TRILL Smart Endnodes
draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-05
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8384.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Radia Perlman , fangwei hu , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Kesava Vijaya Krupakaran , Ting Liao | ||
| Last updated | 2017-05-31 (Latest revision 2017-02-06) | ||
| Replaces | draft-perlman-trill-smart-endnodes | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Telechat review
(of
-08)
by Robert Sparks
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | Susan Hares | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8384 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-05
TRILL WG Radia. Perlman
Internet-Draft EMC Corporation
Intended status: Standards Track Fangwei. Hu
Expires: August 10, 2017 ZTE Corporation
Donald. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei technology
Kesava. Krupakaran
Dell
Ting. Liao
February 6, 2017
TRILL Smart Endnodes
draft-ietf-trill-smart-endnodes-05.txt
Abstract
This draft addresses the problem of the size and freshness of the
endnode learning table in edge RBridges, by allowing endnodes to
volunteer for endnode learning and encapsulation/decapsulation. Such
an endnode is known as a "Smart Endnode". Only the attached edge
RBridge can distinguish a "Smart Endnode" from a "normal endnode".
The smart endnode uses the nickname of the attached edge RBridge, so
this solution does not consume extra nicknames. The solution also
enables Fine Grained Label aware endnodes.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 10, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Smart-Hello Mechanism between Smart Endnode and RBridge . . . 5
4.1. Smart-Hello Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Edge RBridge's Smart-Hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Smart Endnode's Smart-Hello . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Data Packet Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Data Packet Processing for Smart Endnode . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Data Packet Processing for Edge RBridge . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Multi-homing Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7780] provides optimal pair-wise data frame
forwarding without configuration, safe forwarding even during periods
of temporary loops, and support for multipathing of both unicast and
multicast traffic. TRILL accomplishes this by using IS-IS [IS-IS]
[RFC7176] link state routing and encapsulating traffic using a header
that includes a hop count. Devices that implement TRILL are called
"RBridges" (Routing Bridges) or "TRILL Switches".
An RBridge that attaches to endnodes is called an "edge RBridge" or
"edge TRILL Switch", whereas one that exclusively forwards
encapsulated frames is known as a "transit RBridge" or "transit TRILL
Switch". An edge RBridge traditionally is the one that encapsulates
a native Ethernet frame with a TRILL header, or that receives a
TRILL-encapsulated packet and decapsulates the TRILL header. To
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
encapsulate efficiently, the edge RBridge must keep an "endnode
table" consisting of (MAC, Data Label, TRILL egress switch nickname)
sets, for those remote MAC addresses in Data Labels currently
communicating with endnodes to which the edge RBridge is attached.
These table entries might be configured, received from ESADI
[RFC7357], looked up in a directory [RFC7067], or learned from
decapsulating received traffic. If the edge RBridge has attached
endnodes communicating with many remote endnodes, this table could
become very large. Also, if one of the MAC addresses and Data Labels
in the table has moved to a different remote TRILL switch, it might
be difficult for the edge RBridge to notice this quickly, and because
the edge RBridge is encapsulting to the incorrect egress RBridge, the
traffic will get lost.
2. Solution Overview
The Smart Endnode solution proposed in this document addresses the
problem of the size and freshness of the endnode learning table in
edge RBridges. An endnode E, attached to an edge RBridge R, tells R
that E would like to be a "Smart Endnode", which means that E will
encapsulate and decapsulate the TRILL frame, using R's nickname.
Because E uses R's nickname, this solution does not consume extra
nicknames.
Take the below figure as the example Smart Endnode scenario: RB1, RB2
and RB3 are the RBridges in the TRILL domain, and smart SE1 and SE2
are the smart ennodes which can encapsulate and decapsulate the TRILL
packets. RB1 is the edge RB and it is been attached by SE1 and SE2.
RB1 assigns its nickname to SE1 and SE2.
Each Smart Endnode, SE1 and SE2, uses RB1's nickname when
encapsulating, and maintains an endnode table of (MAC, label, TRILL
egress switch nickname) for remote endnodes that it (SE1 or SE2) is
corresponding with. RB1 does not decapsulate packets destined for
SE1 or SE2, and does not learn (MAC, label, TRILL egress switch
nickname) for endnodes corresponding with SE1 or SE2, but RB1 does
decapsulate, and does learn (MAC, label, TRILL egress switch
nickname) for any endnodes attached to RB1 that have not declared
themselves to be Smart Endnodes.
