Skip to main content

Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 7172.
Authors Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Mingui Zhang , Puneet Agarwal , Radia Perlman , Dinesh Dutt
Last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2013-05-17)
Replaces draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-fine-labeling
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 7172 (Proposed Standard)
Action Holders
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Ted Lemon
IESG note
Send notices to (None)
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
TRILL Working Group                                      Donald Eastlake
INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Mingui Zhang
Intended status: Proposed Standard                                Huawei
Updates: 6325                                             Puneet Agarwal
                                                           Radia Perlman
                                                              Intel Labs
                                                             Dinesh Dutt
                                                        Cumulus Networks
Expires: November 16, 2013                                  May 17, 2013

         TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links):
                         Fine-Grained Labeling


   The IETF has standardized TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots
   of Links), a protocol for least cost transparent frame routing in
   multi-hop networks with arbitrary topologies and link technologies,
   using link-state routing and a hop count. The TRILL base protocol
   standard supports labeling of TRILL data with up to 4K IDs. However,
   there are applications that require a larger number of labels
   providing configurable isolation of data. This document updates RFC
   6325 by specifying optional extensions to the TRILL base protocol to
   safely accomplish this. These extensions, called fine grained
   labeling, are primarily intended for use in large Data Centers, those
   with >4K users requiring configurable data isolation from each other.

Status of This Memo

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

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
   to the TRILL working group mailing list.

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

   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."

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft
   Shadow Directories can be accessed at

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Table of Contents

      1. Introduction............................................4
      1.1 Terminology............................................5
      1.2 Contributors...........................................5

      2. Fine-Grained Labeling...................................6
      2.1 Goals..................................................6
      2.2 Base Protocol TRILL Data Labeling......................7
      2.3 Fine-Grained Labeling (FGL)............................8
      2.4 Reasons for VL and FGL Co-existence....................9

      3. VL versus FGL Label Differences........................10

      4. FGL Processing.........................................11
      4.1 Ingress Processing....................................11
      4.1.1 Multi-Destination FGL Ingress.......................11
      4.2 Transit Processing....................................12
      4.2.1 Unicast Transit Processing..........................12
      4.2.2 Multi-Destination Transit Processing................12
      4.3 Egress Processing.....................................13
      4.4 Appointed Forwarders and the DRB......................14
      4.5 Distribution Tree Construction........................14
      4.6 Address Learning......................................15
      4.7 ESADI Extension.......................................15

      5. FGL TRILL Interaction with VL TRILL....................16
      5.1 FGL and VL Mixed Campus...............................16
      5.2 FGL and VL Mixed Links................................18
      5.3 Summary of FGL-safe Requirements......................18

      6. IS-IS Extensions.......................................20
      7. Comparison to Goals....................................21

      8. Allocation Considerations..............................22
      8.1 IEEE Allocation Considerations........................22
      8.2 IANA Considerations...................................22

      9. Security Considerations................................23
      Normative References......................................25
      Informative References....................................25

      Appendix A: Serial Unicast................................26

      Appendix B: Mixed Campus Characteristics..................27
      B.1 Mixed Campus with High Cost Adjacencies...............27
      B.2 Mixed Campus with Data Blocked Adjacencies............28

      Appendix Z: Change History................................29
      Authors' Addresses........................................31

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

1. Introduction

   The IETF has standardized the TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of
   Lots of Links) protocol [RFC6325] that provides a solution for least
   cost transparent routing in multi-hop networks with arbitrary
   topologies and link technologies, using [IS-IS] [RFC6165]
   [RFC6326bis] link-state routing and a hop count. TRILL switches are
   sometimes called RBridges (Routing Bridges).

   The TRILL base protocol standard supports labeling of TRILL data with
   up to 4K IDs. However, there are applications that require a larger
   number of labels of data for configurable isolation based on
   different tenants, service instances, or the like. This document
   updates [RFC6325] by specifying optional extensions to the TRILL base
   protocol to safely accomplish this. These extensions, called fine
   grained labeling, are primarily intended for use in large Data
   Centers, those with >4K users requiring configurable data isolation
   from each other.

   This document describes a format for allowing a data label of 24
   bits, known as a "fine-grained label", or FGL.  It also describes
   coexistence and migration from current RBridges, known as "VL" (for
   "VLAN labeled") RBridges to TRILL switches that can support FGL
   ("Fine Grain Labeled") packets.  Because various VL implementations
   might handle FGL packets incorrectly, FGL packets cannot be
   introduced until either all VL RBridges are upgraded to what we will
   call "FGL-safe", which means that they will not "do anything bad"
   with FGL packets, or all FGL RBridges take special precautions on any
   port by which they are connected to a VL RBridge. FGL-safe
   requirements are summarized in Section 5.3.

   It is hoped that many RBridges can become FGL-safe through a software
   upgrade.  VL RBridges and FGL-safe RBridges can coexist without any
   disruption to service, as long as no FGL packets are introduced.

   If all RBridges are upgraded to FGL-safe, FGL traffic can be
   successfully handled by the campus without any topology restrictions.
   The existence of FGL traffic is known to all FGL RBridges because
   some RBridge RB3 that might source or sink FGL traffic will advertise
   interest in one or more fine-grained labels in its LSP.  If any VL
   RBridges remain at the point when any RBridge announces that it might
   source or sink FGL traffic, the adjacent FGL-safe RBridges MUST
   ensure that no FGL packets are forwarded to their VL RBridge
   neighbor(s). The details are specified in Section 5.1 below.

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

1.1 Terminology

   The terminology and acronyms of [RFC6325] are used in this document
   with the additions listed below.

      DEI - Drop Eligibility Indicator [802.1Q].

      FGL - Fine-Grained Labeling or Fine-Grained Labeled or Fine-
            Grained Label.

      FGL-edge - An FGL TRILL switch advertising interest in an FGL

      FGL link - A link where all of the attached TRILL switches are

      FGL-safe - A TRILL switch that can safely be given an FGL data
            packet as summarized in Section 5.3.

