff Tantsura helped out with some initial thoughts on BFD
   interactions while Jeff Haas corrected several misconceptions about
   BFD's finer points and helped to improve the security section around
   leaf considerations.  Artur Makutunowicz pointed out many possible
   improvements and acted as sounding board in regard to modern protocol
   implementation techniques RIFT is exploring.  Barak Gafni formalized
   first time clearly the problem of partitioned spine and fallen leaves
   on a (clean) napkin in Singapore that led to the very important part
   of the specification centered around multiple ToF planes and negative
   disaggregation.  Igor Gashinsky and others shared many thoughts on

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 173]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   problems encountered in design and operation of large-scale data
   center fabrics.  Xu Benchong found a delicate error in the flooding
   procedures and a schema datatype size mismatch.

   Too many people to mention provided reviews from many directions in
   IETF, often pointing to critical defects, sometimes asking for things
   again that have been removed by one the previous reviewers as
   objectionable or superfluous, and many times claiming the document
   being somewhere on the extremes between too crowded with the obvious
   and omitting introduction to cryptic concepts everywhere.  The result
   is the best editors could do to find a balance of a document guiding
   the reader by Section 2 into a specification tight enough to result
   in interoperable implementations while at the same time introducing
   enough operational context of IP routable fabrics to guarantee a
   concise, common language when facing unaccustomed concepts the
   protocol relies on.  In the process it was important to not end up
   carrying Aesop's donkey of course so while the result may not be
   perceived as perfect by everyone it should be practically speaking
   more than sufficient for everyone that ends up using it in the
   future.

   Last but not least, Alvaro Retana, John Scudder and Andrew Alston
   guided the undertaking as ADs by asking many necessary procedural and
   technical questions which did not only improve the content but did
   also lay out the track towards publication.

12.  Contributors

   This work is a product of a list of individuals which are all to be
   considered major contributors independent of the fact whether their
   name made it to the limited boilerplate author's list or not.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 174]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   +======================+===+==================+===+================+
   +======================+===+==================+===+================+
   | Tony Przygienda, Ed. | | |                  | | | Pascal Thubert |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Juniper              | | |                  | | | Cisco          |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Bruno Rijsman        | | | Jordan Head, Ed. | | | Dmitry         |
   |                      |   |                  |   | Afanasiev      |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Individual           | | | Juniper          | | | Yandex         |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Don Fedyk            | | | Alia Atlas       | | | John Drake     |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Individual           | | | Individual       | | | Individual     |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Ilya Vershkov        | | | |                | | | |              |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
   | Mellanox             | | | |                | | | |              |
   +----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+

                          Table 43: RIFT Authors

13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [EUI64]    IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier
              (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and
              Company ID (CID)", IEEE EUI,
              <http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2365]  Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
              RFC 2365, DOI 10.17487/RFC2365, July 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2365>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC5082]  Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
              Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
              (GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 175]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

   [RFC5709]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
              Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.

   [RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC7987]  Ginsberg, L., Wells, P., Decraene, B., Przygienda, T., and
              H. Gredler, "IS-IS Minimum Remaining Lifetime", RFC 7987,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7987, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7987>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8202]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
              Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.

   [RFC8505]  Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
              Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
              Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 176]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   [RFC9300]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
              (LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.

   [RFC9301]  Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
              Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.

   [thrift]   Apache Software Foundation, "Thrift Language
              Implementation and Documentation",
              <https://github.com/apache/thrift/tree/0.15.0/doc>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [APPLICABILITY]
              Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Afanasiev, D., Thubert, P., and T.
              Przygienda, "RIFT Applicability", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-applicability-14, 16 April
              2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
              rift-applicability-14>.

   [CLOS]     Yuan, X., "On Nonblocking Folded-Clos Networks in Computer
              Communication Environments", IEEE International Parallel &
              Distributed Processing Symposium, 2011.

   [DayOne]   Aelmans, M., Vandezande, O., Rijsman, B., Head, J., Graf,
              C., Alberro, L., Mali, H., and O. Steudler, "Day One:
              Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT)", Juniper DayOne .