Just as an RBridge learns and times out (MAC, label, TRILL egress
switch nickname), Smart Endnodes SE1 and SE2 also learn and time out
endnode entries. However, SE1 and SE2 might also determine, through
ICMP messages or other techniques that an endnode entry is not
successfully reaching the destination endnode, and can be deleted,
even if the entry has not timed out.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
If SE1 wishes to correspond with destination MAC D, and no endnode
entry exists, SE1 will encapsulate the packet as an unknown
destination, or consulting a directory [RFC7067] (just as an RBridge
would do if there was no endnode entry).
+----------+
|SE1(Smart |
|Endnode1) | \ +------------------------------+
+----------+ \ / \
\ /+------+ +------+ +-----+ \ +----------+
/-+-| RB 1 |---| RB2 |----| RB3 |-----+--| Endnode1 |
/ | +------+ +------+ +-----+ | +----------+
+----------+ / \ /
|SE2(Smart | \ /
| Endnode2)| +------------------------------+
+----------+
Figure 1 Smart Endnode Scenario
The mechanism in this draft is that the Smart Endnode SE1 issues a
Smart-Hello, indicating SE1's desire to act as a Smart Endnode,
together with the set of MAC addresses and Data Labels that SE1 owns,
and whether SE1 would like to receive ESADI packets. The Smart-Hello
is a light type of TRILL-hello formatted as a native RBridge Channel
[RFC7178] message, which is used to announce the Smart Endnode
capability and parameters (such as MAC address, VLAN ID etc.). The
detailed content for a smart endnode's Smart-Hello is defined in
section 4.
If RB1 supports having a Smart Endnode neighbor it also sends Smart-
Hellos. The smart endnode learns from RB1's Smart-Hellos what RB1's
nickname is and which trees RB1 can use when RB1 ingresses multi-
destination frames. Although Smart Endnode SE1 transmits Smart-
Hellos, it does not transmit or receive LSPs or E-L1FS FS-LSPs
[RFC7780].
Since a Smart Endnode can encapsulate TRILL Data packets, it can
cause the Inner.Lable to be a Fine Grained Label [RFC7172], thus this
method supports FGL aware endnodes.While when and how a smart endnode
decides to use the FGL instead of VLANs to encapsulate the TRILL Data
packet is out of scope in this document.
3. Terminology
Edge RBridge: An RBridge providing endnode service on at least one of
its ports. It is also called an edge TRILL Switch.
Data Label: VLAN or FGL.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
DRB: Designated RBridge [RFC6325].
ESADI: End Station Address Distribution Information [RFC7357].
FGL: Fine Grained Label [RFC7172].
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS].
RBridge: Routing Bridge, an alternative name for a TRILL switch.
Smart Endnode: An endnode that has the capability specified in this
document including learning and maintaining (MAC, Data Label,
Nickname) entries and encapsulating/decapsulating TRILL frame.
Transit RBridge: An RBridge exclusively forwards encapsulated frames.
It is also named as transit RBridge.
TRILL: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
[RFC6325][RFC7780].
TRILL Switch: a device that implements the TRILL protocol; an
alternative term for an RBridge.
4. Smart-Hello Mechanism between Smart Endnode and RBridge
The subsections below describe Smart-Hello messages.
4.1. Smart-Hello Encapsulation
Although a Smart Endnode is not an RBridge, does not send LSPs or
maintain a copy of the link state database, and does not perform
routing calculations, it is required to have a "Hello" mechanism (1)
to announce to edge RBridges that it is a Smart Endnode and (2) to
tell them what MAC addresses it is handling in what Data Labels.
Similarly, an edge RBridge that supports Smart Endnodes needs a
message (1) to announce that support, (2) to inform Smart Endnodes
what nickname to use for ingress and what nickname(s) can be used as
egress nickname in a multi-destination TRILL Data packet, and (3) the
list of smart end nodes it knows about on that link.
