\
RIFT Working Group                                    A. Przygienda, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track                               A. Sharma
Expires: 12 January 2022                                         Comcast
                                                              P. Thubert
                                                                   Cisco
                                                          Bruno. Rijsman
                                                              Individual
                                                       Dmitry. Afanasiev
                                                                  Yandex
                                                            11 July 2021


                       RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees
                        draft-ietf-rift-rift-13

Abstract

   This document defines a specialized, dynamic routing protocol for
   Clos and fat-tree network topologies optimized towards minimization
   of control plane state as well as configuration and operational
   complexity.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 January 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   2.  A Reader's Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Reference Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Topology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.  RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.1.1.  Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.2.  Generalized Topology View . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.1.3.  Fallen Leaf Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       4.1.4.  Discovering Fallen Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
       4.1.5.  Addressing the Fallen Leaves Problem  . . . . . . . .  32
     4.2.  Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
       4.2.1.  Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
       4.2.2.  Link (Neighbor) Discovery (LIE Exchange)  . . . . . .  35
       4.2.3.  Topology Exchange (TIE Exchange)  . . . . . . . . . .  49
       4.2.4.  Reachability Computation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74
       4.2.5.  Automatic Disaggregation on Link & Node Failures  . .  76
       4.2.6.  Attaching Prefixes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  82
       4.2.7.  Optional Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP)  . . . . . . .  90
     4.3.  Further Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
       4.3.1.  Route Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
       4.3.2.  Overload Bit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
       4.3.3.  Optimized Route Computation on Leaves . . . . . . . . 103
       4.3.4.  Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
       4.3.5.  Key/Value Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
       4.3.6.  Interactions with BFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
       4.3.7.  Fabric Bandwidth Balancing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
       4.3.8.  Label Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
       4.3.9.  Leaf to Leaf Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
       4.3.10. Address Family and Multi Topology Considerations  . . 112
       4.3.11. One-Hop Healing of Levels with East-West Links  . . . 112
     4.4.  Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
       4.4.1.  Security Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
       4.4.2.  Security Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
       4.4.3.  Security Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
       4.4.4.  Weak Nonces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
       4.4.5.  Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
     4.5.  Security Association Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   5.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
     5.1.  Normal Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
     5.2.  Leaf Link Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
     5.3.  Partitioned Fabric  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
     5.4.  Northbound Partitioned Router and Optional East-West
           Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
   6.  Further Details on Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
     6.1.  Considerations for Leaf-Only Implementation . . . . . . . 126
     6.2.  Considerations for Spine Implementation . . . . . . . . . 127
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
     7.1.  General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
     7.2.  Malformed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
     7.3.  ZTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
     7.4.  Lifetime  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
     7.5.  Packet Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
     7.6.  Outer Fingerprint Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
     7.7.  TIE Origin Fingerprint DoS Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . 129
     7.8.  Host Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
     8.1.  Requested Multicast and Port Numbers  . . . . . . . . . . 130
     8.2.  Requested Registries with Suggested Values  . . . . . . . 130
       8.2.1.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/AddressFamilyType"  . . . . . 131
       8.2.2.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/HierarchyIndications" . . . . 131
       8.2.3.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType" . . 131
       8.2.4.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPAddressType"  . . . . . . . 132
       8.2.5.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPPrefixType" . . . . . . . . 132
       8.2.6.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPv4PrefixType" . . . . . . . 133
       8.2.7.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPv6PrefixType" . . . . . . . 133
       8.2.8.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/PrefixSequenceType" . . . . . 133
       8.2.9.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/RouteType"  . . . . . . . . . 134
       8.2.10. Registry RIFT_v5/common/TIETypeType"  . . . . . . . . 135
       8.2.11. Registry RIFT_v5/common/TieDirectionType" . . . . . . 135
       8.2.12. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/Community"  . . . . . . . . 136
       8.2.13. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/KeyValueTIEElement" . . . . 136
       8.2.14. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/LIEPacket"  . . . . . . . . 137
       8.2.15. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/LinkCapabilities" . . . . . 139
       8.2.16. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/LinkIDPair" . . . . . . . . 139
       8.2.17. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/Neighbor" . . . . . . . . . 140
       8.2.18. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeCapabilities" . . . . . 141
       8.2.19. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeFlags"  . . . . . . . . 141
       8.2.20. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeNeighborsTIEElement"  . 142
       8.2.21. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeTIEElement" . . . . . . 142
       8.2.22. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PacketContent"  . . . . . . 143
       8.2.23. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PacketHeader" . . . . . . . 144
       8.2.24. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PrefixAttributes" . . . . . 144
       8.2.25. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PrefixTIEElement" . . . . . 145
       8.2.26. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/ProtocolPacket" . . . . . . 145
       8.2.27. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIDEPacket" . . . . . . . . 146



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


       8.2.28. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEElement" . . . . . . . . 146
       8.2.29. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEHeader"  . . . . . . . . 147
       8.2.30. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEHeaderWithLifeTime"  . . 147
       8.2.31. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEID"  . . . . . . . . . . 148
       8.2.32. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEPacket"  . . . . . . . . 148
       8.2.33. Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIREPacket" . . . . . . . . 149
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
   10. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
   Appendix A.  Sequence Number Binary Arithmetic  . . . . . . . . . 154
   Appendix B.  Information Elements Schema  . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
     B.1.  Backwards-Compatible Extension of Schema  . . . . . . . . 156
     B.2.  common.thrift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
     B.3.  encoding.thrift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
   Appendix C.  Constants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
     C.1.  Configurable Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

1.  Introduction

   Clos [CLOS] topologies (called commonly a fat tree/network in modern
   IP fabric considerations [VAHDAT08] as homonym to the original
   definition of the term [FATTREE]) have gained prominence in today's
   networking, primarily as result of the paradigm shift towards a
   centralized data-center based architecture that is poised to deliver
   a majority of computation and storage services in the future.  Many
   builders of such IP fabrics desire a protocol that auto-configures
   itself and deals with failures and mis-configurations with a minimum
   of human intervention.  Such a solution would allow local IP fabric
   bandwidth to be consumed in a 'standard component' fashion, i.e.
   provision it much faster and operate it at much lower costs than
   today, much like compute or storage is consumed already.

   In looking at the problem through the lens of such IP fabric
   requirements, RIFT addresses those challenges not through an
   incremental modification of either a link-state (distributed
   computation) or distance-vector (diffused computation) techniques but
   rather a mixture of both, colloquially best described as "link-state
   towards the spines" and "distance vector towards the leaves".  In
   other words, "bottom" levels are flooding their link-state
   information in the "northern" direction while each node generates
   under normal conditions a "default route" and floods it in the
   "southern" direction.  This type of protocol allows naturally for
   highly desirable aggregation.  Alas, such aggregation could blackhole
   traffic in cases of misconfiguration or while failures are being
   resolved or even cause partial network partitioning and this has to



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   be addressed by some adequate mechanism.  The approach RIFT takes is
   described in Section 4.2.5 and is basically based on automatic,
   sufficient disaggregation of prefixes in case of link and node
   failures.

   The protocol does further provide

   *  optional fully automated construction of fat-tree topologies based
      on detection of links without any configuration (Section 4.2.7)
      while allowing for traditional configuration and arbitrary mix of
      both types of nodes as well,

   *  minimum amount of routing state held at each level,

   *  automatic pruning and load balancing of topology flooding
      exchanges over a sufficient subset of links which resolves the
      traditional problem of link-state protocol struggling with densely
      meshed graphs due to high volume of flooding traffic
      (Section 4.2.3.9),

   *  automatic aggregation (Section 4.2.3.8) and consequently automatic
      disaggregation (Section 4.2.5) of prefixes on link and node
      failures to prevent black-holing and suboptimal routing,

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

   *  fast mobility (Section 4.3.4),

   *  re-balancing of traffic towards the spines based on bandwidth
      available (Section 4.3.7.1) and finally

   *  mechanisms to synchronize a limited key-value data-store
      (Section 4.3.5.1) that can be used after protocol convergence to
      e.g.  bootstrap higher levels of functionality on nodes.
















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Figure 1 presents as first example of operation a simplified,
   conceptual view of the resulting information and routes on a RIFT
   fabric.  The top of the fabric is holding in its link-state database
   the information about the nodes below it and the routes to them
   whereas the notation A/32 is used to indicate a loopback route to
   node A and 0/0 is the usual notation for a default route.  First row
   of information represents the nodes for which full topology
   information is available.  The second row of the database table
   indicates that partial information of other nodes in the same level
   is available as well.  Such information will be necessary to perform
   certain algorithms necessary for correct protocol operation.  When
   "bottom" of the fabric is considered, or in other words the leaves,
   the topology is basically empty and, under normal conditions, the
   leaves hold a load balanced default route to the next level.

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

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

                  Figure 1: RIFT Information Distribution










Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119] RFC 8174 [RFC8174] when, and only when, they
   appear in all capitals, as shown here.

2.  A Reader's Digest

   This section should serve as an initial guided tour through the
   document in order to convey the necessary information for any reader,
   depending on their level of interest.  The glossary section
   (Section 3.1) should be used as a supporting reference as the
   document is read.