      RBridge - Alternative name for a TRILL switch.

      TRILL switch - Alternative name for an RBridge.

      VL - VLAN Labeling or VLAN Labeled or VLAN Label.

      VL link - A link where any of the attached RBridges is VL.

      VL RBridge - A TRILL switch that supports VL but is not FGL-safe.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.2 Contributors

   Thanks for the contributions of the following:

      Tissa Senevirathne, Jon Hudson

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

2. Fine-Grained Labeling

   The essence of Fine-Grained Labeling (FGL) is that (a) when frames
   are ingressed or created they may incorporate a data label from a set
   consisting of significantly more than 4K labels, (b) TRILL switch
   ports can be labeled with a set of such fine-grained data labels, and
   (c) an FGL TRILL Data frame cannot be egressed through a TRILL switch
   port unless its fine-grained label (FGL) matches one of the data
   labels of the port.

   Section 2.1 lists FGL goals.  Section 2.2 briefly outlines the more
   coarse TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325] data labeling.  Section
   2.3 outlines FGL for TRILL Data frames. And Section 2.4 discusses VL
   and FGL co-existence.

2.1 Goals

   There are several goals that would be desirable for FGL TRILL.  They
   are briefly described in the list below in approximate order by
   priority with the most important first.

   1. Fine-Grained

      Some networks have a large number of entities that need
      configurable isolation, whether those entities are independent
      customers, applications, or branches of a single endeavor or some
      combination of these or other entities. The labeling supported by
      [RFC6325] provides for only ( 2**12 - 2 ) valid identifiers or
      labels. A substantially larger number is required.

   2. Silicon

      Fine-grained labeling (FGL) should, to the extent practical, use
      existing features, processing, and fields that are already
      supported in many fast path silicon implementations that support
      the TRILL base protocol.

   3. Base RBridge Interoperation

      To support some incremental conversion scenarios, it is desirable
      that not all RBridges in a campus using FGL be required to be FGL
      aware. That is, it is desirable if RBridges not implementing the
      FGL features can exchange VL TRILL Data packets with FGL TRILL

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   4. Alternate Priority

      It would be desirable for an ingress TRILL Switch to be able to
      assign a different priority to an FGL TRILL Data packet for its
      ingress-to-egress propagation from the priority of the original
      native frame. The original priority should be restored on egress.
      This enables traffic from attached non-TRILL networks to be
      handled with different priority while transiting a TRILL network,
      if desired.

2.2 Base Protocol TRILL Data Labeling

   This section provides a brief review of the [RFC6325] TRILL Data
   packet VL Labeling and changes the description of the TRILL Header by
   moving its end point. This change in description does not involve any
   change in the bits on the wire or in the behavior of VL TRILL

   VL TRILL Data packets have the structure shown below:

               | Link Header (depends on link technology)  |
               | (if link is an Ethernet link the link     |
               |  header may include an Outer.VLAN tag)    |
               | TRILL Header                              |
               | +---------------------------------------+ |
               | |    Initial Fields and Options         | |
               | +---------------------------------------+ |
               | |         Inner.MacDA         | (6 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------------+           |
               | |         Inner.MacSA         | (6 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+-----+           |
               | | Ethertype 0x8100      |       (2 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+                 |
               | | Inner.VLAN Label      |       (2 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+                 |
               |               Native Payload              |
               | Link Trailer (depends on link technology) |

                       Figure 1. TRILL Data with VL

   In the base protocol as specified in [RFC6325] the 0x8100 value is
   always present and is followed by the Inner.VLAN field which includes
   the 12-bit VL.

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

2.3 Fine-Grained Labeling (FGL)

   FGL expands the variety of data labels available under the TRILL
   protocol to include a fine-grained label (FGL) with a 12-bit high
   order part and a 12-bit low order part. In this document, FGLs are
   denoted as "(X.Y)" where X is the high order part and Y is the low
   order part of the FGL.

   FGL TRILL Data packets have the structure shown below.

               | Link Header (depends on link technology)  |
               | (if link is an Ethernet link the link     |
               |  header may include an Outer.VLAN tag)    |
               | TRILL Header                              |
               | +---------------------------------------+ |
               | |    Initial Fields and Options         | |
               | +---------------------------------------+ |
               | |         Inner.MacDA         | (6 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------------+           |
               | |         Inner.MacSA         | (6 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+-----+           |
               | | Ethertype 0x893B      |       (2 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+                 |
               | | Inner.Label High Part |       (2 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+                 |
               | | Ethertype 0x893B      |       (2 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+                 |
               | | Inner.Label Low Part  |       (2 bytes) |
               | +-----------------------+                 |
               |               Native Payload              |
               | Link Trailer (depends on link technology) |

                       Figure 2. TRILL Data with FGL

   For FGL packets, the inner MAC address fields are followed by the FGL
   information using 0x893B. There MUST be two occurrences of 0x893B as
   shown. Should a TRILL switch processing a FGL TRILL Data packet
   notice that the second occurrence is actually some other value, it
   MUST discard the packet.  (A TRILL switch transiting a TRILL Data
   packet is not required to examine any fields past the initial fixed
   fields and options although it may do so to support ECMP or
   distribution tree pruning.)

   The two bytes following each 0x893B have, in their low order 12 bits,
   fine-grained label information. The upper 4 bits of those two bytes

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   are used for a 3-bit priority field and one Drop Eligibility
   Indicator (DEI) bit as shown below.

           0  1  2   3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15
         |priority|DEI|    label information              |

                     Figure 3. FGL Part Data Structure

   The priority field of the Inner.Label High Part is the priority used
   for frame transport across the TRILL campus from ingress to egress.
   The label bits in the Inner.Label High Part are the high order part
   of the FGL and those bits in the Inner.Label Low Part are the low
   order part of the FGL. The priority field of the Inner.Label Low Part
   is remembered from the data frame as ingressed and is restored on

   The appropriate FGL value for an ingressed or locally originated
   native frame is determined by the ingress TRILL switch port as
   specified in Section 4.1.