The messages sent by Smart Endnodes and by edge RBridges that support
Smart Endnodes are called "Smart-Hellos", and are carried through
native RBridge Channel messages (see Section 4 of [RFC7178]). They
are structured as follows:
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
+----------+----------------+-------------+----------+
| Ethernet | RBridge | Smart-Hello | Ethernet |
| Header | Channel Header | Payload | FCS |
+----------+----------------+-------------+----------+
Figure 2 Smart-Hello Structure
In the Ethernet Header, the source MAC address is the address of the
Smart Endnode or edge RBridge port on which the message is sent. If
the Smart-Hello is sent by a Smart Endnode and is multicast, the
destination MAC address is All-Edge-RBridges. If the Smart-Hello is
unicast to an edge RBridge, the destination MAC address is the MAC
address of the RBridge. If the Smart-Hello is sent by an Edge
RBridge and is multicast, the destination MAC address is TRILL-End-
Stations, and if it is unicast to a Smart Endnode, the MAC address is
the MAC address of the Smart Endnode. The frame is sent in the
Designated VLAN of the link so if a VLAN tag is present, it specifies
that VLAN. It is RECOMMENDED that Smart-Hellos be sent with priority
7 to minimize the probability that they might be delayed or lost in
any bridges that might be in the link.
The RBridge Channel Header begins with the RBridge Channel Ethertype.
In the RBridge Channel Header, the Channel Protocol number is as
assigned by IANA (see Section 8) and in the flags field, the NA bit
is one, the MH bit is zero and the setting of the SL bit is an
implementation choice.
The Smart-Hello Payload, both for Smart-Hellos sent by Smart Endnodes
and for Smart-Hellos sent by Edge RBridges, consists of TRILL IS-IS
TLVs as described in the following two sub-sections. The non-
extended format is used so TLVs, sub-TLVs, and APPsub-TLVs have an
8-bit size and type field. Both types of Smart-Hellos MUST include a
Smart-Parameters APPsub-TLV as follows inside a TRILL GENINFO TLV:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
|Smart-Parameters| (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Holding Time | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3 Smart Parameters APPsub-TLV
Type: APPsub-TLV type Smart-Parameters, value is TBD1.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
Length: 4.
Holding Time: A time in seconds as an unsigned integer. It has
the same meaning as the Holding Time field in IS-IS Hellos [IS-IS]
. A Smart Endnode and an Edge RBridge supporting Smart Endndoes
MUST send a Smart-Hello at least three times during their Holding
Time. If no Smart-Hellos is received from a Smart Endnode or Edge
RBridge within the most recent Holding Time it sent, it is assumed
that it is no longer available.
Flags: At this time all of the Flags are reserved and MUST be send
as zero and ignored on receipt.
If more than one Smart Parameters APPsub-TLV appears in a Smart-
Hello, the first one is used and any following ones are ignored. If
no Smart Parameters APPsub-TLV appears in a Smart-Hello, that Smart-
Hello is ignored.
4.2. Edge RBridge's Smart-Hello
The edge RBridge's Smart-Hello contains the following information in
addition to the Smart-Parameters APPsub-TLV:
o RBridge's nickname. The nickname sub-TLV, specified in section
2.3.2 in [RFC7176], is reused here carried inside a TLV 242 (IS-IS
router capability) in a Smart-Hello frame. If more than one
nickname appears in the Smart-Hello, the first one is used and the
following ones are ignored.
o Trees that RB1 can use when ingressing multi-destination frames.
The Tree Identifiers Sub-TLV, specified in section 2.3.4 in
[RFC7176], is reused here.
o Smart Endnode neighbor list. The TRILL Neighbor TLV, specified in
section 2.5 in [RFC7176], is reused for this purpose.
o An Autentication TLV MAY also be included.
4.3. Smart Endnode's Smart-Hello
A new APPsub-TLV (Smart-MAC TLV) is defined for use by Smart Endnodes
as defined below. In addition, there will be a Smart-Parameters
APPsub-TLV and there MAY be an Authentication TLV in a Smart Endnode
Smart-Hello.