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

   Operators and implementors alike must understand if multi-plane IP
   fabrics are of interest or not.  Section 3.2 illustrates an example
   of both single-plane in Figure 2 and multi-plane fabric in Figure 3.
   Multi-plane fabrics require understanding of additional RIFT concepts
   (e.g.  negative disaggregation in Section 4.2.5.2) that are otherwise
   unnecessary in context of strictly single-plane fabrics.  Overview
   (Section 4.1) and Section 4.1.2 aim to provide enough context to
   determine if multi-plane fabrics are of interest to the reader.  The
   Fallen Leaf part (Section 4.1.3), and additionally Section 4.1.4 and
   Section 4.1.5 describe further considerations that are specific to
   multi-plane fabrics.
















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   The fundamental protocol concepts are described starting in the
   specification part (Section 4.2), but some sub-sections are not quite
   as relevant unless dealing with implementation of the protocol.  The
   protocol transport (Section 4.2.1) is of particular importance for
   two reasons.  First, it introduces RIFT's packet formats in the form
   of a normative Thrift model given in Appendix B.3.  Second, the
   Thrift model component is a prelude to understanding the RIFT's
   inherent security features as defined in the security segment
   (Section 7).  The normative schema defining the Thrift model can be
   found in both Appendix B.2 and Appendix B.3.  Furthermore, while a
   detailed understanding of Thrift and the models are not required
   unless implementing RIFT, they may provide additional useful
   information for other readers.

   If implementing RIFT to support multi-plane topologies Section 4.2
   should be reviewed in its entirety in conjunction with previously
   mentioned Thrift schemas.  Sections not relevant to single-plane
   implementations will be noted later in the section.  Special
   attention should be paid to the LIE definitions part (Section 4.2.2)
   as it not only outlines basic neighbor discovery and adjacency
   formation, but also provides necessary context for RIFT's ZTP
   (Section 4.2.7) and mis-cabling detection capabilities that allow it
   to automatically detect and build the underlay topology with a
   negligible configuration.  These specific capabilities are detailed
   in Section 4.2.7.

   For other readers, the following sections provide a more detailed
   understanding of the fundamental properties and highlight some
   additional benefits of RIFT such as link state packet formats, highly
   efficient flooding, synchronization, loop-free path computation and
   link-state database maintenance - Section 4.2.3, Section 4.2.3.2,
   Section 4.2.3.3, Section 4.2.3.4, Section 4.2.3.6, Section 4.2.3.7,
   Section 4.2.3.8, Section 4.2.4, Section 4.2.4.1, Section 4.2.4.2,
   Section 4.2.4.3, Section 4.2.4.4.  RIFT's unique ability to perform
   weighted unequal-cost load balancing of traffic across all available
   links is outlined in Section 4.3.7 with an accompanying example.

   Section 4.2.5 is the place where the single-plane vs. multi-plane
   requirement is explained in more detail.  For those interested in
   single-plane fabrics, only Section 4.2.5.1 is required.  For the
   multi-plane interested reader Section 4.2.5.2, Section 4.2.5.2.1,
   Section 4.2.5.2.2, and Section 4.2.5.2.3 are also mandatory.
   Section 4.2.6 is especially important for any multi-plane interested
   reader as it outlines how the RIB and FIB are built via the
   disaggregation mechanisms, but also illustrates how they prevent
   defective routing decisions (e.g. black holes) in both single or
   multi-plane topologies.




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Section 5 contains a set of comprehensive examples that continue to
   highlight just how efficiently RIFT handles failures by containing
   impact to only the required set of nodes.  It should also help cement
   some of RIFT's core concepts in the reader's mind.

   Last, but not least, RIFT has other optional capabilities.  One
   example is the key-value data-store, which enables RIFT to advertise
   data post-convergence in order to bootstrap higher levels of
   functionality (e.g. operational telemetry).  Those are covered in
   Section 4.3 and Section 6.

   More information related to RIFT can be found in the "RIFT
   Applicability" [APPLICABILITY] document, which discusses alternate
   topologies upon which RIFT may be deployed, use cases where it is
   applicable, and presents operational considerations that complement
   this document.

3.  Reference Frame

3.1.  Terminology

   This section presents the terminology used in this document.

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

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

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

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

   Level:
      Clos and Fat Tree networks are topologically partially ordered
      graphs and 'level' denotes the set of nodes at the same height in



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      such a network, where the bottom level (leaf) is the level with
      lowest value.  A node has links to nodes one level down and/or one
      level up.  Under some circumstances, a node may have links to
      nodes at the same level and a leaf may have links to nodes
      multiple levels higher.  RIFT counts levels from top-of-fabric
      (ToF) numerically down.  Level 0 always implies a leaf in RIFT but
      a leaf does not have to be level 0.  Level in RIFT can be
      configured or automatically derive its level via ZTP as explained
      in Section 4.2.7.  As final footnote: Clos terminology uses often
      the concept of "stage" but due to the folded nature of the Fat
      Tree it is not used from this point on to prevent
      misunderstandings.

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

   Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP):
      Optional RIFT mechanism which allows to derive node levels
      automatically based on minimum configuration.  Such a mininum
      configuration consists solely of ToFs being configured as such.

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

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

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

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   Top-of-fabric Plane or Partition:
      In large fabrics top-of-fabric switches may not have enough ports
      to aggregate all switches south of them and with that, the ToF is
      'split' into multiple independent planes.  Section 4.1.2 explains
      the concept in more detail.  A plane is subset of ToF nodes that
      see each other through south reflection or E-W links.

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

   North Radix:
      Ports cabled northbound to higher level nodes.

   South Radix:
      Ports cabled southbound to lower level nodes.

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

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

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

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

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

   Cost:
      The term signifies the weighted distance between two neighbors.

   Distance:
      Sum of costs (bound by infinite distance) between two nodes.

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

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

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

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

   System ID:
      Each RIFT node identifies itself by a valid, network wide unique
      number when trying to build adjacencies or describing its
      topology.  RIFT System IDs can be auto-derived or configured.





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Additionally, when the specification refers to elements of packet
   encoding or constants provided in the Appendix B grave accents are
   used, e.g. `invalid_distance`.  Same convention is used when
   referring to finite state machine states or events outside the
   context of the machine itself, e.g.  `OneWay`.

3.2.  Topology

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

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








Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


              +--------+  +--------+  +--------+  +--------+
              |ToF   A1|  |ToF   B1|  |ToF   B2|  |ToF   A2|
              ++-+-----+  ++-+-----+  ++-+-----+  ++-+-----+
               | |         | |         | |         | |
               | |         | |         | +---------------+
               | |         | |         |           | |   |
               | |         | +-------------------------+ |
               | |         |           |           | | | |
               | +-----------------------+         | | | |
               |           |           | |         | | | |
               |           | +---------+ | +---------+ | |
               |           | |           | |       |   | |
               | +---------------------------------+   | |
               | |         | |           | |           | |
              ++-+-----+  ++-+-----+  +--+-+---+  +----+-+-+
              |Spine111|  |Spine112|  |Spine121|  |Spine122|
              +-+---+--+  ++----+--+  +-+---+--+  ++---+---+
                |   |      |    |       |   |      |   |
                |   +--------+  |       |   +--------+ |
                |          | |  |       |          | | |
                |   -------+ |  |       |   +------+ | |
                |   |        |  |       |   |        | |
              +-+---+-+   +--+--+-+   +-+---+-+  +---+-+-+
              |Leaf111|   |Leaf112|   |Leaf121|  |Leaf122|
              +-------+   +-------+   +-------+  +-------+

                  Figure 3: Topology with Multiple Planes

   Topology in Figure 2 is refered to in all further considerations.
   This figure depicts a generic "single plane fat-tree" and the
   concepts explained using three levels apply by induction to further
   levels and higher degrees of connectivity.  Further, this document
   will deal also with designs that provide only sparser connectivity
   and "partitioned spines" as shown in Figure 3 and explained further
   in Section 4.1.2.

4.  RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees

   Remainder of this documents presents the detailed specification of a
   protocol optimized for Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) that in most
   abstract terms has many properties of a modified link-state protocol
   when distributing information northbound and a distance vector
   protocol when distributing information southbound.  While this is an
   unusual combination, it does quite naturally exhibit the desirable
   properties desired.

4.1.  Overview




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.1.1.  Properties

   The most singular property of RIFT is that it floods link-state
   information northbound only so that each level obtains the full
   topology of levels south of it.  Link-State information is, with some
   exceptions, never flooded East-West or back South again.  Exceptions
   like south reflection is explained in detail in Section 4.2.5.1 and
   east-west flooding at ToF level in multi-plane fabrics is outlined in
   Section 4.1.2.  In the southbound direction, the necessary routing
   information, normally just the default route, propagates one hop
   south and is 're-advertised' by nodes at next lower level.  However,
   RIFT uses flooding in the southern direction as well to avoid the
   overhead of building an update per adjacency.  For the moment
   describing the East-West direction is left out.

   Those information flow constraints create not only an anisotropic
   protocol (i.e. the information is not distributed "evenly" or
   "clumped" but summarized along the N-S gradient) but also a "smooth"
   information propagation where nodes do not receive the same
   information from multiple directions at the same time.  Normally,
   accepting the same reachability on any link, without understanding
   its topological significance, forces tie-breaking on some kind of
   distance metric.  And such tie-breaking leads ultimately in hop-by-
   hop forwarding to shortest paths only.  In contrast to that, RIFT,
   under normal conditions, does not need to tie-break the same
   reachability information from multiple directions.  Its computation
   principles (south forwarding direction is always preferred) leads to
   valley-free [VFR] forwarding behavior.  And since valley free routing
   is loop-free, it can use all feasible paths which is another highly
   desirable property if available bandwidth should be utilized to the
   maximum extent possible.