2.4 Reasons for VL and FGL Co-existence

   For several reasons, as listed below, it is desirable for FGL TRILL
   switches to be able to handle both FGL and VL TRILL Data packets.

      o  Continued support of VL packets means that, by taking
         precautions specified herein, in many cases arrangements are
         possible such as VL TRILL switches easily exchanging VL packets
         through a core of FGL TRILL switches.

      o  Due to the way TRILL works, it may be desirable to have a
         maintenance VLAN or FGL [OAMframework] in which all TRILL
         switches in the campus indicate interest. It will be simpler to
         use the same type of label for all TRILL switches for this
         purpose. That implies using VL if there might be any VL TRILL
         switches in the campus.

      o  If a campus is being upgraded from VL to to FGL, continued
         support of VL allows long-term support of edges labeled as VL.

D. Eastlake, et al                                              [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

3. VL versus FGL Label Differences

   There are differences between the semantics across a TRILL campus for
   TRILL Data packets that are data labeled with VL and FGL.

   With VL, data label IDs have the same meaning throughout the campus
   and are from the same label space as the C-VLAN IDs used on Ethernet
   links to end stations.

   The larger FGL data label space is a different space from the VL data
   label space. For ports configured for FGL, the C-VLAN on an ingressed
   native frame is stripped and mapped to the FGL data label space with
   a potentially different mapping for each port. A similar FGL to C-
   VLAN mapping occurs per port on egress. Thus, for ports configured
   for FGL, the native frame C-VLAN on one link corresponding to an FGL
   can be different from the native frame C-VLAN corresponding to that
   same FGL on a different link elsewhere in the campus or even a
   different link attached to the same TRILL switch. The FGL label space
   is flat and does not hierarchically encode any particular number of
   native frame C-VLAN bits or the like. FGLs appear only inside TRILL
   Data frames after the inner MAC addresses.

   It is the responsibility of the network manager to properly configure
   the TRILL switches in the campus to obtain the desired mappings. Such
   configuration is expected to be automatic in many cases, based on
   configuration databases and orchestration systems.

   With FGL TRILL switches, many things remain the same because an FGL
   can appear only as the Inner.Label inside a TRILL Data packet. As
   such, only TRILL-aware devices will see a fine-grained label.  The
   Outer.VLAN that may appear on native frames and that may appear on
   TRILL Data packets if they are on an Ethernet link, can only be a C-
   VLAN tag. Thus ports of FGL TRILL switches, up through the usual VLAN
   and priority processing, act as they do for VL TRILL switches: TRILL
   switch ports provide a C-VLAN ID for an incoming frame and accept a
   C-VLAN ID for a frame being queued for output. Appointed Forwarders
   [RFC6439] on a link are still appointed for a C-VLAN. The Designated
   VLAN for an Ethernet link is still a C-VLAN.

   FGL TRILL switches have capabilities that are a superset of those for
   VL TRILL switches. FGL TRILL switch ports can be configured for FGL
   or VL with VL being the default. As with a base protocol [RFC6325]
   TRILL switch, an unconfigured FGL TRILL switch port reports an
   untagged frame it receives as being in VLAN 1.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

4. FGL Processing

   This section specifies ingress, transit, egress, and other processing
   details for FGL TRILL switches. A transit or egress FGL TRILL switch
   determines that a TRILL Data packet is FGL by detecting that the
   Inner.MacSA is followed by 0x893B.

4.1 Ingress Processing

   FGL-edge TRILL switch ports are configurable to ingress native frames
   as FGL. Any port not so configured performs the previously specified
   [RFC6325] VL ingress processing on native frames resulting in a VL
   TRILL Data packet. (There is no change in Appointed Forwarder logic
   (see Section 4.4).) An FGL-safe TRILL switch may have only VL ports,
   in which case it is not required to support the capabilities for FGL
   ingress described in this section.

   FGL-edge TRILL switches support configurable per port mapping from
   the C-VLAN of a native frame, as reported by the ingress port, to an
   FGL. FGL TRILL switches MAY support other methods to determine the
   FGL of an incoming native frame, such as based on the protocol of the
   native frame or local knowledge.

   The FGL ingress process MUST copy the priority and DEI (drop
   eligibility indicator) associated with an ingressed native frame to
   the upper 4 bits of the Inner.Label Low Order part. It SHOULD also
   associate a possibly different mapped priority and DEI with an
   ingressed frame but a TRILL switch might not be able to do so because
   of implementation limitations. The mapped priority is placed in the
   Inner.Label High Part. If such mapping is not supported then the
   original priority and DEI MUST be placed in the Inner.Label High

4.1.1 Multi-Destination FGL Ingress

   If a native frame that has a broadcast, multicast, or unknown MAC
   destination address is FGL ingressed, it MUST be handled in one of
   the following two ways. The choice of which method to use can vary
   from frame to frame at the choice of the ingress TRILL switch.

      (1) Ingress as a TRILL multi-destination data packet (TRILL Header
          M bit = 1) on a distribution tree rooted at a nickname held by
          an FGL RBridge or by the pseudonode of an FGL link.  FGL TRILL
          Data packets MUST NOT be sent on a tree rooted at a nickname
          held by a VL TRILL switch or by the pseudonode of a VL link.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

      (2) Serially TRILL unicast the ingressed frame to the relevant
          egress TRILL switches by using a known unicast TRILL Header (M
          bit = 0).  An FGL ingress TRILL switch SHOULD unicast a multi-
          destination TRILL Data frame if there is only one relevant
          egress FGL TRILL switch.  The relevant egress TRILL switches
          are determined by starting with those announcing interest in
          the frame's (X.Y) label. That set SHOULD be further filtered
          based on multicast listener and multicast router attachment
          LSP announcements if the native frame was a multicast frame.

   Using a TRILL unicast header for a multi-destination frame when it
   has only one actual destination RBridge almost always improves
   traffic spreading and decreases latency as discussed in Appendix A.
   How to decide whether to use a distribution tree or serial unicast
   for a multi-destination TRILL Data frame that has more than one
   destination TRILL switch is beyond the scope of this document.