   [DIJKSTRA] Dijkstra, E. W., "A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with
              Graphs", Journal Numer. Math. , 1959.

   [DYNAMO]   De Candia et al., G., "Dynamo: amazon's highly available
              key-value store", ACM SIGOPS symposium on Operating
              systems principles (SOSP '07), 2007.

   [EPPSTEIN] Eppstein, D., "Finding the k-Shortest Paths", 1997.

   [FATTREE]  Leiserson, C. E., "Fat-Trees: Universal Networks for
              Hardware-Efficient Supercomputing", 1985.

   [IEEEstd1588]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
              Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
              IEEE Standard 1588,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4579760/>.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 177]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   [IEEEstd8021AS]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive
              Applications in Bridged Local Area Networks",
              IEEE Standard 802.1AS,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5741898/>.

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
              Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
              Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
              RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc826>.

   [RFC1982]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2991]  Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
              Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2991, November 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2991>.

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 178]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   [RFC5837]  Atlas, A., Ed., Bonica, R., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Shen,
              N., and JR. Rivers, "Extending ICMP for Interface and
              Next-Hop Identification", RFC 5837, DOI 10.17487/RFC5837,
              April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5837>.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.

   [RFC6550]  Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
              Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
              JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
              Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.

   [RFC8415]  Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
              Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
              "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
              RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.

   [VAHDAT08] Al-Fares, M., Loukissas, A., and A. Vahdat, "A Scalable,
              Commodity Data Center Network Architecture", SIGCOMM ,
              2008.

   [VFR]      Giotsas, V. and S. Zhou, "Valley-free violation in
              Internet routing - Analysis based on BGP Community data",
              2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications
              (ICC) , 2012.

Appendix A.  Sequence Number Binary Arithmetic

   This section defines a variant of sequence number arithmetic related
   to [RFC1982] explained over two complement arithmetic which is easy
   to implement.

   Assuming straight two complement's subtractions on the bit-width of
   the sequence numbers, the corresponding >: and =: relations are
   defined as:

      U_1, U_2 are 12-bits aligned unsigned version number

      D_f is  ( U_1 - U_2 ) interpreted as two complement signed 12-bits
      D_b is  ( U_2 - U_1 ) interpreted as two complement signed 12-bits

      U_1 >: U_2 IIF D_f > 0 *and* D_b < 0
      U_1 =: U_2 IIF D_f = 0

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 179]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The >: relationship is anti-symmetric but not transitive.  Observe
   that this leaves >: of the numbers having maximum two complement
   distance, e.g. ( 0 and 0x800 ) undefined in the 12-bits case since
   D_f and D_b are both -0x7ff.

   A simple example of the relationship in case of 3-bit arithmetic
   follows as table indicating D_f/D_b values and then the relationship
   of U_1 to U_2:

                  U2 / U1   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
                  0        +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+
                  1        -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+
                  2        -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+
                  3        -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-
                  4        -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-
                  5        +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-
                  6        +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-
                  7        +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+

                  U2 / U1   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
                  0         =    >    >    >    ?    <    <    <
                  1         <    =    >    >    >    ?    <    <
                  2         <    <    =    >    >    >    ?    <
                  3         <    <    <    =    >    >    >    ?
                  4         ?    <    <    <    =    >    >    >
                  5         >    ?    <    <    <    =    >    >
                  6         >    >    ?    <    <    <    =    >
                  7         >    >    >    ?    <    <    <    =

