OpenFabric
draft-white-openfabric-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Russ White , Shawn Zandi , Nikos Triantafillis , Hannes Gredler | ||
| Last updated | 2017-03-27 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-white-distoptflood | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-white-openfabric-01
Network Working Group R. White
Internet-Draft S. Zandi
Intended status: Informational N. Triantafillis
Expires: September 28, 2017 LinkedIn
H. Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
March 27, 2017
OpenFabric
draft-white-openfabric-01
Abstract
Spine and leaf topologies are widely used in hyperscale and cloud
scale networks. In most of these networks, configuration is
automated, but difficult, and topology information is extracted
through broad based connections. Policy is often integrated into the
control plane, as well, making configuration, management, and
troubleshooting difficult. OpenFabric is an adaptation of an
existing, widely deployed link state protocol, Intermediate Sytem to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) that is designed to:
o Provide a full view of the topology from a single point in the
network to simplify operations
o Minimize configuration of each router (or switch) in the network
o Optimize the operation of IS-IS within a spine and leaf fabric to
enable scaling
This document begins with an overview of OpenFabric, including a
description of what may be removed from IS-IS to enable scaling. The
document then describes an optimized adjacency formation process; an
optimized flooding scheme; some thoughts on the operation of
OpenFabric, metrics, and aggregation; and finally a description of
the changes to the IS-IS protocol required for OpenFabric.
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/.
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
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 September 28, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(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. Modified Adjacency Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Determining Location on the Fabric . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Determining T0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Determining T1 and above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Flooding Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Other Optimizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Transit Link Reachability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Transiting T0 Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. OpenFabric and Route Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. OpenFabric Modifications to the IS-IS protocol . . . . . . . 11
7.1. The Tier Level sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. The Do Not Reflood (DNR) address . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Spine and leaf fabrics are often used in large scale data centers; in
this application, they are commonly called a fabric because of their
regular structure and predicitable forwarding and convergence
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
properties. This document descibes modifications to the IS-IS
protocol to enable it to run efficiently on a large scale spine and
leaf fabric, OpenFabric. The goals of this control plane are:
o Provide a full view of the topology from a single point in the
network to simplify operations
o Minimize configuration of each router (or switch) in the network
o Optimize the operation of IS-IS within a spine and leaf fabric to
enable scaling
In building any scalable system, it is often best to begin by
removing what is not needed. In this spirit, OpenFabric
implementations MAY remove the following from IS-IS:
o Multilevel flooding domain support. The modifications described
in this document will not work across multiple flooding domains.
It is assumed that multiple fabrics will be connected through an
Exterior Gateway Protocol (EGP), specifically BGP [RFC4271].
o All mutliaccess link processing, including Designated Intermediate
Systems (DIS). Spine and leaf fabrics are normally built using
only point-to-point links, so multiaccess link processing is not
required in OpenFabric.
o External metrics. There is no need for external metrics in large
scale spine and leaf fabrics; it is assumed that metrics will be
properly configured by the operator to account for the correct
order of route preference at any route redistribution point.
o Tags and traffic engineering processing. OpenFabric is only
designed to provide topology and reachability information. It is
not designed to provide for traffic engineering, route preference
through tags, or other policy mechanisms. It is assumed that all
routing policy will be provided through an overlay system which
communicates directly with each router in the fabric, such as PCEP
[RFC5440] or I2RS [RFC7921]. Traffic engineering is assumed to be
provided through Segment Routing (SR)
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
To create a scalable link state fabric, OpenFabric includes the
following:
o A slightly modified adjacency formation process. This is largely
a matter of forming adjacencies in a specific order, rather than
forming an adjacency with every discovered neighbor at the same
time.
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
o A mechanism for determining which tier within a spine and leaf
fabric in which the router is located.
o A mechanism that reduces flooding to the minimum possible, while
still ensuring complete database synchronization among the routers
within the fabric.
o New sub-TLVs to carry OpenFabric specific information;
specifically a new IS reachability tier sub-TLV.
OpenFabric implementations:
o MUST support [RFC5301] and enable hostname advertisement by
default if a hostname is configured on the intermediate system.
o MUST support [RFC5311], simplified extension of the link state PDU
space for IS-IS.
o MUST support [RFC5303] and enable three-way handshakes by default.
o MUST use TLV type 135 for carrying IPv4 reachability information,
as defined in [RFC5305].
o MUST use TLV type 236 for carrying IPv6 reachability information,
as defined in [RFC5308].
o MUST use TLV type 22 for carrying IS reachability information, as
defined in [RFC5305].
o SHOULD support [RFC6232], purge originator identification for IS-
IS.
o SHOULD support Segment Routing (SR).
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
o SHOULD support [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions].
o SHOULD support [RFC3719], section 4, hello padding for IS-IS.