4.2 Transit Processing

   Any FGL TRILL switch MUST be capable of TRILL Data frame transit
   processing. Such processing is fairly straightforward as described in
   Section 4.2.1 for known unicast TRILL Data packets and in Section
   4.2.2 for multi-destination TRILL Data packets.

4.2.1 Unicast Transit Processing

   There is very little change in TRILL Data frame unicast transit
   processing. A transit TRILL switch forwards any unicast TRILL Data
   packet to the next hop towards the egress TRILL switch as specified
   in the TRILL Header. All transit TRILL switches MUST take the
   priority and DEI used to forward a packet from the Inner.VLAN label
   or the FGL Inner.Label High Part. These bits are in the same place in
   the packet.

   An FGL TRILL switch MUST properly distinguish flows if it provides
   ECMP for unicast FGL TRILL Data packets.

4.2.2 Multi-Destination Transit Processing

   Multi-destination TRILL Data packets are forwarded on a distribution
   tree selected by the ingress TRILL switch except that an FGL ingress
   TRILL switch MAY TRILL unicast such a frame to all relevant egress
   TRILL switches, all as described in Section 4.1.  The distribution
   trees do not distinguish between FGL and VL multi-destination packets

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   except in pruning behavior if they provide pruning. There is no
   change in the Reverse Path Forwarding Check.

   An FGL TRILL switch, say RB1, having an FGL multi-destination frame
   for label (X.Y) to forward on a distribution tree, SHOULD prune that
   tree based on whether there are any TRILL switches on a tree branch
   that are advertising connectivity to label (X.Y). In addition, RB1
   SHOULD prune multicast frames based on reported multicast listener
   and multicast router attachment in (X.Y).

   Pruning is an optimization. If a transit TRILL switch does less
   pruning than it could, there may be greater link utilization than
   strictly necessary but the campus will still operate correctly. A
   transit TRILL switch MAY prune based on an arbitrary subset of the
   bits in the FGL label, for example only the High Part or only the Low
   Part of the label.

4.3 Egress Processing

   Egress processing is generally the reverse of ingress progressing
   described in Section 4.1. An FGL-safe TRILL switch may have only VL
   ports, in which case it is not required to support the capabilities
   for FGL egress described in this section.

   An FGL-edge TRILL switch MUST be able to covert in a configurable
   fashion from the FGL in an FGL TRILL Data frame it is egressing to
   the C-VLAN ID for the resulting native frame with different mappings
   on a per port basis. The priority and DEI of the egressed native
   frame are taken from the Inner.Label Low Order Part. A port MAY be
   configured to strip output VLAN tagging.

   It is the responsibility of the network manager to properly configure
   the TRILL switches in the campus to obtain the desired mappings.

   FGL egress is similar to VL egress, as follows:

      1. If the Inner.MacDA is All-Egress-RBridges, special processing
         applies based on the payload Ethertype (for example ESADI
         [RFC6325] or RBridge Channel [RFCchannel]) and, if the payload
         Ethertype is unknown, the packet is discarded. If the
         Inner.MacDA is not All-Egress-RBridges, then 2 or 3 below apply
         as appropriate.

      2. A known unicast FGL TRILL Data packet (TRILL Header M bit = 0)
         with a unicast Inner.MacDA is egressed to the FGL port or ports
         matching its FGL and Inner.MacDA. If there are no such ports,
         it is flooded out all FGL ports that have its FGL except any
         ports for which the TRILL switch has knowledge that the frame's

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

         Inner.MacDA cannot be present on the link out that port.

      3. A multi-destination FGL TRILL Data packet is decapsulated and
         flooded out all ports that have its FGL, subject to multicast
         pruning. The same processing applies to a unicast FGL TRILL
         Data packet with a broadcast or multicast Inner.MacDA that
         might be received due to serial unicast.

   An FGL TRILL switch MUST NOT egress an FGL packet with label (X.Y) to
   any port not configured with that FGL even if the port is configured
   to egress VL packets in VLAN X.

   FGL TRILL switches MUST accept multi-destination TRILL Data packets
   that are sent to them as TRILL unicast packets (packets with the
   TRILL Header M bit set to 0). They locally egress such packets, if
   appropriate, but MUST NOT forward them (other than egressing them as
   native frames on their local links).

4.4 Appointed Forwarders and the DRB

   There is no change in Adjacency [RFC6327], DRB election or Appointed
   Forwarder logic [RFC6439] on a link, regardless of whether some or
   all the ports on the link are for FGL TRILL switches, with one
   exception: implementations SHOULD provide that their default priority
   for a VL RBridge port to be DRB (Designated RBridge) is less than
   their default priority for an FGL RBridge to be DRB. This will assure
   that, in the unconfigured case, an FGL RBridge will be elected DRB
   when using that implementation.

4.5 Distribution Tree Construction

   All distribution trees are calculated as provided for in the TRILL
   base protocol standard [RFC6325] as updated by [ClearCorrect] with
   the exception that the default tree root priority for a nickname held
   by an FGL TRILL switch or an FGL link pseudonode is 0x9000. As a
   result they will be chosen in preference to VL nicknames in the
   absence of configuration. If distribution tree roots are configured,
   there MUST be at least one tree rooted at a nickname held by an FGL
   TRILL switch or by an FGL link pseudonode. If distribution tree roots
   are misconfigured so there would not be such a tree, then the highest
   priority FGL nickname to be a tree root is used to construct an
   additional tree regardless of configuration. (VL TRILL switches will
   not know about this additional distribution tree but, through the use
   of Step (A) or (B) in Section 5.1, no VL TRILL switch should ever
   receive a multi-destination TRILL Data packet using this additional

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

4.6 Address Learning

   An FGL TRILL switch learns addresses from the data plane on ports
   configured for FGL based on the fine-grained label rather than the
   native frame's VLAN. Addresses learned from ingressed native frames
   on FGL ports are logically represented by { MAC address, FGL, port,
   confidence, timer } while remote addresses learned from egressing FGL
   packets are logically represented by { MAC address, FGL, remote TRILL
   switch nickname, confidence, timer }.