Appendix B.  Examples

B.1.  Normal Operation

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 180]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                ^ N      +--------+          +--------+
 Level 2        |        |ToF   21|          |ToF   22|
            E <-*-> W    ++-+--+-++          ++-+--+-++
                |         | |  | |            | |  | |
              S v      P111/2  |P121/2        | |  | |
                          ^ ^  ^ ^            | |  | |
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
           +--------------+ |  +-----------+  | |  | +---------------+
           |                |    |         |  | |  |                 |
          South +-----------------------------+ |  |                 ^
           |    |           |    |         |    |  |                All
           0/0  0/0        0/0   +-----------------------------+    TIEs
           v    v           v              |    |  |           |     |
           |    |           +-+    +<-0/0----------+           |     |
           |    |             |    |       |    |              |     |
         +-+----++          +-+----++     ++----+-+           ++-----++
 Level 1 |       |          |       |     |       |           |       |
         |Spin111|          |Spin112|     |Spin121|           |Spin122|
         +-+---+-+          ++----+-+     +-+---+-+           ++---+--+
           |   |             |   South      |   |              |   |
           |   +---0/0--->-----+ 0/0        |   +----------------+ |
          0/0                | |  |         |                  | | |
           |   +---<-0/0-----+ |  v         |   +--------------+ | |
           v   |               |  |         |   |                | |
         +-+---+-+          +--+--+-+     +-+---+-+          +---+-+-+
 Level 0 |       |          |       |     |       |          |       |
         |Leaf111|          |Leaf112|     |Leaf121|          |Leaf122|
         +-+-----+          +-+---+-+     +--+--+-+          +-+-----+
           +                  +    \        /   +              +
           Prefix111   Prefix112    \      /   Prefix121    Prefix122
                                   multi-homed
                                     Prefix
         +---------- PoD 1 ---------+     +---------- PoD 2 ---------+

                    Figure 35: Normal Case Topology

   This section describes RIFT deployment in the example topology given
   in Figure 35 without any node or link failures.  The scenario
   disregards flooding reduction for simplicity's sake and compresses
   the node names in some cases to fit them into the picture better.

   First, the following bi-directional adjacencies will be established:

   1.  ToF 21 (PoD 0) to Spine 111, Spine 112, Spine 121, and Spine 122

   2.  ToF 22 (PoD 0) to Spine 111, Spine 112, Spine 121, and Spine 122

   3.  Spine 111 to Leaf 111, Leaf 112

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 181]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   4.  Spine 112 to Leaf 111, Leaf 112

   5.  Spine 121 to Leaf 121, Leaf 122

   6.  Spine 122 to Leaf 121, Leaf 122

   Leaf 111 and Leaf 112 originate N-TIEs for Prefix 111 and Prefix 112
   (respectively) to both Spine 111 and Spine 112 (Leaf 112 also
   originates an N-TIE for the multi-homed prefix).  Spine 111 and Spine
   112 will then originate their own N-TIEs, as well as flood the N-TIEs
   received from Leaf 111 and Leaf 112 to both ToF 21 and ToF 22.

   Similarly, Leaf 121 and Leaf 122 originate North TIEs for Prefix 121
   and Prefix 122 (respectively) to Spine 121 and Spine 122 (Leaf 121
   also originates a North TIE for the multi-homed prefix).  Spine 121
   and Spine 122 will then originate their own North TIEs, as well as
   flood the North TIEs received from Leaf 121 and Leaf 122 to both ToF
   21 and ToF 22.

   Spines hold only North TIEs of level 0 for their PoD, while leaves
   only hold their own North TIEs while, at this point, both ToF 21 and
   ToF 22 (as well as any northbound connected controllers) would have
   the complete network topology.

   ToF 21 and ToF 22 would then originate and flood South TIEs
   containing any established adjacencies and a default IP route to all
   spines.  Spine 111, Spine 112, Spine 121, and Spine 122 will reflect
   all Node South TIEs received from ToF 21 to ToF 22, and all Node
   South TIEs from ToF 22 to ToF 21.  South TIEs will not be re-
   propagated southbound.

   South TIEs containing a default IP route are then originated by both
   Spine 111 and Spine 112 toward Leaf 111 and Leaf 112.  Similarly,
   South TIEs containing a default IP route are originated by Spine 121
   and Spine 122 toward Leaf 121 and Leaf 122.

   At this point IP connectivity across maximum number of viable paths
   has been established for all leaves, with routing information
   constrained to only the minimum amount that allows for normal
   operation and redundancy.