Variable hello padding SHOULD NOT be used, as data center fabrics
are built using high speed links on which padded hellos will have
little performance impact.
OpenFabric implementations MUST NOT be mixed with standard IS-IS
implementations in operational deployments. OpenFabric and standard
IS-IS implementations SHOULD be treated as two separate protocols.
The following spine and leaf fabric will be used to describe these
modifications.
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| 1A | | 1B | | 1C | | 1D | | 1E | | 1F | (T0)
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| 2A | | 2B | | 2C | | 2D | | 2E | | 2F | (T1)
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| 3A | | 3B | | 3C | | 3D | | 3E | | 3F | (T2)
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| 4A | | 4B | | 4C | | 4D | | 4E | | 4F | (T1)
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
| 5A | | 5B | | 5C | | 5D | | 5E | | 5F | (T0)
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
Figure 1
To reduce confusion (spine and leaf fabrics are difficult to draw in
plain text art), this diagram does not contain the connections
between devices. The reader should assume that each device in a
given layer is connected to every device in the layer above it. For
instance:
o 5A is connected to 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 4F
o 5B is connected to 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, and 4F
o 4A is connected to 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, and
5F
o 4B is connected to 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, and
5F
o etc.
The tiers or stages of the fabric are also marked for easier
reference. T0 is assumed to be connected to application servers, or
rather they are Top of Rack (ToR) routers. The remaining tiers, T1
and T2, are connected only to the fabric itself. Note there are no
"cross links," or "east west" links in the illustrated fabric. The
fabric locality detection mechanism described here will not work if
there are cross links running east/west through the fabric. Locality
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
detection may be possible in such a fabric; this is an area for
further study.
See [RFC5449], [RFC5614], and [RFC7182] for similar solutions in the
Mobile Ad Hoc Networking (MANET) solution space.
The authors would like to thank Nick Russo, Rodny Molina, and Ivan
Pepelnjak for their comments and review of the concepts and text of
this document.
2. Modified Adjacency Formation
While adjacency formation is not considered particularly burdensome
in IS-IS, it is still useful to reduce the amount of state
transferred across the network when connecting a new router to the
fabric. Any such optimization is bound to present a tradeoff between
several factors; the mechanism described here increases the amount of
time required to form adjacencies slightly in order to reduce the
total state carried across the network. The process is:
o An IS connected to the fabric will send hellos on all links.
o The IS will only complete the three-way handshake with one newly
discovered neighbor; this would normally be the first neighbor
which sends the newly connected intermediate system's ID back in
the three-way handshake process.
o The IS will complete its database exchange with this one newly
adjacent neighbor.
o Once this process is completed, the IS will continue processing
the remaining neighbors as normal.
This process allows each IS newly added to the fabric to exchange a
full table once; a very minimal amount of information will be
transferred with the remaining neighbors to reach full
synchronization.
3. Determining Location on the Fabric
The tier to which a router is connected is useful to enable
autoconfiguration of routers connected to the fabric, and to reduce
flooding. This section describes mechanisms for determining the tier
at which a router is connected in the fabric in several steps. The
first step is to find the Farthest Distance (FD) and the Total
Distance (TD), which are useful in this process. To find the FD and
TD:
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
o Calculate a Shortest Path Tree (SPT) for the entire network with
all link metrics set to 1; this has the effect of calculating a
tree based only on hop count
o Find one node that is the farthest from the local node in the
resulting tree; call this node F, and the distance to this node FD
o Calculate an SPT for the entire network with all link metrics set
to 1 from the perspective of F; call this TD
3.1. Determining T0
If FD == TD == 2, this is a three stage fabric; it is not possible to
determine the tier at which the local node is located based on any
calculation, because the topology is perfectly symmetric. In this
case:
o The T0 routers MAY be manually configured to advertise 0x00 in
their IS reachability tier sub-TLV, indicating they are at the
edge of the fabric (a ToR router).
o The T0 routers MAY detect that they are T0 through the the
presence connected hosts (i.e. through a request for address
assignment or some other means). This means of detection may not
be reliable in all operational environments, and SHOULD be used
with care. If such detection is used, and the router determines
it is located at T0, it should advertise 0x00 in its IS
reachability tier sub-TLV.
o The router MAY examine the IS reachability tier sub-TLV of
directly connected neighbors and determine one or more is
advertising 0x1 in its IS reachability tier sub-TLVs. This would
be the case if the spine routers in a three stage spine and leaf
fabric are manually configured to advertise their tier as 0x1.
o If there is no way to determine whether or not the local device is
in T0 or T1, it MUST advertise 0xFF in its IS reachability tier
sub-TLV.