4.7 ESADI Extension

   The TRILL ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information)
   protocol is specified in [RFC6325] as optionally transmitting MAC
   address connection information through TRILL Data packets between
   participating TRILL switches over the virtual link provided by the
   TRILL multi-destination packet distribution mechanism. In [RFC6325],
   the VL to which an ESADI packet applies is indicated only by the
   Inner.VLAN label and no indication of that VL is allowed within the
   ESADI payload.

   ESADI is extended to support FGL by providing for the indication of
   the FGL to which an ESADI packet applies only in the Inner.Label of
   that packet and no indication of that FGL is allowed within the ESADI

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

5. FGL TRILL Interaction with VL TRILL

   This section discusses mixing FGL-safe and VL TRILL switches in a
   campus. It does not apply if the campus is entirely FGL-safe or if
   there are no FGL-edges.  Section 5.1 specifies what behaviors are
   needed to render such mixed campuses safe. See also Appendix B for a
   discussion of campus characteristics when these behaviors are in use.
   Section 5.2 gives details of link local mixed behavior.

   It is best, if possible, for VL TRILL switches to be upgraded to FGL-
   safe before introducing FGL-edges (and therefore FGL data packets).

5.1 FGL and VL Mixed Campus

   By definition, it is not possible for VL TRILL switches to safely
   handle FGL traffic even if the VL TRILL switch is only acting in the
   transit capacity. If a TRILL switch can safely transit FGL TRILL Data
   packets, then it qualifies as FGL-safe but will still be assumed to
   be VL until it advertises in its LSP that it is FGL-safe.

   VL frames are required to have 0x8100 at the beginning of the data
   label where FGL frames have 0x893B.  VL TRILL switches conformant to
   [RFC6325] should discard frames with this new value after the inner
   MAC addresses. However, if they do not discard such frames, they
   could be confused and egress them into the wrong VLAN (see Section 9
   below) or persistently re-order them due to miscomputing flows for
   ECMP or they could improperly prune their distribution if they are
   multi-destination so that they would fail to reach some intended
   destinations.  Such difficulties are avoided by taking all practical
   steps to minimize the chance of a VL TRILL switch handling an FGL
   TRILL Data packet. These steps are specified below.

   FGL-safe switches will report their FGL capability in LSPs. Thus FGL-
   safe TRILL switches (and any management system with access to the
   link state database) will be able to detect the existence of TRILL
   switches in the campus that do not support FGL.

   Once a TRILL switch advertises an FGL-edge, any FGL-safe TRILL switch
   RB1 that observes, on one of its ports, a VL RBridge on the link out
   that port, MUST take Step (A) or (B) below for that port and also
   take Step (C) further below. ("Observes" means that it has an
   adjacency to the VL TRILL switch that is in any state other than Down
   [RFC6327] and holds an LSP fragment zero for it showing it is not
   FGL-safe.)  Finally, for there to be full FGL connectivity, the
   campus topology must be such that all FGL TRILL switches are
   reachable from all other FGL TRILL switches without going through a
   VL TRILL switch.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

      (A) If RB1 can discard any FGL TRILL Data packet that would be
          output through a port where is observes a VL RBridge, while
          allowing output of VL TRILL Data packets through that port,

          A1. RB1 MUST so discard all FGL TRILL Data output packets that
              would otherwise be output through the port and

          A2. For all adjacencies out that port (even adjacencies to
              other FGL RBridges or a pseudonode) in the Report state
              [RFC6327], RB1 MUST report that adjacency cost as 2**23
              greater than it would have otherwise reported, but not
              more than 2**24 - 2 (the highest link cost still usable in
              least cost path calculations and distribution tree
              construction). This assures that if any path through FGL-
              safe TRILL switches exists, such a path will be computed.

      (B) If RB1 cannot discard any FGL TRILL Data packet that would be
          output through a port where it observes a VL RBridge while
          allowing VL TRILL data packets, then RB1 MUST, for all
          adjacencies out that port (even adjacencies to other FGL-safe
          RBridges or a pseudonode) in the Report state [RFC6327],
          report the adjacency cost as 2**24 - 1. As specified in IS-IS
          [RFC5305], that cost will stop the adjacency from being used
          in least cost path calculations, including distribution tree
          construction (see Section 2.1 of [ClearCorrect]), but will
          still leave it visible in the topology and usable, for
          example, by any traffic engineered path mechanism.

      (C) The roots for all distribution trees used for FGL TRILL Data
          packets must be nicknames held by an FGL-safe TRILL switch or
          by a pseudonode representing an FGL link. As provided in
          Section 4.5, there will always be such a distribution tree.

   Using the increased adjacency cost specified in part A2 of Step (A)
   above, VL links will be avoided unless no other path is available for
   typical data center link speeds using the default link cost
   determination method specified in Item 1 of Section of
   [RFC6325]. However, if links have low speed (such as about 100
   megabits/second or less) or some non-default method is used for
   determining link costs, then link costs MUST be adjusted such that no
   adjacency between FGL-safe TRILL switches has a cost greater than

   To summarize, for a mixed TRILL campus to be safe once FGL-edges are
   introduced, it is essential that the steps above be followed by FGL-
   safe RBridges, to ensure that paths between such RBridges do not
   include VL RBridges, and to ensure that FGL packets are never
   forwarded to VL RBridges. That is, all FGL-safe switches MUST do Step
   (A) or (B) for any port out which they observe a VL RBridge neighbor.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   And for full FGL connectivity, all FGL-safe TRILL switches MUST do
   Step (C) and be connected in a single FGL contiguous area.

5.2 FGL and VL Mixed Links

   The usual DRB election operates on a link with mixed FGL and VL
   ports. If an FGL TRILL switch port is DRB, it can handle all native
   traffic. It MUST appoint only other FGL TRILL switch ports as
   Appointed Forwarder for any VLANs that are to be mapped to FGL.