B.2.  Leaf Link Failure

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 182]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                      |   |              |   |
                    +-+---+-+          +-+---+-+
                    |       |          |       |
                    |Spin111|          |Spin112|
                    +-+---+-+          ++----+-+
                      |   |             |    |
                      |   +---------------+  X
                      |                 | |  X Failure
                      |   +-------------+ |  X
                      |   |               |  |
                    +-+---+-+          +--+--+-+
                    |       |          |       |
                    |Leaf111|          |Leaf112|
                    +-------+          +-------+
                          +                  +
                         Prefix111     Prefix112

                    Figure 36: Single Leaf Link Failure

   In the event of a link failure between Spine 112 and Leaf 112, both
   nodes will originate new Node TIEs that contain their connected
   adjacencies, except for the one that just failed.  Leaf 112 will send
   a Node North TIE to Spine 111.  Spine 112 will send a Node North TIE
   to ToF 21 and ToF 22 as well as a new Node South TIE to Leaf 111 that
   will be reflected to Spine 111.  Necessary SPF recomputation will
   occur, resulting in Spine 112 no longer being in the forwarding path
   for Prefix 112.

   Spine 111 will also disaggregate Prefix 112 by sending new Prefix
   South TIE to Leaf 111 and Leaf 112.  Though disaggregation is covered
   in more detail in the following section, it is worth mentioning in
   this example as it further illustrates RIFT's mechanism to mitigate
   traffic loss.  Consider that Leaf 111 has yet to receive the more
   specific (disaggregated) route from Spine 111.  In such a scenario,
   traffic from Leaf 111 toward Prefix 112 may still use Spine 112's
   default route, causing it to traverse ToF 21 and ToF 22 back down via
   Spine 111.  While this behavior is suboptimal, it is transient in
   nature and preferred to dropping traffic.

B.3.  Partitioned Fabric

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 183]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

                         +--------+          +--------+
 Level 2                 |ToF   21|          |ToF   22|
                         ++-+--+-++          ++-+--+-++
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
                          | |  | |            | |  | 0/0
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
           +--------------+ |  +--- XXXXXX +  | |  | +---------------+
           |                |    |         |  | |  |                 |
           |    +-----------------------------+ |  |                 |
           0/0  |           |    |         |    |  |                 |
           |    0/0       0/0    +- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX -+     |
           |  1.1/16        |              |    |  |           |     |
           |    |           +-+    +-0/0-----------+           |     |
           |    |             |   1.1./16  |    |              |     |
         +-+----++          +-+-----+     ++-----0/0          ++----0/0
 Level 1 |       |          |       |     |    1.1/16         |   1.1/16
         |Spin111|          |Spin112|     |Spin121|           |Spin122|
         +-+---+-+          ++----+-+     +-+---+-+           ++---+--+
           |   |             |    |         |   |              |   |
           |   +---------------+  |         |   +----------------+ |
           |                 | |  |         |                  | | |
           |   +-------------+ |  |         |   +--------------+ | |
           |   |               |  |         |   |                | |
         +-+---+-+          +--+--+-+     +-+---+-+          +---+-+-+
 Level 3 |       |          |       |     |       |          |       |
         |Leaf111|          |Leaf112|     |Leaf121|          |Leaf122|
         +-+-----+          ++------+     +-----+-+          +-+-----+
           +                 +                  +              +
           Prefix111    Prefix112             Prefix121     Prefix122
                                                1.1/16

                      Figure 37: Fabric Partition

   Figure 37 shows one of more catastrophic scenarios where ToF 21 is
   completely severed from access to Prefix 121 due to a double link
   failure.  If only default routes existed, this would result in 50% of
   traffic from Leaf 111 and Leaf 112 toward Prefix 121 being dropped.