If FD == TD, and TD >= 4, this is a greater than three stage fabric;
the local device SHOULD advertise 0x00 in its IS reachability tier
sub-TLV.
For instance, in the diagram above, 1A would:
o Calculate an SPT with all link metrics set to 1; on this SPT, 5A
through 5F would all have a distance of 4
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
o Select one of these nodes as F; assume 5F is chosen as F
o Set FD to 4, the distance to 5F
o Run SPF from the perspective of 5F with all link metrics set to 1
o Set TD to 4, the cost from 5F to 1A
o TD - FD == 0, so 1A is at T0, and is a ToR
3.2. Determining T1 and above
If FD == TD == 2, this is a three stage fabric; it is not possible to
determine the tier at which the local node is located based on any
calculation, because the topology is perfectly symmetric. In this
case:
o The T1 routers MAY be manually configured to advertise 0x01 in
their IS reachability tier sub-TLV.
o The router MAY examine the IS reachability tier sub-TLV of
directly connected neighbors and determine that one or more is
advertising 0x00 in its IS reachability tier sub-TLVs. This would
be the case if the ToR routers in a three stage spine and leaf
fabric are manually configured to advertise their tier as 0x00.
o If there is no way to determine whether or not the local device is
in T0 or T1, it should advertise 0xFF in its IS reachability tier
sub-TLV.
If TD != FD, this is a greater than three stage fabric; the local
device SHOULD advertise (TD - FD) in its IS reachability tier sub-
TLV.
For example, in the above five stage fabric, 3B would:
o Calculate an SPT with all link metrics set to 1; on this SPT, 5A
through 5F and 1A through 1F would all have a cost of 2
o Select one of these nodes as F; assume 5F is chosen as F
o Set FD to 2, the distance to 5F
o Run SPF from the perspective of 5F with all link metrics set to 1
o Set TD to 4, the cost from 5F to 1A
o TD - FD == 2, so 1A is at T2, and is a spine switch
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
4. Flooding Optimization
Flooding is perhaps the most challenging scaling issue for a link
state protocol running on a dense, large scale fabric. To reduce
flooding, OpenFabric takes advantage of information already available
in the link state protocol, the list of the local intermediate
system's neighbor's neighbors, and the fabric locality computed
above. The following tables are required to compute a set of
reflooders:
o NL list: The set of neighbors
o NN list: The set of neighbor's neighbors; this can be calculated
by running SPF truncated to two hops
o DNR list: The set of neighbors who should have LSPs (or fragments)
marked Do Not Reflood (DNR)
o RF list: The set of neighbors who should flood LSPs (or fragments)
to their adjacent neighbors to ensure synchronization
NL is set to contain all neighbors, and sorted deterministically (for
instance, from the highest router ID to the lowest). All
intermediate systems within a single fabric SHOULD use the same
mechanism for sorting the NL list. NN is set to contain all
neighbor's neighbors, or all intermediate systems that are two hops
away, as determined by performing a truncated SPF. The DNR and RF
tables are initially empty. To begin, the following steps are taken
to reduce the size of NN and NL:
o Move any IS in NL with its tier (or fabric location) set to T0 to
DNR
o Remove all intermediate systems from NL and NN that in the
shortest path to the IS that originated the LSP
Then, for every IS in NL:
o If the current entry in NL is connected to any entries in NN:
* Move the IS to RF
* Remove the intermediate systems connected to the IS from NN
o Else move the IS to DNR
When flooding, LSPs transmitted to adjacent neighbors on the RF list
will be transmitted normally. Adjacent intermediate systems on this
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
list will reflood received LSPs into the next stage of the topology,
ensuring database synchronization. LSPs transmitted to adjacent
neighbors on the DNR list, however, will be transmitted to the DNR
address (see modifications to the IS-IS protocol, below).
Any IS receiving a link state packet transmitted to the DNR address
SHOULD NOT set the Send Route Message (SRM) flag on any interface for
this LSP; hence the LSP will not be reflooded by this IS to any
adjacent neighbor. This reduces flooding to the minimum possible
while retaining full Link State Database (LSDB) synchronization.
5. Other Optimizations
5.1. Transit Link Reachability
In order to reduce the amount of control plane state carried on large
scale spine and leaf fabrics, openfabric implementations SHOULD NOT
advertise reachability for transit links. These links MAY remain
unnumbered, as IS-IS does not require layer 3 IP addresses to
operate. Each router SHOULD be configured with a single loopback
address, which is assigned an IPv6 address, to provide reachability
to routers which make up the fabric.