   For VLANs that are not being mapped to FGL, if Step (A) is being
   followed (see Section 5.1), it can appoint either a VL or FGL TRILL
   switch for a VLAN on the link to be handled by VL.  If Step (B) is
   being followed, an FGL DRB MUST only appoint FGL Appointed
   Forwarders, so that all end stations will get service to the FGL
   campus. If a VL RBridge is DRB, it will not understand that FGL TRILL
   switch ports are different. To the extent that Step (B) is in effect
   and a VL DRB handles native frames or appoints other VL TRILL switch
   ports on a link to handle native frames for one or more VLANs, the
   end stations sending and receiving those native frames may be
   isolated from the FGL campus. When a VL DRB happens to appoint an FGL
   port as Appointed Forwarder for one or more VLANs, the end stations
   sending and receiving native frames in those VLANs will get service
   to the FGL campus.

5.3 Summary of FGL-safe Requirements

   The list below summarizes the requirements for a TRILL switch to be

   (a) For both unicast and multi-destination data, RB1 MUST NOT forward
       an FGL packet to a VL neighbor RB2.  This is accomplished as
       specified in Section 5.1.

   (b) For both unicast and multi-destination data, RB1 MUST NOT egress
       a packet onto a link that does not belong in that FGL.

   (c) For unicast, RB1 must forward the FGL packet properly to the
       egress nickname in the TRILL header. This means that it MUST NOT
       delete the packet because of not having the expected VLAN tag, it
       MUST NOT insert a VLAN tag, and it MUST NOT misclassify a flow so
       as to persistently misorder packets, because the TRILL fields are
       now 4 bytes longer than in VL TRILL packets.

   (d) For multi-destination, RB1 must forward the packet properly along
       the specified tree.  This means that RB1 MUST NOT falsely prune

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

       the packet.  RB1 is allowed not to prune at all, but it MUST NOT
       prevent an FGL packet from reaching all the links with that FGL
       by incorrectly refusing to forward the FGL packet along a branch
       in the tree.

   (e) RB1 must advertise, in its LSP, that it is FGL-safe.

   Point (c) above, for a TRILL switch to correctly support ECMP, and
   point (d), for a TRILL switch to correctly prune distribution trees,
   require that the TRILL switch properly recognize and distinguish
   between the two Ethertypes that can occur immediately after the
   Inner.MacSA in a TRILL Data packet.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

6. IS-IS Extensions

   Extensions to the TRILL use of IS-IS are required to support FGL
   include the following:

      1. A method for a TRILL switch to announce itself in its LSP as
         FGL-safe (see Section 8.2).

      2. A sub-TLV analogous to Interested VLANs and Spanning Tree Roots
         sub-TLV of the Router Capabilities TLV but indicating FGLs
         rather than VLs. This is called the Interested Labels and
         Spanning Tree Roots sub-TLV in [rfc6326bis].

      3. Sub-TLVs analogous to the GMAC-ADDR sub-TLV of the Group
         Address TLV that specifies an FGL rather than a VL. These are
         called the GLMAC-ADDR, GLIP-ADDR, and GLIP6 ADDR sub-TLVs in

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

7. Comparison to Goals

   Comparing TRILL FGL, as specified in this document, with the goals
   given in Section 2.1, we find as follows:

   1. Fine-Grained: FGL provides 2**24 labels, vastly more than the 4K
      VL labels provided in [RFC6325].

   2. Silicon: Existing TRILL fast path silicon chips can perform base
      TRILL Header insertion and removal to support ingress and egress.
      In addition, it is believed that most such silicon can also
      perform the native frame to FGL mapping and the encoding of the
      FGL as specified herein, as well as the inverse decoding and
      mapping. Some existing silicon can perform only one of these
      operations on a frame in one pass through the fast path; however,
      other existing chips are believed to be able to perform both
      operations on the same frame in one pass through their fast path.
      It is also believed that most FGL TRILL switches will be capable
      of having their ports configured to discard FGL packets making
      interoperation with VL TRILL switches using of Step (A) (see
      Section 5.1) practical.

   3. Base RBridge Interoperation: As described in Section 3, FGL is not
      generally compatible with TRILL switches conformant to the base
      specification [RFC6325]. In particular, a VL TRILL switch cannot
      be an FGL TRILL switch because there is a risk that it would
      mishandle FGL packets. However, a contiguous set of VL TRILL
      switches can exchange VL frames regardless of the presence of FGL
      TRILL switches in the campus and the provisions of Section 5
      support reasonable interoperation and migration scenarios.

   4. Alternate Priority: The encoding specified in Section 2.3 and the
      ingress/egress processing specified in Section 4 provide for a new
      priority and DEI in the Inner.Label High Part and a place to
      preserve the original user priority and DEI in the Low Part, so it
      can be restored on egress.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

8. Allocation Considerations

   Allocations by the IEEE Registration Authority and IANA are listed

8.1 IEEE Allocation Considerations

   The IEEE Registration Authority has assigned Ethertype 0x893B for use
   as the TRILL FGL Ethertype.

8.2 IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate capability bit TBD in the TRILL-VER
   sub-TLV capability bits [RFC6326bis] to indicate a TRILL switch is

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

9. Security Considerations

   See [RFC6325] for general TRILL Security Considerations.

   As with any communications system, end-to-end encryption and
   authentication should be considered for sensitive data. In this case
   that would be encryption and authentication extending from a source
   end station and carried through the TRILL campus to a destination end

   Confusion between a packet with VL X and FGL (X.Y) or confusion due
   to a malformed frame is a potential problem if an FGL TRILL switch
   did not properly check for the occurrence of 0x8100 or 0x893B
   immediately after the Inner.MacSA (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3) and
   handled the frame appropriately.

   [RFC6325] requires that the Ethertype immediately after the
   Inner.MacSA be 0x8100. A VL TRILL switch that did not discard a
   packet with some other value there could cause problems. If it
   received a TRILL Data frame with FGL (X.Y) or with junk after the
   Inner.MacSA that included X where a VLAN ID would appear, then:

      1. It could egress the packet to an end station in VLAN-X. If the
         packet was a well formed FGL frame, the payload of such an
         egressed native frame would appear to begin with Ethertype
         0x893B that would likely be discarded by an end station. In any
         case, such an egress would almost certainly be a violation of
         security policy requiring the configurable separation of
         differently labeled data.