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

4.1.2.  Generalized Topology View

   This section and resulting Section 4.2.5.2 are dedicated to multi-
   plane fabrics, in contrast with the single plane designs where all
   top-of-fabric nodes are topologically equal and initially connected
   to all the switches at the level below them.




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   It is quite difficult to visualize multi plane design, which are
   effectively multi-dimensional switching matrices.  To cope with that,
   this document introduces a methodology allowing to depict the
   connectivity in two-dimensional pictures.  Further, the fact can be
   leveraged that what is under consideration here are basically stacked
   crossbar fabrics where ports align "on top of each other" in a
   regular fashion.

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

4.1.2.1.  Terminology and Glossary

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

   P:
      Denotes the number of PoDs in a topology.

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

   K:
      To simplify the visual aids, notations and further considerations,
      implicit assumption is made that the switches are symmetrical,
      i.e. equal number ports point northbound and southbound.  With
      that simplification, K denotes half of the radix of a symmetrical
      switch, meaning that the switch has K ports pointing north and K
      ports pointing south.  K_LEAF (K of a leaf) thus represents both
      the number of access ports in a leaf Node and the maximum number
      of planes in the fabric, whereas K_TOP (K of a ToP) represents the
      number of leaves in the PoD and the number of ports pointing north
      in a ToP Node towards a higher spine level, thus the number of ToF
      nodes in a plane.

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

4.1.2.2.  Clos as Crossed, Stacked Crossbars

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

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




















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

                      Figure 4: A Leaf Node, K_LEAF=6

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

















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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


























Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


                                   E<-*->W

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

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

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

                   Connecting to Spine

    ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||
  +----------------------------------------------------------------+   N
  |                    PoD top Nodes seen sideways                 |   ^
  +----------------------------------------------------------------+   |
    ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||         *
  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+       |
  |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |       v
  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+       S
    ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||

                        Connecting to Client nodes




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

              Connecting to Spine

         ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||
       +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+                N
       |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |  |    |  |   PoD top Nodes     ^
       +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+  +----+                |
         ||      ||      ||      ||      ||      ||                  *
     +------------------------------------------------+              |
     |              Leaf seen sideways                |              v
     +------------------------------------------------+              S

              Connecting to Client nodes

      Figure 8: Other Side View of a PoD, K_TOP=8, K_LEAF=6, 90o turn
                   in E-W Plane from the previous figure

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

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

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










Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]  <-----+
       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |         |
    [=================================]      |     --------------
       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |         +----- Top-of-Fabric
      [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]        +----- Node     -------+
                                             |     --------------   |
                                             |                      v
      +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+  <-----+                     +-+
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |                              | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] -------------------------  | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o<--- Physical Port (Ethernet)  | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] -------------------------  | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |                              | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                            | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]      --------------        | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] <---  PoD top level        | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]       node (Spine)  ---+   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]      --------------    |   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]                        |   | |
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  -+           +-   +-+   v   | |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |           |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |   -----   |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] +--- PoD ---+  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |   -----   |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |           |  --| |--[ ]--| |
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] |           |  --| |--[ ]--| |
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  -+           +-   +-+       | |
      +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+                              +-+

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

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








Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


          / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
         / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
        / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
       / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /   ]
      +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+ +-+   ]]
      | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  ]   ---------------------------
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ] <-- PoD top level node (Spine)
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]    ---------------------------
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]]]]
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]]]     ^^
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]]     //  PoDs
    [ |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| |o| ]     // (in depth)
      | |/| |/| |/| |/| |/| |/| |/| |/     //
      +-+ +-+ +-+/+-+/+-+ +-+ +-+ +-+     //
              ^
              |     ----------------
              +----- Top-of-Fabric Node
                    ----------------

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

   As simple as single plane deployment is, it introduces a limit due to
   the bound on the available radix of the ToF nodes that has to be at
   least P * K_LEAF.  Nevertheless, it will be come clear that a
   distinct advantage of a connected or non-partitioned Top-of-Fabric is
   that all failures can be resolved by simple, non-transitive, positive
   disaggregation (i.e. nodes advertising more specific prefixes with
   the default to the level below them that is however not propagated
   further down the fabric) as described in Section 4.2.5.1 . In other
   words; non-partitioned ToF nodes can always reach nodes below or
   withdraw the routes from PoDs they cannot reach unambiguously.  And
   with this, positive disaggregation can heal all failures and still
   allow all the ToF nodes to see each other via south reflection.
   Disaggregation will be explained in further detail in Section 4.2.5.

   In order to scale beyond the "single plane limit", the Top-of-Fabric
   can be partitioned by an N number of identically wired planes where N
   is an integer divider of K_LEAF.  The 1:1 ratio and the desired
   symmetry are still served, this time with (K_TOP * N) ToF nodes, each
   of (P * K_LEAF / N) ports.  N=1 represents a non-partitioned Spine
   and N=K_LEAF is a maximally partitioned Spine.  Further, if R is any
   integer divisor of K_LEAF, then N=K_LEAF/R is a feasible number of
   planes and R a redundancy factor that denotes the number of
   independent paths between 2 leaves within a plane.  It proves
   convenient for deployments to use a radix for the leaf nodes that is
   a power of 2 so they can pick a number of planes that is a lower
   power of 2.  The example in Figure 11 splits the Spine in 2 planes
   with a redundancy factor R=3, meaning that there are 3 non-



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

      +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
    | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | |
    +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+
      +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+
              ^
              |
              |      ----------------
              +----- Top-of-Fabric node
                     "across" depth
                     ----------------

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










Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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












































Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      Plane 1
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  -+
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      ----------- . ------------------- . ------------ . ------- |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      ----------- . ------------ . ---- . ------------ . ------- |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |
      ----------- . ------------ . ------------------- . --------+<-+
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      ----------- . ------------ . ------------ . ---- . ------- |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      ----------- . ------------ . ------------ . -------------- |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+   |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
      | | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O |  | O | | |  |
      +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+ |  |
        +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  -+  |
      Plane 6    ^                                                  |
                 |                                                  |
                 |     ----------------           -------------     |
                 +-----  ToF       Node           Class of PoDs  ---+
                       ----------------           -------------

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








Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.1.3.  Fallen Leaf Problem

   As mentioned earlier, RIFT exhibits an anisotropic behavior tailored
   for fabrics with a North / South orientation and a high level of
   interleaving paths.  A non-partitioned fabric makes a total loss of
   connectivity between a Top-of-Fabric node at the north and a leaf
   node at the south a very rare but yet possible occasion that is fully
   healed by positive disaggregation as described in Section 4.2.5.1.
   In large fabrics or fabrics built from switches with low radix, the
   ToF ends often being partitioned in planes which makes the occurrence
   of having a given leaf being only reachable from a subset of the ToF
   nodes more likely to happen.  This makes some further considerations
   necessary.

   A "Fallen Leaf" is a leaf that can be reached by only a subset, but
   not all, of Top-of-Fabric nodes due to missing connectivity.  If R is
   the redundancy factor, then it takes at least R breakages to reach a
   "Fallen Leaf" situation.

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

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

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

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

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






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   For the sake of easy comprehension the abstractions are rolled back
   into a simple example that shows that in Figure 3 the loss of link
   Spine 122 to Leaf 122 will make Leaf 122 a fallen leaf for Top-of-
   Fabric plane B.  Worse, if the cabling was never present in the first
   place, plane B will not even be able to know that such a fallen leaf
   exists.  Hence partitioning without further treatment results in two
   grave problems:

   *  Leaf 111 trying to route to Leaf 122 must choose Spine 111 in
      plane A as its next hop since plane B will inevitably blackhole
      the packet when forwarding using default routes or do excessive
      bow tying.  This information must be in its routing table.

   *  A path computation trying to deal with the problem by distributing
      host routes may only form paths through leaves.  The flooding of
      information about Leaf 122 would have to go up to Top-of-Fabric A
      and then "loopback" over other leaves to ToF B leading in extreme
      cases to traffic for Leaf 122 when presented to plane B taking an
      "inverted fabric" path where leaves start to serve as TOFs, at
      least for the duration of a protocol's convergence.

4.1.4.  Discovering Fallen Leaves

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

   In detail, by reserving two ports on each Top-of-Fabric node it is
   possible to connect them together by interplane bi-directional rings
   as illustrated in Figure 13.  The rings will be used to exchange full
   north topology information between planes.  All ToFs having same
   north topology allows by the means of transitive, negative
   disaggregation described in Section 4.2.5.2 to efficiently fix any
   possible fallen leaf scenario.  Somewhat as a side-effect, the
   exchange of information fulfills the requirement to have a full view
   of the fabric topology at the Top-of-Fabric level, without the need
   to collate it from multiple points.








Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


            +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +--------+
            |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |        |
            |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
          +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+      |
        +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+    |
        | | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o | |    | Plane A
        +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+    |
          +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+      |
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |         |
          +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+      |
        +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+    |
        | | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o | |    | Plane B
        +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+    |
          +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+      |
            |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
                                ...                            |
            |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
          +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+      |
        +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+    |
        | | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o |  | o | |    | Plane X
        +-|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |--|   |-+    |
          +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+  +-o-+      |
            |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
            |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |   |  |        |
            +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +---+  +--------+
     Rings    1      2      3      4      5      6      7

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

4.1.5.  Addressing the Fallen Leaves Problem

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

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

   The positive disaggregation is originated by a router that can still
   reach the advertised prefix, and the operation is not transitive.  In
   other words, the receiver does *not* generate its own TIEs or floods
   them south as a consequence of receiving positive disaggregation



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   advertisements from a higher level node.  The effect of a positive
   disaggregation is that the traffic to the impacted prefix will follow
   the longest match and will be limited to the northbound routers that
   advertised the more specific route.

   In contrast, the negative disaggregation can be transitive, and is
   propagated south when all the possible routes have been advertised as
   negative exceptions.  A negative route advertisement is only
   actionable when the negative prefix is aggregated by a positive route
   advertisement for a shorter prefix.  In such case, the negative
   advertisement "punches out a hole" in the positive route in the
   routing table, making the positive prefix reachable through the
   originator with the special consideration of the negative prefix
   removing certain next hop neighbors.  The specific procedures will be
   explained in detail in Section 4.2.5.2.3.

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

   On the other hand, when the fabric is partitioned in planes, the
   positive disaggregation from ToF nodes in different planes do not
   reach the ToP switches in the affected plane and cannot solve the
   fallen leaves problem.  In other words, a breakage in a plane can
   only be solved in that plane.  Also, the selection of the plane for a
   packet typically occurs at the leaf level and the disaggregation must
   be transitive and reach all the leaves.  In that case, the negative
   disaggregation is necessary.  The details on the RIFT approach to
   deal with fallen leaves in an optimal way are specified in
   Section 4.2.5.2.

4.2.  Specification

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

   The FSMs, as usual, are presented as states the FSM can assume,
   events that it can be given and according actions performed when
   transitioning between states on event processing.

   Actions are performed before the end state is assumed.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

   Any attempt to transition from a state towards another on reception
   of an event where no action is specified MUST be considered an
   unrecoverable error, i.e. the protocol MUST reset all adjacencies,
   discard all the state and MAY NOT start again.

   The data structures and FSMs described in this document are
   conceptual and do not have to be implemented precisely as described
   here, as long as the implementations support the described
   functionality and exhibit the same externally visible behavior.

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

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

4.2.1.  Transport

   All packet formats are defined in Thrift [thrift] models in
   Appendix B.  LIE packet format is contained in the `LIEPacket` schema
   element.  TIE packet format is contained in `TIEPacket`, TIDE and
   TIRE accordingly in `TIDEPacket`, `TIREPacket` and the whole packet
   is a union of the above in `ProtocolPacket` while it contains a
   `PacketHeader` as well.

   Such a packet being in terms of bits on the wire a serialized
   `ProtocolPacket` is carried in an envelope defined in Section 4.4.3
   within a UDP frame that provides security and allows validation/
   modification of several important fields without de-serialization for
   performance and security reasons.  Security model and procedures are
   further explained in Section 7.




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.2.  Link (Neighbor) Discovery (LIE Exchange)

   RIFT LIE exchange auto-discovers neighbors, negotiates ZTP parameters
   and discovers miscablings.  The formation progresses under normal
   conditions from OneWay to TwoWay and then ThreeWay state at which
   point it is ready to exchange TIEs per Section 4.2.3.  The adjacency
   exchanges ZTP information (Section 4.2.7) in any of the states, i.e.
   it is not necessary to reach ThreeWay for zero-touch provisioning to
   operate.

   RIFT supports any combination of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing on the
   fabric with the additional capability for forwarding paths that are
   capable of forwarding IPv4 packets in presence of IPv6 addressing
   only.

   For IPv4 LIE exchange happens over well-known administratively
   locally scoped and configured or otherwise well-known IPv4 multicast
   address [RFC2365].  For IPv6 [RFC8200] exchange is performed over
   link-local multicast scope [RFC4291] address which is configured or
   otherwise well-known.  In both cases a destination UDP port defined
   in Appendix C.1 is used unless configured otherwise.  LIEs SHOULD be
   sent with an IPv4 Time to Live (TTL) / IPv6 Hop Limit (HL) of either
   1 or 255 to prevent RIFT information reaching beyond a single L3
   next-hop in the topology.  LIEs SHOULD be sent with network control
   precedence unless an implementation is prevented from doing so.

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

   An implementation MAY listen and send LIEs on IPv4 and/or IPv6
   multicast addresses.  A node MUST NOT originate LIEs on an address
   family if it does not process received LIEs on that family.  LIEs on
   same link are considered part of the same LIE FSM independent of the
   address family they arrive on.  Observe further that the LIE source
   address may not identify the peer uniquely in unnumbered or link-
   local address cases so the response transmission MUST occur over the
   same interface the LIEs have been received on.  A node MAY use any of
   the adjacency's source addresses it saw in LIEs on the specific
   interface during adjacency formation to send TIEs (Section 4.2.3.3).
   That implies that an implementation MUST be ready to accept TIEs on
   all addresses it used as source of LIE frames.

   A ThreeWay adjacency (as defined in the glossary) over any address
   family implies support for IPv4 forwarding if the
   `ipv4_forwarding_capable` flag in `LinkCapabilities` is set to true.
   A node, in case of absence of IPv4 addresses on such links and
   advertising `ipv4_forwarding_capable` as true, MUST forward IPv4



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   packets using gateways discovered on IPv6-only links advertising this
   capability.  It is expected that the whole fabric supports the same
   type of forwarding of address families on all the links, any other
   combination is outside the scope of this specification.
   `ipv4_forwarding_capable` MUST be set to true when LIEs from a IPv4
   address are sent and MAY be set to true in LIEs on IPv6 address if no
   LIEs are sent from a IPv4 address.  If IPv4 and IPv6 LIEs indicate
   contradicting information protocol behavior is unspecified.

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

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

   Table 1 outlines protocol behavior in case of different address
   family combinations.

































Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      +=======+=======+=============================================+
      | AF    | AF    | Behavior                                    |
      +=======+=======+=============================================+
      | IPv4  | IPv4  | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv4, no   |
      |       |       | IPv6 forwarding.  TIEs are received on any  |
      |       |       | of the LIE sending addresses.               |
      +-------+-------+---------------------------------------------+
      | IPv6  | IPv6  | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv6 only, |
      |       |       | no IPv4 forwarding if either of the         |
      |       |       | `ipv4_forwarding_capable` flags is false.   |
      |       |       | If both `ipv4_forwarding_capable` flags are |
      |       |       | true IPv4 is forwarded.  TIEs are received  |
      |       |       | on any of the LIE sending addresses.        |
      +-------+-------+---------------------------------------------+
      | IPv4, | IPv6  | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv6, no   |
      | IPv6  |       | IPv4 forwarding if either of the            |
      |       |       | `ipv4_forwarding_capable` flags is false.   |
      |       |       | If both `ipv4_forwarding_capable` are true  |
      |       |       | IPv4 is forwarded.  TIEs are received on    |
      |       |       | any of the IPv6 LIE sending addresses.      |
      +-------+-------+---------------------------------------------+
      | IPv4, | IPv4, | LIEs and TIEs are exchanged over IPv6 and   |
      | IPv6  | IPv6  | IPv4, unspecified behavior if either of the |
      |       |       | `ipv4_forwarding_capable` flags is false or |
      |       |       | IPv4 and IPv6 advertise different flags as  |
      |       |       | described previously.  IPv4 and IPv6 are    |
      |       |       | forwarded.  TIEs are received on any of the |
      |       |       | IPv4 and IPv6 LIE sending addresses.        |
      +-------+-------+---------------------------------------------+

                 Table 1: Neighbor AF Combination Behavior

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

   Unless ZTP as described in Section 4.2.7 is used, each node is
   provisioned with the level at which it is operating and advertises it
   in the `level` of the `PacketHeader` schema element.  It MAY be also
   provisioned with its PoD.  If level is not provisioned it is not
   present in the optional `PacketHeader` schema element and established
   by ZTP procedures if feasible.  If PoD is not provisioned it is as



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   governed by the `LIEPacket` schema element assuming the
   `common.default_pod` value.  This means that switches except top of
   fabric do not need to be configured at all.  Necessary information to
   configure all values is exchanged in the `LIEPacket` and
   `PacketHeader` or derived by the node automatically.

   Further definitions of leaf flags are found in Section 4.2.7 given
   they have implications in terms of level and adjacency forming here.
   Leaf flags are carried in `HierarchyIndications`.

   A node MUST form a ThreeWay adjacency (or in other words consider the
   neighbor "valid" and hence reflecting it) if and only if the
   following first order logic conditions are satisfied on a LIE packet
   as specified by the `LIEPacket` schema element and received on a link

   1.  the neighboring node is running the same major schema version as
       indicated in the `major_version` element in `PacketHeader` *and*

   2.  the neighboring node uses a valid System ID (i.e. value different
       from `IllegalSystemID`) in `sender` element in `PacketHeader`
       *and*

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

   4.  the advertised MTUs in `LiePacket` element match on both sides
       *and*

   5.  both nodes advertise defined level values in `level` element in
       `PacketHeader` *and*

   6.  [

          i) the node is at `leaf_level` value and has no ThreeWay
          adjacencies already to nodes at Highest Adjacency ThreeWay
          (HAT as defined later in Section 4.2.7.1) with level different
          than the adjacent node *or*

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

          iii) both nodes are at `leaf_level` values *and* both indicate
          support for Section 4.3.9 *or*

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

       ].