If there are several VLANs/FGL Data Labels for that Smart Endnode,
the Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV is included several times in Smart Endnode's
Smart-Hello. This APPsub-TLV appears inside a TRILL GENINFO TLV.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Type=Smart-MAC | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| F |RSV | VLAN/FGL Data Label | (2 bytes or 4 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (1) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ................. |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MAC (N) (6 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4 Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV
o Type: TRILL APPsub-TLV Type Smart-MAC, value is TBD2.
o Length: Total number of bytes contained in the value field.
o F: one bit. If it sets to 1, which indicates that the endnode
supports FGL data label, otherwise, the VLAN/FGL Data Labels
[RFC7172] and that this Smart-MAC APPsub-TLV has an FGL in the
following VLAN/FGL field. Otherwise, the VLAN/FGL Data Label
field is a VLAN ID.
o RSV: 2 bits or 6 bits, is reserved for the future use. If VLAN/
FGL Data Label indicates the VLAN ID(F flag sets to 0), the RESV
field is 2 bits long. Otherwise it is 6 bits.
o VLAN/FGL Data Label: This carries a 12-bits VLAN identifier or
24-bits FGL Data Label that is valid for all subsequent MAC
addresses in this APPsub-TLV, or the value zero if no VLAN/FGL
data label is specified.
o MAC(i): This is a 48-bit MAC address reachable in the Data Label
given from the Smart Endnode that is announcing this APPsub-TLV.
5. Data Packet Processing
The subsections below specify Smart Endnode data packet processing.
All TRILL Data packets sent to or from Smart Endnodes are sent in the
Designated VLAN [RFC6325] of the local link but do not necessarily
have to be VLAN tagged.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
5.1. Data Packet Processing for Smart Endnode
A Smart Endnode does not issue or receive LSPs or E-L1FS FS-LSPs or
calculate topology. It does the following:
o Smart Endnode maintains an endnode table of (the MAC address of
remote endnode, Data Label, the nickname of the edge RBridge's
attached) entries of end nodes with which the Smart Endnode is
communicating. Entries in this table are populated the same way
that an edge RBridge populates the entries in its table:
* learning from (source MAC address ingress nickname) on packets
it decapsulates.
* by querying a directory [RFC7067].
* by having some entries configured.
o When Smart Endnode SE1 wishes to send unicast frame to remote node
D, if (MAC address of remote endnode D, Data Label, nickname)
entry is in SE1's endnode table, SE1 encapsulates with ingress
nickname=the nicknamae of the RBridge(RB1), egress nickname as
indicated in D's table entry. If D is unknown, SE1 either queries
a directory or encapsulates the packet as a multi-destination
frame, using one of the trees that RB1 has specified in RB1's
Smart-Hello. The mechanism for querying a directory is out of
scope for this document.
o When SE1 wishes to send a a multi-destination (multicast, unknown
unicast, or broadcast) to the TRILL campus, SE1 encapsulates the
packet using one of the trees that RB1 has specified.
If the Smart Endnode SE1 sends a multi-destination TRILL Data packet,
the destination MAC of the outer Ethernet is All-RBridges multicast
address.
The Smart Endnode SE1 need not send Smart-Hellos as frequently as
normal RBridges. These Smart-Hellos could be periodically unicast to
the Appointed Forwarder RB1 through native RBridge Channel messages.
In case RB1 crashes and restarts, or the DRB changes and SE1 receives
the Smart-Hello without mentioning SE1, SE1 SHOULD send a Smart-Hello
immediately. If RB1 is Appointed Forwarder for any of the VLANs that
SE1 claims, RB1 MUST list SE1 in its Smart-Hellos as a Smart Endnode
neighbor.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
5.2. Data Packet Processing for Edge RBridge
The attached edge RBridge processes and forwards TRILL Data packets
based on the endnode property rather than for encapsulation and
forwarding the native frames the same way as the traditional
RBridges. There are several situations for the edge RBridges as
follows:
o If receiving an encapsulated unicast TRILL Data packet from a port
with a Smart Endnode, with RB1's nickname as ingress, the edge
RBridge RB1 forwards the frame to the specified egress nickname,
as with any encapsulated frame. However, RB1 MAY filter the
encapsulation frame based on the inner source MAC and Data Label
as specified for the Smart Endnode. If the MAC (or Data Label)
are not among the expected entries of the Smart Endnode, the frame
would be dropped by the edge RBridge.