      2. If the packet was multi-destination and the TRILL switch pruned
         the distribution tree, it would incorrectly prune it on the
         basis of VLAN-X. For an FGL packet, this would probably lead to
         the multi-destination data packet not being delivered to all of
         its intended recipients.

   Possible problems with an FGL TRILL switch that received a TRILL Data
   packet with junk after the Inner.MacSA that included X where a VLAN
   ID would appear and did not check the Ethertype immediately after the
   Inner.MacSA would be that it could improperly egress the packet in
   VLAN-X, violating security policy. If the packet was multi-
   destination and was improperly forwarded, it should be discarded by
   properly implemented TRILL switches downstream in the distribution
   tree and never egressed but the propagation of the packet would still
   waste bandwidth.

   To avoid these problems all TRILL switches MUST check the Ethertype
   immediately after the Inner.MacSA and, if it is a value they do not
   know how to handle, either discard the frame or make no decisions
   based on any data after that Ethertype. In addition, care must be

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   taken to avoid FGL packets being sent to or through VL TRILL switches
   that will discard them if the VL TRILL switch is properly implemented
   or mishandle them if it is not properly implemented. This is
   accomplished as specified in Section 5.1.


   The comments and suggestions of the following, listed in alphabetic
   order, are gratefully acknowledged:

      Stewart Bryant, Spencer Dawkins, Adrian Farrel, Anoop Ghanwani,
      Sujay Gupta, Weiguo Hao, Phanidhar Koganti, Yizhou Li, Vishwas
      Manral, Rajeev Manur, Thomas Narten, Gayle Nobel, Erik Nordmark,
      Pete Resnick, Olen Stokes, Sean Turner, Ilya Varlashkin, and

   The document was prepared in raw nroff. All macros used were defined
   within the source file.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 24]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Normative References

   [IS-IS] - ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Intermediate System to
         Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for
         use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the
         Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", 2002.

   [802.1Q] - IEEE 802.1, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
         networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE Std
         802.1Q-2011, May 2011.

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

   [RFC5305] - Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
         Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.

   [RFC6325] - Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
         Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
         Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.

   [RFC6327] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D.,
         and V. Manral, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Adjacency", RFC
         6327, July 2011

   [RFC6326bis] - Eastlake, D., Banerjee, A., Dutt, D., Perlman, R., and
         A. Ghanwani, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
         (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-rfc6326bis, Work in

   [ClearCorrect] - D. Eastlake, M. Zhang, A. Ghanwani, A. Banerjee, V.
         Manral, draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-06.txt, in RFC Editor's

Informative References

   [OAMframework] - draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework, Work in Progress.

   [RFC6165] - Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for
         Layer-2 Systems", RFC 6165, April 2011.

   [RFC6439] - Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Li, Y., Banerjee, A., and F.
         Hu, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Appointed Forwarders", RFC
         6439, November 2011.

   [RFCchannel] - D. Eastlake, V. Manral, Y. Li, S. Aldrin, D. Ward,
         "TRILL: RBridge Channel Support", 13 July 2012, in RFC Editor's

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 25]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Appendix A: Serial Unicast

   This informational appendix discusses advantages and disadvantages of
   using serial unicast instead of a distribution tree for multi-
   destination TRILL Data packets. See Sections 4.1 and 4.3. FGL TRILL
   switches are required by this document to accept serial unicast but
   there is no requirement that they be able to send serial unicast.

   Consider a large TRILL campus with hundreds of TRILL switches in
   which, say, 300 end stations are in some particular FGL data label.

   At one extreme, if all 300 end stations were on links attached to a
   single TRILL switch, then no other TRILL switch would be advertising
   interest in that FGL and likely a multi-destination (say broadcast)
   frame from one such end station would, even if put on a distribution
   tree, because of pruning, not be sent to any another TRILL switch.

   At the other extreme, assume the 300 end stations are attached, one
   each, to 300 different TRILL switches; in that case you are almost
   certainly better off using a distribution tree because if you tried
   to serially unicast you would have to output 300 copies, probably
   including multiple copies through the same port, and would cause much
   higher link utilization.

   Now assume these 300 end stations are connected to exactly two TRILL
   switches, say 200 to one and 100 to the other. Using unicast TRILL
   Data frames between these two TRILL switches is best because the
   frames will follow least cost paths, possibly with such traffic
   spread over a number of equal cost least cost paths. On the other
   hand, if a distribution trees were used, each frame would be
   constrained to the tree used for that frame and would likely follow a
   higher cost route and only a single path would be available per tree.
   Thus this document says that unicast "SHOULD" be used if there are
   exactly two TRILL switches involved.

   It is a more complex decision whether to use a distribution tree or
   serial unicast if the end stations are connected to a number of TRILL
   switches greater than two. Which would be better would depend on many
   factors including network topology and application data patterns. How
   to make this decision in such more complex cases is beyond the scope
   of this document.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 26]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Appendix B: Mixed Campus Characteristics

   This informational appendix describes the characteristics of a TRILL
   campus with mixed FGL-safe and VL TRILL switches for two cases:
   Section B.1 discusses the case where all FGL adjacencies with VL are
   handled by Step (A) and Section B.2 discusses the case where all FGL
   adjacencies with VL are handled by Step (B) (see Seciton 5.1).

B.1 Mixed Campus with High Cost Adjacencies

   If the FGL TRILL switches use Step (A) in Section 5.1, then VL and
   FGL TRILL switches will be able to interoperate for VL traffic.
   Least cost paths will avoid any FGL -> VL TRILL switch hops unless no
   other reasonable path is available. In conjunction with Section 4.5,
   there will be at least one distribution tree rooted at a nickname
   held by an FGL TRILL switch or the pseudonode for an FGL link.
   Furthermore, if the FGL TRILL switches in the campus form a single
   contiguous island, this distribution tree will have a fully connected
   sub-tree covering that island. Thus any FGL TRILL Data packets sent
   on this tree will be able to reach any other FGL TRILL switch without
   attempting to go through any VL TRILL switches. (Such an attempt
   would cause the FGL packet to be discarded as specified in part A1 of
   Step (A).)