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

4.2.2.1.  LIE Finite State Machine

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

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

   Initial state is `OneWay`.

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

                        Enter
                          |
                          V
                    +-----------+
                    | OneWay    |<----+
                    |           |     | HALChanged
                    |           |     | HALSChanged
                    |           |     | HATChanged
                    |           |     | HoldTimerExpired
                    |           |     | InstanceNameMismatch
                    |           |     | LevelChanged
                    |           |     | LieRcvd
                    |           |     | MTUMismatch
                    |           |     | NeighborChangedAddress
                    |           |     | NeighborChangedLevel
                    |           |     | NeighborChangedMinorFields
                    |           |     | NeighborDroppedReflection
                    |           |     | SendLIE
                    |           |     | TimerTick
                    |           |     | UnacceptableHeader
                    |           |     | UpdateZTPOffer
                    |           |-----+
                    |           |
                    |           |<--------------------- (ThreeWay)
                    |           |--------------------->
                    |           | ValidReflection
                    |           |
                    |           |---------------------> (Multiple



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

                       (TwoWay)    (OneWay)
                        ^    |        ^
                        |    |        | HoldTimerExpired
                        |    |        | InstanceNameMismatch
                        |    |        | LevelChanged
                        |    |        | MTUMismatch
                        |    |        | NeighborChangedAddress



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

                   (TwoWay) (ThreeWay)
                        |     |
                        V     V
                    +------------+
                    | Multiple   |<----+
                    | Neighbors  |     | HALChanged
                    | Wait       |     | HALSChanged
                    |            |     | HATChanged
                    |            |     | MultipleNeighbors
                    |            |     | TimerTick
                    |            |     | UpdateZTPOffer
                    |            |     | FloodLeadersChanged
                    |            |     | NeighborChangedAddress
                    |            |     | UnacceptableHeader
                    |            |     | SendLie
                    |            |     | MTUMismatch
                    |            |     | LieRcvd
                    |            |     | NeighborDroppedReflection
                    |            |     |
                    |            |     |
                    |            |-----+
                    |            |
                    |            |<---------------------------
                    |            |---------------------------> (OneWay)
                    |            | LevelChanged
                    +------------+ MultipleNeighborsDone



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


                             Figure 14: LIE FSM

   The following words are used for well known procedures:

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

   *  CLEANUP: neighbor MUST be reset to unknown

   *  SEND_LIE: create and send a new LIE packet

      1.  reflecting the neighbor if known and valid and

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

      3.  setting `you_are_not_flood_repeater` to computed value

   *  PROCESS_LIE:

      1.  if LIE has major version not equal to this node's *or* system
          ID equal to this node's system ID or `IllegalSystemID` then
          CLEANUP else

      2.  if LIE has non matching MTUs then CLEANUP, PUSH
          UpdateZTPOffer, PUSH MTUMismatch else

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

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

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

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

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





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

      5.  CHECK_THREE_WAY

   *  CHECK_THREE_WAY: if current state is OneWay do nothing else

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

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

   States:

   *  OneWay: initial state FSM is starting from.  In this state the
      neighbors did not see any valid LIEs from a neighbor after the
      state was entered.

   *  TwoWay: that state is entered when a node has seen a LIE from a
      neighbor but it did not contain its reflection.

   *  ThreeWay: this state signifies that lies from a neighbor are seen
      with correct reflection.  On achieving this state the link can be
      advertised in `neighbors` element in `NodeTIEElement`.

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

   Events:

   *  TimerTick: one second timer tic, i.e. the event is generated for
      FSM by some external entity once a second.  To be quietly ignored
      if transition does not exist.

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

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

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   *  LieRcvd: received LIE on the interface.

   *  NewNeighbor: new neighbor seen on the received LIE.

   *  ValidReflection: received reflection of this node from neighbor,
      i.e. `neighbor` element in `LiePacket` corresponds to this node.

   *  NeighborDroppedReflection: lost previously seen reflection from
      neighbor, i.e. `neighbor` element in `LiePacket` does not
      correspond to this node or is not present.

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

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

   *  UnacceptableHeader: Unacceptable header seen.

   *  MTUMismatch: MTU mismatched.

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

   *  HoldtimeExpired: adjacency holddown timer expired.

   *  MultipleNeighbors: more than one neighbor seen on interface

   *  MultipleNeighborsDone: multiple neighbors timer expired.

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

   *  SendLie: send a LIE out.

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

   Actions:

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

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no action



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   *  on NeighborChangedMinorFields in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on NeighborChangedLevel in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no action

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

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on HALSChanged in OneWay finishes in OneWay: store HALS

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on LieRcvd in OneWay finishes in OneWay: PROCESS_LIE

   *  on ValidReflection in OneWay finishes in ThreeWay: no action

   *  on SendLie in OneWay finishes in OneWay: SEND_LIE

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

   *  on HATChanged in OneWay finishes in OneWay: store HAT

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in OneWay finishes in MultipleNeighborsWait:
      start multiple neighbors timer with interval
      `multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler` *
      `default_lie_holdtime`

   *  on MTUMismatch in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on FloodLeadersChanged in OneWay finishes in OneWay: update
      `you_are_flood_repeater` LIE elements based on flood leader
      election results

   *  on NeighborDroppedReflection in OneWay finishes in OneWay: no
      action

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

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in TwoWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on LieRcvd in TwoWay finishes in TwoWay: PROCESS_LIE





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in TwoWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on MTUMismatch in TwoWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in TwoWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on ValidReflection in TwoWay finishes in ThreeWay: no action

   *  on SendLie in TwoWay finishes in TwoWay: SEND_LIE

   *  on HATChanged in TwoWay finishes in TwoWay: store HAT

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

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

   *  on FloodLeadersChanged in TwoWay finishes in TwoWay: update
      `you_are_flood_repeater` LIE elements based on flood leader
      election results

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

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

   *  on NeighborChangedLevel in TwoWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in TwoWay finishes in MultipleNeighborsWait:
      start multiple neighbors timer with interval
      `multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler` *
      `default_lie_holdtime`

   *  on HALSChanged in TwoWay finishes in TwoWay: store HALS

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in ThreeWay finishes in OneWay: no
      action

   *  on ValidReflection in ThreeWay finishes in ThreeWay: no action

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in ThreeWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in ThreeWay finishes in OneWay: no action



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   *  on NeighborDroppedReflection in ThreeWay finishes in TwoWay: no
      action

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

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in ThreeWay finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: start multiple neighbors timer with
      interval `multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler` *
      `default_lie_holdtime`

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

   *  on HALSChanged in ThreeWay finishes in ThreeWay: store HALS

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

   *  on HATChanged in ThreeWay finishes in ThreeWay: store HAT

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

   *  on LieRcvd in ThreeWay finishes in ThreeWay: PROCESS_LIE

   *  on NeighborChangedLevel in ThreeWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on SendLie in ThreeWay finishes in ThreeWay: SEND_LIE

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

   *  on MTUMismatch in ThreeWay finishes in OneWay: no action

   *  on HoldtimeExpired in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on LieRcvd in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on NeighborDroppedReflection in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on MTUMismatch in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   *  on NeighborChangedBFDCapability in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes
      in MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

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

   *  on SendLie in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

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

   *  on MultipleNeighborsDone in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      OneWay: no action

   *  on HATChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: store HAT

   *  on NeighborChangedAddress in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on HALSChanged in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: store HALS

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

   *  on MultipleNeighbors in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: start multiple neighbors timer with
      interval `multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler` *
      `default_lie_holdtime`

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

   *  on ValidReflection in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

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

   *  on UnacceptableHeader in MultipleNeighborsWait finishes in
      MultipleNeighborsWait: no action

   *  on Entry into OneWay: CLEANUP




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.3.  Topology Exchange (TIE Exchange)

4.2.3.1.  Topology Information Elements

   Topology and reachability information in RIFT is conveyed by the
   means of TIEs.

   The TIE exchange mechanism uses the port indicated by each node in
   the LIE exchange as `flood_port` in `LIEPacket` and the interface on
   which the adjacency has been formed as destination.  It SHOULD use
   TTL of 1 or 255 as well and set inter-network control precedence on
   according packets.

   TIEs contain sequence numbers, lifetimes and a type.  Each type has
   ample identifying number space and information is spread across
   possibly many TIEs of a certain type by the means of a hash function
   that an implementation can individually determine.  One extreme
   design choice is a prefix per TIE which leads to more BGP-like
   behavior where small increments are only advertised on route changes
   vs. deploying with dense prefix packing into few TIEs leading to more
   traditional IGP trade-off with fewer TIEs.  An implementation may
   even rehash prefix to TIE mapping at any time at the cost of
   significant amount of re-advertisements of TIEs.

   More information about the TIE structure can be found in the schema
   in Appendix B starting with `TIEPacket` root.