   The mechanism to resolve this scenario hinges on ToF 21's South TIEs
   being reflected from Spine 111 and Spine 112 to ToF 22.  Once ToF 22
   is informed that Prefix 121 cannot be reached from ToF 21, it will
   begin to disaggregate Prefix 121 by advertising a more specific route
   (1.1/16) along with the default IP prefix route to all spines (ToF 21
   still only sends a default route).  The result is Spine 111 and
   Spine112 using the more specific route to Prefix 121 via ToF 22.  All
   other prefixes continue to use the default IP prefix route toward
   both ToF 21 and ToF 22.

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 184]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   The more specific route for Prefix 121 being advertised by ToF 22
   does not need to be propagated further south to the leaves, as they
   do not benefit from this information.  Spine 111 and Spine 112 are
   only required to reflect the new South Node TIEs received from ToF 22
   to ToF 21.  In short, only the relevant nodes received the relevant
   updates, thereby restricting the failure to only the partitioned
   level rather than burdening the whole fabric with the flooding and
   recomputation of the new topology information.

   To finish this example, the following table shows sets computed by
   ToF 22 using notation introduced in Section 6.5:

      |R = Prefix 111, Prefix 112, Prefix 121, Prefix 122

      |H (for r=Prefix 111) = Spine 111, Spine 112

      |H (for r=Prefix 112) = Spine 111, Spine 112

      |H (for r=Prefix 121) = Spine 121, Spine 122

      |H (for r=Prefix 122) = Spine 121, Spine 122

      |A (for ToF 21) = Spine 111, Spine 112

   With that and |H (for r=Prefix 121) and |H (for r=Prefix 122) being
   disjoint from |A (for ToF 21), ToF 22 will originate a South TIE with
   Prefix 121 and Prefix 122, which will be flooded to all spines.

B.4.  Northbound Partitioned Router and Optional East-West Links

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 185]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

            +                  +                  +
            X N1               | N2               | N3
            X                  |                  |
         +--+----+          +--+----+          +--+-----+
         |       |0/0>  <0/0|       |0/0>  <0/0|        |
         |  A01  +----------+  A02  +----------+  A03   | Level 1
         ++-+-+--+          ++--+--++          +---+-+-++
          | | |              |  |  |               | | |
          | | +----------------------------------+ | | |
          | |                |  |  |             | | | |
          | +-------------+  |  |  |  +--------------+ |
          |               |  |  |  |  |          | |   |
          | +----------------+  |  +-----------------+ |
          | |             |     |     |          | | | |
          | | +------------------------------------+ | |
          | | |           |     |     |          |   | |
         ++-+-+--+        | +---+---+ |        +-+---+-++
         |       |        +-+       +-+        |        |
         |  L01  |          |  L02  |          |  L03   | Level 0
         +-------+          +-------+          +--------+

                    Figure 38: North Partitioned Router

   Figure 38 shows a part of a fabric where level 1 is horizontally
   connected and A01 lost its only northbound adjacency.  Based on N-SPF
   rules in Section 6.4.1 A01 will compute northbound reachability by
   using the link A01 to A02.  A02 however, will *not* use this link
   during N-SPF.  The result is A01 utilizing the horizontal link for
   default route advertisement and unidirectional routing.

   Furthermore, if A02 also loses its only northbound adjacency (N2),
   the situation evolves.  A01 will no longer have northbound
   reachability while it receives A03's northbound adjacencies in South
   Node TIEs reflected by nodes south of it.  As a result, A01 will no
   longer advertise its default route in accordance with Section 6.3.8.

Authors' Addresses

   Tony Przygienda (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   1137 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   United States of America
   Email: prz@juniper.net

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 186]
Internet-Draft                    RIFT                          May 2024

   Jordan Head (editor)
   Juniper Networks
   1137 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA 94089
   United States of America
   Email: jhead@juniper.net

   Alankar Sharma
   Hudson River Trading
   United States of America
   Email: as3957@gmail.com

   Pascal Thubert
   Individual
   France
   Email: pascal.thubert@gmail.com

   Bruno Rijsman
   Individual
   Email: brunorijsman@gmail.com

   Dmitry Afanasiev
   Yandex
   Email: fl0w@yandex-team.ru

Przygienda, et al.       Expires 2 November 2024              [Page 187]