Alternatives for Multilevel TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multilevel-10
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(trill WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Radia Perlman , Donald E. Eastlake 3rd , Mingui Zhang , Anoop Ghanwani , Hongjun Zhai | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2015-07-05) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Adopted by a WG | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Extending TRILL to multiple levels has challenges that are not addressed by the already-existing capability of IS-IS to have multiple levels. One issue is with the handling of multi-destination packet distribution trees. Another issue is with TRILL switch nicknames. There have been two proposed approaches. One approach, which we refer to as the "unique nickname" approach, gives unique nicknames to all the TRILL switches in the multilevel campus, either by having the level-1/level-2 border TRILL switches advertise which nicknames are not available for assignment in the area, or by partitioning the 16-bit nickname into an "area" field and a "nickname inside the area" field. The other approach, which we refer to as the "aggregated nickname" approach, involves hiding the nicknames within areas, allowing nicknames to be reused in different areas, by having the border TRILL switches rewrite the nickname fields when entering or leaving an area. Each of those approaches has advantages and disadvantages. This informational document suggests allowing a choice of approach in each area. This allows the simplicity of the unique nickname approach in installations in which there is no danger of running out of nicknames and allows the complexity of hiding the nicknames in an area to be phased into larger installations on a per- area basis.
Authors
Radia Perlman
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Mingui Zhang
Anoop Ghanwani
Hongjun Zhai
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)