4.2.3.2.  Southbound and Northbound TIE Representation

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

   The North TIEs hold all of the node's adjacencies and local prefixes
   while the South TIEs hold only all of the node's adjacencies, the
   default prefix with necessary disaggregated prefixes and local
   prefixes.  Section 4.2.5 explains further details.

   The TIE types are mostly symmetric in both directions and Table 2
   provides a quick reference to main TIE types including direction and
   their function.  The direction itself is carried in `direction` of
   `TIEID` schema element.





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


       +=========================+=================================+
       | TIE-Type                | Content                         |
       +=========================+=================================+
       | Node North TIE          | node properties and adjacencies |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Node South TIE          | same content as node North TIE  |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Prefix North TIE        | contains nodes' directly        |
       |                         | reachable prefixes              |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Prefix South TIE        | contains originated defaults    |
       |                         | and directly reachable prefixes |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Positive Disaggregation | contains disaggregated prefixes |
       | South TIE               |                                 |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Negative Disaggregation | contains special, negatively    |
       | South TIE               | disaggregated prefixes to       |
       |                         | support multi-plane designs     |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | External Prefix North   | contains external prefixes      |
       | TIE                     |                                 |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Key-Value North TIE     | contains nodes northbound KVs   |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Key-Value South TIE     | contains nodes southbound KVs   |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+

                             Table 2: TIE Types

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

          ToF 21 South TIEs:
          Node South TIE:
            NodeElement(level=2, neighbors((Spine 111, level 1, cost 1),
            (Spine 112, level 1, cost 1), (Spine 121, level 1, cost 1),
            (Spine 122, level 1, cost 1)))
          Prefix South TIE:
            SouthPrefixesElement(prefixes(0/0, cost 1), (::/0, cost 1))

          Spine 111 South TIEs:
          Node South TIE:



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 50]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


            NodeElement(level=1, neighbors((ToF 21, level 2, cost 1,
                        links(...)),
            (ToF 22, level 2, cost 1, links(...)),
            (Spine 112, level 1, cost 1, links(...)),
            (Leaf111, level 0, cost 1, links(...)),
            (Leaf112, level 0, cost 1, links(...))))
          Prefix South TIE:
            SouthPrefixesElement(prefixes(0/0, cost 1), (::/0, cost 1))

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

          Spine 121 South TIEs:
          Node South TIE:
            NodeElement(level=1, neighbors((ToF 21,level 2,cost 1),
            (ToF 22, level 2, cost 1), (Leaf121, level 0, cost 1),
            (Leaf122, level 0, cost 1)))
          Prefix South TIE:
            SouthPrefixesElement(prefixes(0/0, cost 1), (::/0, cost 1))

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

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





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 51]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   It may be here not necessarily obvious why the node South TIEs
   contain all the adjacencies of the according node.  This will be
   necessary for algorithms further elaborated on in Section 4.2.3.9 and
   Section 4.3.7.

   For node TIEs to carry more adjacencies than fit into an MTU, the
   element `neighbors` may contain different set of neighbors in each
   TIE.  Those disjoint sets of neighbors MUST be joined during
   according computation.  Nevertheless, in case across multiple node
   TIEs

   1.  `capabilities` do not match *or*

   2.  `flags` values do not match *or*

   3.  same neighbor repeats with different values

   the behavior is undefined and a warning SHOULD be generated after a
   period of time.  The element `miscabled_links` SHOULD be repeated in
   every node TIE, otherwise the behavior is undefined.

   Different TIE types are carried in `TIEElement`.  Schema enum
   `common.TIETypeType` in `TIEID` indicates which elements MUST be
   present in the `TIEElement`. In case of mismatch the unexpected
   elements MUST be ignored.  In case of lack of expected element in the
   TIE an error MUST be reported and the TIE MUST be ignored.
   `positive_disaggregation_prefixes` and
   `positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes` MUST be advertised
   southbound only and ignored in North TIEs.
   `negative_disaggregation_prefixes` MUST be aggregated and propagated
   according to Section 4.2.5.2 southwards towards lower levels to heal
   pathological upper level partitioning, otherwise blackholes may occur
   in multiplane fabrics.  It MUST NOT be advertised within a North TIE
   and ignored otherwise.

4.2.3.3.  Flooding

   The mechanism used to distribute TIEs is the well-known (albeit
   modified in several respects to take advantage of Fat Tree topology)
   flooding mechanism used in link-state protocols.  Although flooding
   is initially more demanding to implement it avoids many problems with
   update style used in diffused computation by distance vector
   protocols.  However, since flooding tends to present a significant
   burden in large, densely meshed topologies (Fat Trees being
   unfortunately such a topology) RIFT provides as solution a close to



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 52]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   optimal global flood reduction and load balancing optimization in
   Section 4.2.3.9.

   As described before, TIEs themselves are transported over UDP with
   the ports indicated in the LIE exchanges and using the destination
   address on which the LIE adjacency has been formed.  For unnumbered
   IPv4 interfaces same considerations apply as in other link-state
   routing protocols and are largely implementation dependent.

   TIEs are uniquely identifed by `TIEID` schema element.  `TIEID` space
   is a total order achieved by comparing the elements in sequence
   defined in the element and comparing each value as an unsigned
   integer of according length.  They contain a `seq_nr` element to
   distinguish newer versions of same TIE.  TIEIDs also carry
   `origination_time` and `origination_lifetime`.  Field
   `origination_time` contains the absolute timestamp when the TIE was
   generated.  Field `origination_lifetime` carries lifetime when the
   TIE was generated.  Those are normally disregarded during comparison
   and carried purely for debugging/security purposes if present.  They
   may be used for comparison of last resort to differentiate otherwise
   equal ties and they can be used on fabrics with synchronized clock to
   prevent lifetime modification attacks.

   Remaining lifetime counts down to 0 from origination lifetime.  TIEs
   with lifetimes differing by less than `lifetime_diff2ignore` MUST be
   considered EQUAL (if all other fields are equal).  This constant MUST
   be larger than `purge_lifetime` to avoid retransmissions.

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

4.2.3.3.1.  Normative Flooding Procedures

   On reception of a TIE with an undefined level value in the packet
   header the node MAY issue a warning and indiscriminately discard the
   packet.  Such packets can be useful however to establish e.g. via
   `instance_name`, `name` and `originator` elements in `LIEPacket`
   whether the cabling of the node fulfills expectations, even before
   ZTP procedures determine levels across the topology.

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 53]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Flooding Procedures are described in terms of a flooding state of an
   adjacency and resulting operations on it driven by packet arrivals.
   The FSM itself has basically just a single state and is not well
   suited to represent the behavior.  An implementation MUST either
   implement the given procedures in a verbatim manner or behave on the
   wire in the same way as the provided normative procedures of this
   paragraph.

   RIFT does not specify any kind of flood rate limiting since such
   specifications always assume particular points in available
   technology speeds and feeds and those points are shifting at faster
   and faster rate (speed of light holding for the moment).

   To help with adjustement of flooding speeds the encoded packets
   provide hints to react accordingly to losses or overruns via
   `you_are_sending_too_quickly` in `LIEPacket` and `Packet Number` in
   security envelope described in Section 4.4.3.  Flooding of all
   according topology exchange elements SHOULD be performed at highest
   feasible rate whereas the rate of transmission MUST be throttled by
   reacting to packet elements and adequate features of the system such
   as e.g. queue lengths or congestion indications in the protocol
   packets.

   A node SHOULD NOT send out any topology information elements if the
   adjacency is not in a "ThreeWay" state.  No further tightening of
   this rule as to e.g. sequence is possible due to possible link
   buffering and re-ordering of LIEs and TIEs/TIDEs/TIREs in a real
   implementation for e.g.  performance purposes.

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

   TIDEs and TIREs MUST NOT be re-flooded the way TIEs of other nodes
   MUST be always generated by the node itself and cross only to the
   neighboring node.

4.2.3.3.1.1.  FloodState Structure per Adjacency

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

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 54]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

   TIE:
      Describes either a full RIFT TIE or accordingly just the
      `TIEHeader` or `TIEID` equivalent as defined in Appendix B.3.  The
      according meaning is unambiguously contained in the context of
      each algorithm.

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

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

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

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

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

          1.  remove TIE from TIES_RTX if present

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

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

              b.  remove TIE" from TIES_ACK and add TIE to TIES_TX

          3.  else insert TIE into TIES_TX

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 55]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   tie_been_acked(TIE):
      remove TIE from all collections.

   remove_from_all_queues(TIE):
      same as `tie_been_acked`.

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

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

   clear_requests(TIEs):
      remove all TIEs from TIES_REQ.

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

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

   1.  Elements on TIES_ACK should be processed with highest priority

   2.  TIES_TX

   3.  TIES_REQ and TIES_RTX

4.2.3.3.1.2.  TIDEs

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

   When generating and sending TIDEs an implementation SHOULD ensure
   that enough bandwidth is left to send elements from other queues of
   `Floodstate` structure.