   If supported, Step (A) is particularly effective in a campus with an
   FGL TRILL switch core and VL TRILL switches in on one or more islands
   around that core. For example, consider the campus below. This campus
   has an FGL core consisting of FGL01 to FGL14 and three VL islands
   consisting of VL01 to VL04, VL05, and VL06 to VL14.

           |      |
         *VL03--*VL04                *VL05
           |      |                    |
           |      |      |      |      |
           |      |      |      |      |
                  |      |      |      |
                  |      |      |      |

   Assuming that the FGL TRILL switches in this campus all implement
   Step (A), then end stations connected through a VL port can be
   connected anywhere in the campus to VL or FGL TRILL switches and, if
   in the same VLAN, will communicate. End stations connected through an

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 27]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

   FGL port on FGL TRILL switches will communicate if their local VLANs
   are mapped to the same FGL.

   Due to the high cost of FGL to VL adjacencies used in path
   computations, VL TRILL switches are avoided on paths between FGL
   TRILL switches. For example, even if the speed and default adjacency
   cost of all the connections show above were the same, traffic from
   FGL12 to FGL13 would follow the 5 hop path FGL12 - FGL07 - FGL08 -
   FGL09 - FGL10 - FGL13 rather than the 3 hop path FGL12 - VL09 - VL10
   - FGL14.

B.2 Mixed Campus with Data Blocked Adjacencies

   If the FGL TRILL switches use Step (B) in Section 5.1, then least
   cost and distribution tree TRILL Data communication between VL and
   FGL TRILL switches is blocked, although TRILL IS-IS communication is
   normal.  This data blocking, although implemented only by FGL TRILL
   switches, has relatively symmetric effects. The following paragraphs
   assume such data blocking between VL and FGL is in effect throughout
   the campus.

   A campus of mostly FGL TRILL switches implementing Step (B) with a
   few isolated VL TRILL switches scattered throughout will work well in
   terms of connectivity for end stations attached to those FGL switches
   except that they will be unable to communicate with any end stations
   for which a VL switch is appointed forwarder. The VL TRILL switches
   will be isolated and will only be able to route TRILL Data to the
   extent they happen to be contiguously connected to other VL TRILL
   switches. Distribution trees computed by the FGL switches will not
   include any VL switches (see Section 2.1 of [ClearCorrect]).

   A campus of mostly VL TRILL switches with a few isolated FGL TRILL
   switches scattered throughout will also work reasonably well as
   described immediately above with all occurrences of "FGL" and "VL"

   However, a campus so badly misconfigured that it consists of a
   randomly intermingled mixture of VL and FGL TRILL switches using Step
   (B) is likely to offer very poor data service due to many links being
   blocked for data.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 28]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Appendix Z: Change History

   RFC Editor Note: Please delete this appendix before publication.

   From -00 to -01:

         Update author info and make editorial changes.

   From -01 to -02

      1. Change the value after the inner MAC addresses for FGL frames
         from 0x8100 to 0x893B

      2. As a consequence of item 1 above, for safety prohibit use for
         TRILL Data of links between FGL and VL RBridges, isolating any
         VL RBridges. Make appropriate changes throughout document,
         including Security Considerations section, based on this

      3. Reference and contributor updates.

      4. Minor editorial changes.

   From -02 to -03

      1. Addition of the terms "Limited FGL" and "Full FGL".

      2. Addition of Appendix A.

      3. Clarifications:
         3.a That FGL TRILL switches also support VL ports and frames
             (Add Section 2.4, etc.).
         3.b That the FGL extensions to TRILL are optional. A VL TRILL
             switch is still a conformant implementation.
         3.c The utility of the alternate priority goal.

      4. Expand Security Considerations discussion of misparsed frames.

      5. Substantial editorial changes.

   From -03 to -04

      1. Typo and grammar fixes.

      2. Update acknowledgements, date, and version as usual.

   From -04 to -05

      1. Tweak VL/FGL interoperation and migration strategy to provide
         for Steps (A) and (B) in Section 5.1 and adjust other parts of

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 29]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

         document correspondingly.

      2. Drop terms "Limited FGL" and "Full FGL". Add terms "FGL-safe"
         and "FGL-edge".

      3. Provide that the default configuration of an FGL TRILL switch
         to be a tree root and to be the DRB is higher than for a VL

      4. Assorted Editorial changes.

   From -05 to -06

      1. Move summary list of FGL-safe requirements from Introduction to
         new Section 5.3.

      2. Editorial improvements.

   From -06 to -07

      Editorial changes resulting from IESG review.

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 30]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Authors' Addresses

   Donald Eastlake 3rd
   Huawei Technologies
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757 USA

   Phone: +1-508-333-2270

   Mingui Zhang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Z-park, Shi-Chuang-Ke-Ji-Shi-Fan-Yuan, Hai-Dian District,
   Beijing 100095 P.R. China


   Puneet Agarwal
   Broadcom Corporation
   3151 Zanker Road
   San Jose, CA 95134 USA

   Phone: +1-949-926-5000

   Radia Perlman
   Intel Labs
   2200 Mission College Blvd.
   Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA

   Phone: +1-408-765-8080

   Dinesh G. Dutt
   Cumulus Networks
   1089 West Evelyn Avenue
   Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA


D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 31]
INTERNET-DRAFT                              TRILL: Fine-Grained Labeling

Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.  The definitive version of
   an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
   IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
   including those that are translated into other languages, should not
   be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
   definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
   that are published by third parties, including those that are
   translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
   definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.  For the avoidance of
   doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
   Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
   Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
   language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
   from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
   RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
   published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such

D. Eastlake, et al                                             [Page 32]