o If receiving a unicast TRILL Data packet with RB1's nickname as
egress from the TRILL campus, and the destination MAC address in
the enclosed packet is listed as "smart endnode", RB1 leaves the
packet encapsulated when forwarding to the smart endnode, and both
the outer and inner Ethernet destination MAC is the destination
smart endnod's MAC address, and the outer Ethernet source MAC
address is the RB1's port MAC address. The edge RBridge still
decreases the Hop count value by 1, for there is one hop between
the RB1 and Smart Endnode.
o If receiving an multi-destination TRILL Data packet from a port
with a Smart Endnode, RBridge RB1 forwards the TRILL encapsulation
to the TRILL campus based on the distribution tree indicated by
the egress nickname. If the egress nickname does not correspond
to a distribution tree, the packet is discarded. If there are any
normal endnodes (i.e, non-Smart Endnodes) attached to the edge
RBridge RB1, RB1 decapsulates the frame and sends the native frame
to these ports possibly pruned based on multicast listeners, in
addition to forwarding the multi-destination TRILL frame to the
rest of the campus.
o If RB1 receives a native multi-destination data frame, which is
sent by a non-smart endnode, from a port, including hybrid
endnodes (smart endnodes and non-smart endnodes), RB1 will
encapsulate it as multi-destination TRILL Data packet , and send
the encapsulated multi-destination TRILL Data Packet out that same
port to the smart endnodes attached to the port, and also send the
encapsulated multi-destination TRILL Data Packet to the TRILL
campus through other ports .
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
o If RB1 receives a multi-destination TRILL Data packet from a
remote RBridge, and the exit port includes hybrid endnodes(Smart
Endnodes and non-Smart Endnodes), it sends two copies of multicast
frames out the port, one as native and the other as TRILL
encapsulated frame. When Smart Endnode receives multi-destination
TRILL Data packet, it learns the remote (MAC address, Data Label,
Nickname) entry, A Smart Endnodes ignores native data frames. A
normal (non-smart) endnode receives the native frame and learns
the remote MAC address and ignores the TRILL data packet. This
transit solution may bring some complexity for the edge RBridge
and waste network bandwidth resource, so avoiding the hybrid
endnodes scenario by attaching the Smart Endnodes and non-Smart
Endnodes to different ports is RECOMMENDED. Another solution is
that if there are one or more endnodes on a link, the non-Smart
Endnodes are ignored on a link; but we can configure a port to
support mixed links. If RB1 is configured that the link is "Smart
Endnode only", then it will only send and receive TRILL-
encapsulated frames on that link. If it is configured to "non-
smart-endnodes only" on a port, it will only send and receive
native frames from that port.
6. Multi-homing Scenario
Multi-homing is a common scenario for the Smart Endnode. The Smart
Endnode is on a link attached to the TRILL domain in two places: to
edge RBridge RB1 and RB2. Take the figure below as example. The
Smart Endnode SE1 is attached to the TRILL domain by RB1 and RB2
separately. Both RB1 and RB2 could announce their nicknames to SE1.
. .....................
. +------+ .
. | RB1 | .
. /+------+ .
+----------+ ./ +-----+ . +----------+
|SE1(Smart |/. | RB3 |......| Smart |
| Endnode1)| .\ +-----+ . | Endnode2 |
+----------+ . \ . +----------+
. +-----+ .
. | RB2 | TRILL .
. +-----+ Domain .
.......................
Figure 5 Multi-homing Scenario
There are two candiated solutions for the mulit-homing scenario:
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
(1) Smart Endnode SE1 can choose either RB1 or RB2's nickname, when
encapsulating and forwarding a TRILL data packet. If the
active-active load balance is considered for the multi-homing
scenario, the Smart Endnode SE1 could use both RB1 and RB2's
nickname to encapsulate and forward TRILL Data packet. SE1 uses
RB1's nickname when forwarding through RB1, and RB2's nickname
when forwarding through RB2. this will cause MAC flip-
flopping(see [RFC7379]) of the endnode table entry in the remote
RBridges (or Smart Endnodes). One solution for the MAC flip-
flopping issue is to set a multi- homing bit in the RSV field of
the TRILL data packet. When remote RBridge RB3 or Smart
Endnodes receives a data packet with the multi-homed bit set,
the endnode entries (SE1's MAC address, label, RB1's nickname)
and (SE1's MAC address, label, RB2's nickname) will coexist as
endnode entries in the remote RBridge. Another solution is to
use the ESADI protocol to distribute multiple attachments of a
MAC address of a multi-homing group,The ESADI is deployed among
the edge RBridges (See section 5.3 of [RFC7357]).