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 56]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.3.3.1.2.1.  TIDE Generation

   As given by timer constant, periodically generate TIDEs by:

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

      TIDE_START: Begin of TIDE packet range.

   a.  NEXT_TIDE_ID = MIN_TIEID

   b.  while NEXT_TIDE_ID not equal to MAX_TIEID do

       1.  TIDE_START = NEXT_TIDE_ID

       2.  HEADERS = At most TIRDEs_PER_PKT headers in TIEDB starting at
           NEXT_TIDE_ID or higher that SHOULD be filtered by
           is_tide_entry_filtered and MUST either have a lifetime left >
           0 or have no content

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

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

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

       6.  NEXT_TIDE_ID = END

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

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

4.2.3.3.1.2.2.  TIDE Processing

   On reception of TIDEs the following processing is performed:

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

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 57]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      LASTPROCESSED: Last processed TIEID in TIDE

      DBTIE: TIE in the LSDB if found

   a.  LASTPROCESSED = TIDE.start_range

   b.  for every HEADER in TIDE do

       1.  DBTIE = find HEADER in current LSDB

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

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

       4.  LASTPROCESSED = HEADER

       5.  if DBTIE not found then

           I)   if originator is this node then bump_own_tie

           II)  else put HEADER into REQKEYS

       6.  if DBTIE.HEADER < HEADER then

           I)  if originator is this node then bump_own_tie else

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

               ii.  else put HEADER into REQKEYS

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

       8.  if DBTIE.HEADER = HEADER then

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

           II)  else put HEADER into REQKEYS

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

   d.  for all TIEs in TXKEYS try_to_transmit_tie(TIE)

   e.  for all TIEs in REQKEYS request_tie(TIE)



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 58]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   f.  for all TIEs in CLEARKEYS remove_from_all_queues(TIE)

4.2.3.3.1.3.  TIREs

4.2.3.3.1.3.1.  TIRE Generation

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

4.2.3.3.1.3.2.  TIRE Processing

   On reception of TIREs the following processing is performed:

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

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

      ACKKEYS: Collection of TIEIDs that have been acked

      DBTIE: TIE in the LSDB if found

   a.  for every HEADER in TIRE do

       1.  DBTIE = find HEADER in current LSDB

       2.  if DBTIE not found then do nothing

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

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

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

   b.  for all TIEs in TXKEYS try_to_transmit_tie(TIE)

   c.  for all TIEs in REQKEYS request_tie(TIE)

   d.  for all TIEs in ACKKEYS tie_been_acked(TIE)

4.2.3.3.1.4.  TIEs Processing on Flood State Adjacency

   On reception of TIEs the following processing is performed:




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 59]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      ACKTIE: TIE to acknowledge

      TXTIE: TIE to transmit

      DBTIE: TIE in the LSDB if found

   a.  DBTIE = find TIE in current LSDB

   b.  if DBTIE not found then

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

       2.  else insert TIE into LSDB and ACKTIE = TIE

       else

       1.  if DBTIE.HEADER = TIE.HEADER then

           i.   if DBTIE has content already then ACKTIE = TIE

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

       2.  if DBTIE.HEADER < TIE.HEADER then

           i.   if originator is this node then bump_own_tie

           ii.  else insert TIE into LSDB and ACKTIE = TIE

       3.  if DBTIE.HEADER > TIE.HEADER then

           i.   if DBTIE has content already then TXTIE = DBTIE

           ii.  else ACKTIE = DBTIE

   c.  if TXTIE is set then try_to_transmit_tie(TXTIE)

   d.  if ACKTIE is set then ack_tie(TIE)

4.2.3.3.1.5.  Sending TIEs

   On a periodic basis all TIEs with lifetime left > 0 MUST be sent out
   on the adjacency, removed from TIES_TX list and requeued onto
   TIES_RTX list.







Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 60]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.3.3.1.6.  TIEs Processing In LSDB

   The Link State Database can be considered to be a switchboard that
   does not need any flooding procedures but can be given versions of
   TIEs by peers.  Consecutively, after version tie-breaking by LSDB, a
   peer receives from the LSDB newest versions of TIEs received by other
   peers and processes them (without any filtering) just like receiving
   TIEs from its remote peer.  Such a publisher model can be implemented
   in many ways, either in a single thread of execution of in parallel
   threads.

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

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

4.2.3.4.  TIE Flooding Scopes

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

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

   A node's Node South TIEs, consisting of all node's adjacencies and
   prefix South TIEs limited to those related to default IP prefix and
   disaggregated prefixes, are flooded southbound in order to allow the
   nodes one level down to see connectivity of the higher level as well
   as reachability to the rest of the fabric.  In order to allow an E-W
   disconnected node in a given level to receive the South TIEs of other
   nodes at its level, every *NODE* South TIE is "reflected" northbound
   to level from which it was received.  It should be noted that East-
   West links are included in South TIE flooding (except at ToF level);
   those TIEs need to be flooded to satisfy algorithms in Section 4.2.4.
   In that way nodes at same level can learn about each other without a
   lower level except in case of leaf level.  The precise, normative
   flooding scopes are given in Table 3.  Those rules govern as well
   what SHOULD be included in TIDEs on the adjacency.  Again, East-West



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 61]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   flooding scopes are identical to South flooding scopes except in case
   of ToF East-West links (rings) which are basically performing
   northbound flooding.

   Node South TIE "south reflection" allows to support positive
   disaggregation on failures as described in in Section 4.2.5 and
   flooding reduction in Section 4.2.3.9.












































Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 62]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

                     Table 3: Normative Flooding Scopes







Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 63]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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










































Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 64]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

             Table 4: Flooding some TIEs from example topology






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 65]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.3.5.  'Flood Only Node TIEs' Bit

   RIFT includes an optional ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification)
   mechanism to prevent "flooding inrush" on restart or bring-up with
   many southbound neighbors.  A node MAY set on its LIEs the according
   `you_are_sending_too_quickly` flag to indicate to the neighbor that
   it should temporarily flood node TIEs only to it and slow down the
   flooding of any other TIEs.  It SHOULD only set it in the southbound
   direction.  The receiving node SHOULD accommodate the request to
   lessen the flooding load on the affected node if south of the sender
   and SHOULD ignore the indication if northbound.

   Obviously this mechanism is most useful in the southbound direction.
   The distribution of node TIEs guarantees correct behavior of
   algorithms like disaggregation or default route origination.
   Furthermore though, the use of this bit presents an inherent trade-
   off between processing load and convergence speed since suppressing
   flooding of northbound prefixes from neighbors permanently will lead
   to blackholes.

4.2.3.6.  Initial and Periodic Database Synchronization

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

4.2.3.7.  Purging and Roll-Overs

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 66]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

4.2.3.8.  Southbound Default Route Origination

   Under certain conditions nodes issue a default route in their South
   Prefix TIEs with costs as computed in Section 4.3.7.1.

   A node X that

   1.  is *not* overloaded *and*

   2.  has southbound or East-West adjacencies




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 67]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2.3.9.  Northbound TIE Flooding Reduction

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

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

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

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

   4.  nodes at the same level do *not* have to agree on a specific
       algorithm to select the FRs, but overall load balancing should be
       achieved so that different nodes at the same level should tend to
       select different parents as FRs;







Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 68]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 69]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   *  let RND be a 64-bit random number generated by the system once on
      startup.

   The algorithm consists of the following steps:

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

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

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

           where << is the circular shift operator.






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 70]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

       B.  set i=0;

       C.  while i < CN(N) do

           i)    set j=i;

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

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

                 b.  set i=i+1;

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

                 set k=k+1;

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

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

       A.  while k > 0 do

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

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

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

           ii)  set k=k-1;





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 71]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

               a.  place P in FR set;

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

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

   Additional rules for flooding reduction:

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

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

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

   4.  A node receiving a TIE originated by a node for which it is not a
       flood repeater SHOULD NOT reflood such TIEs to its neighbors
       except for rules in Section 4.2.3.9, Paragraph 10, Item 6.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 72]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

4.2.3.10.  Special Considerations

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 73]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.4.  Reachability Computation

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

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

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

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

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








Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 74]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Prefixes are carried in different type of TIEs indicating their type.
   For same prefix being included in different TIE types according to
   Section 4.3.1.  In case the same prefix is included multiple times in
   multiple TIEs of same type originating at the same node the resulting
   behavior is unspecified.

4.2.4.1.  Northbound Reachability SPF

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

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

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

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

   2.  the adjacent node has one or more northbound adjacencies

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

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

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

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 75]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   A detailed example can be found in Section 5.4.

4.2.4.2.  Southbound Reachability SPF

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

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

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

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

4.2.4.4.  East-West Links Within ToF Level

   E-W ToF links behave in terms of flooding scopes defined in
   Section 4.2.3.4 like northbound links and MUST be used exclusively
   for control plane information flooding.  Even though a ToF node could
   be tempted to use those links during southbound SPF and carry traffic
   over them this MUST NOT be attempted since it may lead in, e.g.
   anycast cases to routing loops.  An implementation MAY try to resolve
   the looping problem by following on the ring strictly tie-broken
   shortest-paths only but the details are outside this specification.
   And even then, the problem of proper capacity provisioning of such
   links when they become traffic-bearing in case of failures is vexing
   and when used for forwarding purposes, they defeat statistical non-
   blocking guarantees that Clos is providing normally.

4.2.5.  Automatic Disaggregation on Link & Node Failures

4.2.5.1.  Positive, Non-transitive Disaggregation

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 76]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   causing it to be black-holed.  Even when not black-holing, the
   resulting forwarding could 'backhaul' packets through the higher
   level spines, clearly an undesirable condition affecting the blocking
   probabilities of the fabric.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 77]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   which are connected to it via at least one common south neighbor.  If
   it can, then prefix disaggregation may be required.  If it can't,
   then no prefix disaggregation is needed.  An example of
   disaggregation is provided in Section 5.3.