5.2. Transiting T0 Routers
In data center fabrics, ToR routers SHOULD NOT be used to transit
between two T1 (or above) spine routers. The simplest way to prevent
this is to set the overload bit [RFC3277] for all the LSPs originated
from T0 routers. However, this solution would have the unfortunate
side effect of causing all reachability beyond any T0 router to have
the same metric, and many implementations treat a set overload bit as
a metric of 0xFFFF in calculating the Shortest Path Tree (SPT). This
document proposes an alternate solution which preserves the leaf node
metric, while still avoiding transiting T0 routers.
Specifically, all T0 routers SHOULD advertise their metric to reach
any T1 adjacent neighbor with a cost of 0XFFE. T1 routers, on the
other hand, will advertise T0 routers with the actual interface cost
used to reach the T0 router. Hence, links connecting T0 and T1
routers will be advertised with an assymetric cost that discourages
transiting T0 routers, while leaving reachability to the destinations
attached to T0 devices the same.
6. OpenFabric and Route Aggregation
While aggregation is not recommended in OpenFabric deployments,
aggregation MAY take place when routing information is being
transmitted from higher level tiers to lower level tiers. For
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
instance, in the example network, 2A through 2F could advertise a
single default route to 1A through 1F. 2A through 2F would simply
advertise the default as if it were an attached to each router
locally using either a type 135 or 236 TLV, and then block TLVs that
contain reachability information (such as types 135 and 236). Type
22 TLVs, however, MUST be flooded through this boundary, so that
every router in the network shares a common view of the topology.
Note that aggregation in a DC fabric can result in routing black
holes in some cases, and also possibly reduce the efficiency of
traffic engineering in the network.
7. OpenFabric Modifications to the IS-IS protocol
7.1. The Tier Level sub-TLV
A new sub-TLV is added to the type 22 TLV to indicate tier level, as
follows:
o sub-TLV number (one octet): TBA
o Tier identifier (one octet)
The tier identifier field contains the tier number of the local
router as calculated using the process above. If the tier number is
unknown, the sub-TLV MUST be included with a tier ID of 0xFF, which
indicates the advertising router does not have enough information to
calculate its tier number, or there is some error in calculating a
tier number.
7.2. The Do Not Reflood (DNR) address
Link state packets flooded to the DNR layer 2 (MAC) address TBA
SHOULD not be reflooded by receiving intermediate systems.
8. Security Considerations
This document outlines modifications to the IS-IS protocol for
operation on large scale data center fabrics. While it does add new
TLVs, and some local processing changes, it does not add any new
security vulnerabilities to the operation of IS-IS. However,
OpenFabric implementions SHOULD implement IS-IS cryptographic
authentication, as described in [RFC5304], and should enable other
security measures in accordance with best common practices for the
IS-IS protocol.
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC5301] McPherson, D. and N. Shen, "Dynamic Hostname Exchange
Mechanism for IS-IS", RFC 5301, DOI 10.17487/RFC5301,
October 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5301>.
[RFC5303] Katz, D., Saluja, R., and D. Eastlake 3rd, "Three-Way
Handshake for IS-IS Point-to-Point Adjacencies", RFC 5303,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5303, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5303>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, DOI 10.17487/RFC5305, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and M.
Shand, "Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space
for IS-IS", RFC 5311, DOI 10.17487/RFC5311, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5311>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-11 (work in progress), March
2017.
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), February
2017.
[RFC3277] McPherson, D., "Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS) Transient Blackhole Avoidance", RFC 3277,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3277, April 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3277>.
[RFC3719] Parker, J., Ed., "Recommendations for Interoperable
Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS)", RFC 3719, DOI 10.17487/RFC3719, February 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3719>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5449] Baccelli, E., Jacquet, P., Nguyen, D., and T. Clausen,
"OSPF Multipoint Relay (MPR) Extension for Ad Hoc
Networks", RFC 5449, DOI 10.17487/RFC5449, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5449>.
[RFC5614] Ogier, R. and P. Spagnolo, "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
Extension of OSPF Using Connected Dominating Set (CDS)
Flooding", RFC 5614, DOI 10.17487/RFC5614, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5614>.
[RFC6232] Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge
Originator Identification TLV for IS-IS", RFC 6232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6232, May 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6232>.
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OpenFabric March 2017
[RFC7182] Herberg, U., Clausen, T., and C. Dearlove, "Integrity
Check Value and Timestamp TLV Definitions for Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks (MANETs)", RFC 7182, DOI 10.17487/RFC7182,
April 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7182>.
[RFC7921] Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", RFC 7921, DOI 10.17487/RFC7921, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7921>.
Authors' Addresses
Russ White
LinkedIn
Email: russ@riw.us
Shawn Zandi
LinkedIn
Email: szandi@linkedin.com
Nikos Triantafillis
LinkedIn
Email: ntriantafillis@gmail.com
Hannes Gredler
RtBrick Inc.
Email: hannes@rtbrick.com
White, et al. Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 14]