(2) Smart Endnode uses a virtual nickname when encapsulating and
forwarding TRILL Data Packet. The virtual nickname is carried
in the RB1 and RB2's Smart-Hello, which is separate from RB1 and
RB2's nicknames(The RB1 and RB's nicknames are also listed in
their Smart-Hello). In order to avoid RPF check issue for
multi-destination frame, the affinity TLV[RFC7783] is used in
this solution. While how to deploy the affinity TLV in the
multi-homing scenario is out of scope in this document.
7. Security Considerations
Smart-Hellos can be secured by using Authentication TLVs based on
[RFC5310].
For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
For native RBridge channel Security Considerations, see [RFC7178].
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate an RBridge Channel Protocol number
(0x005 suggested) to indicate a Smart-Hello frame and update the
"RBridge Channel Protocols" registry as follows.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
+-------------+--------------+------------------+
| Protocol | Description | Reference |
+-------------+--------------+------------------+
| TBD[0x005] | Smart-Hello | [this document] |
+-------------+--------------+------------------+
Table 1
IANA is requested to allocate APPsub-TLV type numbers for the Smart-
MAC and Smart-Parameters APPsub-TLVs from the range below 256 and
update the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application
Identifier 1" registry as follows.
+-----------+--------------+------------------+
| Protocol | Description | Reference |
+-----------+--------------+------------------+
| TBD1 | Smart-Hello | [this document] |
| TBD2 | Smart-MAC | [this document] |
+-----------+--------------+------------------+
Table 2
9. Acknowledgements
The contributions of the following persons are gratefully
acknowledged: Mingui Zhang, Weiguo Hao, Linda Dunbar, and Andrew Qu.
10. References
10.1. Informative References
[RFC7067] Dunbar, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., and I.
Gashinsky, "Directory Assistance Problem and High-Level
Design Proposal", RFC 7067, DOI 10.17487/RFC7067, November
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7067>.
[RFC7379] Li, Y., Hao, W., Perlman, R., Hudson, J., and H. Zhai,
"Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active Connection
at the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL) Edge", RFC 7379, DOI 10.17487/RFC7379, October
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7379>.
10.2. Normative References
[IS-IS] ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition,, "opendaylight", 2002.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[RFC7172] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Agarwal, P., Perlman, R., and
D. Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC 7172,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7172, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.
[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
D., and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7176, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.
[RFC7178] Eastlake 3rd, D., Manral, V., Li, Y., Aldrin, S., and D.
Ward, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): RBridge Channel Support", RFC 7178,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7178, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7178>.
[RFC7357] Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., and O.
Stokes, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information
(ESADI) Protocol", RFC 7357, DOI 10.17487/RFC7357,
September 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7357>.
[RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection
of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and
Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.
[RFC7783] Senevirathne, T., Pathangi, J., and J. Hudson,
"Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for Transparent
Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)", RFC 7783,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7783, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7783>.
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TRILL Smart Endnodes February 2017
Authors' Addresses
Radia Perlman
EMC Corporation
2010 156th Ave NE, suite #200
Bellevue, WA 98007
USA
Phone: +1-206-291-367
Email: radiaperlman@gmail.com
Fangwei Hu
ZTE Corporation
No.889 Bibo Rd
Shanghai 201203
China
Phone: +86 21 68896273
Email: hu.fangwei@zte.com.cn
Donald Eastlake,3rd
Huawei technology
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA
Phone: +1-508-634-2066
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Kesava Vijaya Krupakaran
Dell
Olympia Technology Park
Guindy Chennai 600 032
India
Phone: +91 44 4220 8496
Email: Kesava_Vijaya_Krupak@Dell.com
Ting Liao
Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012
China
Email: liaoting82@163.com
Perlman, et al. Expires August 10, 2017 [Page 15]