   Finally, a possible algorithm is described here:

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

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

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

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

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

















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 78]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

              Figure 16: Computation of Disaggregated Prefixes

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

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

   1.  all neighbor relationships MUST perform backlink checks.

   2.  overload bits as introduced in Section 4.3.2 and carried in
       `overload` schema element have to be respected during the
       computation, i.e. node advertising themselves as overloaded MUST
       NOT be transited in reachability computation but MUST be used as
       terminal nodes with prefixes they advertise being reachable.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 79]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

   To close this section it is worth to observe that in a single plane
   ToF this disaggregation prevents blackholing up to (K_LEAF * P) link
   failures in terms of Section 4.1.2 or in other terms, it takes at
   minimum that many link failures to partition the ToF into multiple
   planes.

4.2.5.2.  Negative, Transitive Disaggregation for Fallen Leaves

   As explained in Section 4.1.3 failures in multi-plane Top-of-Fabric
   or more than (K_LEAF * P) links failing in single plane design can
   generate fallen leaves.  Such scenario cannot be addressed by
   positive disaggregation only and needs a further mechanism.

4.2.5.2.1.  Cabling of Multiple Top-of-Fabric Planes

   Returning in this section to designs with multiple planes as shown
   originally in Figure 3, Figure 17 highlights now how the ToF is
   cabled in case of two planes by the means of dual-rings to distribute
   all the North TIEs within both planes.






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 80]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


             ++==========++          ++==========++
             II          II          II          II
        +----++--+  +----++--+  +----++--+  +----++--+
        |ToF   A1|  |ToF   B1|  |ToF   B2|  |ToF   A2|
        ++-+-++--+  ++-+-++--+  ++-+-++--+  ++-+-++--+
         | | II      | | II      | | II      | | II
         | | ++==========++      | | ++==========++
         | |         | |         | |         | |

         ~~~ Highlighted ToF of the previous multi-plane figure ~~

                 Figure 17: Topologically Connected Planes

   Section 4.1.3 already describes how failures in multi-plane fabrics
   can lead to blackholes which normal positive disaggregation cannot
   fix.  The mechanism of negative, transitive disaggregation
   incorporated in RIFT provides the according solution and next section
   explains the involved mechanisms in more detail.

4.2.5.2.2.  Transitive Advertisement of Negative Disaggregates

   A ToF node discovering that it cannot reach a fallen leaf SHOULD
   disaggregate all the prefixes of such leaves.  It uses for that
   purpose negative prefix South TIEs that are, as usual, flooded
   southwards with the scope defined in Section 4.2.3.4.

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

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

4.2.5.2.3.  Computation of Negative Disaggregates

   The document omitted so far the description of the computation
   necessary to generate the correct set of negative prefixes.  Negative
   prefixes can in fact be advertised due to two different triggers.
   This will be described consecutively.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 81]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   The first origination reason is a computation that uses all the node
   North TIEs to build the set of all reachable nodes by reachability
   computation over the complete graph and including horizontal ToF
   links.  The computation uses the node itself as root.  This is
   compared with the result of the normal southbound SPF as described in
   Section 4.2.4.2.  The difference are the fallen leaves and all their
   attached prefixes are advertised as negative prefixes southbound if
   the node does not see the prefix being reachable within the
   southbound SPF.

   The second mechanism hinges on the understanding how the negative
   prefixes are used within the computation as described in Figure 18.
   When attaching the negative prefixes at certain point in time the
   negative prefix may find itself with all the viable nodes from the
   shorter match nexthop being pruned.  In other words, all its
   northbound neighbors provided a negative prefix advertisement.  This
   is the trigger to advertise this negative prefix transitively south
   and normally caused by the node being in a plane where the prefix
   belongs to a fabric leaf that has "fallen" in this plane.  Obviously,
   when one of the northbound switches withdraws its negative
   advertisement, the node has to withdraw its transitively provided
   negative prefix as well.

4.2.6.  Attaching Prefixes

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

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

   Each prefix has its cost adjusted before being added into the RIFT
   route database.  The cost of the prefix is set to the cost received
   plus the cost of the minimum distance next-hop to that neighbor while
   taking into account its attributes such as mobility per
   Section 4.3.4.  Then each prefix can be added into the RIFT route



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 82]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   database with the next-hop set; ties are broken based upon type first
   and then distance and further on `PrefixAttributes` and only the best
   combination is used for forwarding.  RIFT route preferences are
   normalized by the according Thrift [thrift] model type.

   An example implementation for node X follows:

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

       Figure 18: Adding Routes from South TIE Positive and Negative
                                  Prefixes

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 83]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

   To make the negative disaggregation less abstract and provide an
   example ToP node T1 with 4 ToF parents S1..S4 as represented in
   Figure 19 are considered further:

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

                    Figure 19: A ToP Node with 4 Parents

   If all ToF nodes can reach all the prefixes in the network; with
   RIFT, they will normally advertise a default route south.  An
   abstract Routing Information Base (RIB), more commonly known as a
   routing table, stores all types of maintained routes including the
   negative ones and "tie-breaks" for the best one, whereas an abstract



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 84]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Forwarding table (FIB) retains only the ultimately computed
   "positive" routing instructions.  In T1, those tables would look as
   illustrated in Figure 20:

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

                          Figure 20: Abstract RIB

   In case T1 receives a negative advertisement for prefix 2001:db8::/32
   from S1 a negative route is stored in the RIB (indicated by a ~
   sign), while the more specific routes to the complementing ToF nodes
   are installed in FIB.  RIB and FIB in T1 now look as illustrated in
   Figure 21 and Figure 22, respectively:




















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 85]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

        Figure 21: Abstract RIB after Negative 2001:db8::/32 from S1

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




















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 86]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

   To illustrate matters further consider T1 receiving a negative
   advertisement for prefix 2001:db8:1::/48 from S2, which is stored in
   RIB again.  After the update, the RIB in T1 is illustrated in
   Figure 23:

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

    Figure 23: Abstract RIB after Negative 2001:db8:1::/48 from S2



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 87]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Negative 2001:db8:1::/48 inherits from 2001:db8::/32 now, so the
   positive more specific routes are the complements to S2 in the set of
   next hops for 2001:db8::/32, which are S3 and S4, or, in other words,
   all entries of the parent with the negative holes "punched in" again.
   After the update, the FIB in T1 shows as illustrated in Figure 24:

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

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

   Further, assume that S3 stops advertising its service as default
   gateway.  The entry is removed from RIB as usual.  In order to update
   the FIB, it is necessary to eliminate the FIB entry for the default
   route, as well as all the FIB entries that were created for negative
   routes pointing to the RIB entry being removed (::/0).  This is done
   recursively for 2001:db8::/32 and then for, 2001:db8:1::/48.  The
   related FIB entries via S3 are removed, as illustrated in Figure 25.
















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 88]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

               Figure 25: Abstract FIB after Loss of S3

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

   Finally, the case occurs where S3 becomes available again as a
   default gateway, and a negative advertisement is received from S4
   about prefix 2001:db8:2::/48 as opposed to 2001:db8:1::/48.  Again, a
   negative route is stored in the RIB, and the more specific route to
   the complementing ToF nodes are installed in FIB.  Since
   2001:db8:2::/48 inherits from 2001:db8::/32, the positive FIB routes
   are chosen by removing S4 from S2, S3, S4.  The abstract FIB in T1
   now shows as illustrated in Figure 26:















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 89]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

     Figure 26: Abstract FIB after Negative 2001:db8:2::/48 from S4

4.2.7.  Optional Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP)

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

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 90]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   This section describes the necessary concepts and procedures for ZTP
   operation.

4.2.7.1.  Terminology

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

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

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

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

   TOP_OF_FABRIC flag:
      Configuration flag that MUST be provided to all Top-of-Fabric
      nodes.  LEAF_FLAG and CONFIGURED_LEVEL cannot be defined at the
      same time as this flag.  It implies a CONFIGURED_LEVEL value.  In
      fact, it is basically a shortcut for configuring same level at all
      Top-of-Fabric nodes which is unavoidable since an initial 'seed'
      is needed for other ZTP nodes to derive their level in the
      topology.  The flag plays an important role in fabrics with
      multiple planes to enable successful negative disaggregation
      (Section 4.2.5.2).  It is carried in `top_of_fabric` schema
      element.  A standards conform RIFT implementation implies a
      CONFIGURED_LEVEL value of `top_of_fabric_level` in case of
      TOP_OF_FABRIC.  This value is kept reasonably low to alow for fast
      ZTP re-convergence on failures.

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 91]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   LEAF_2_LEAF:
      An optional flag that can be configured on a node to make sure it
      supports procedures defined in Section 4.3.9.  In a strict sense
      it is a capability that implies LEAF_ONLY and the according
      restrictions.  TOP_OF_FABRIC flag is ignored when set at the same
      time as this flag.  It is carried in the
      `leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures` schema flag.

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

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

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

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

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









Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 92]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.2.7.2.  Automatic System ID Selection

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

   As matter of operational concern, the router MUST ensure that such
   identifier is not changing very frequently (or at least not without
   sending all its TIEs with fairly short lifetimes, i.e. purging them)
   since otherwise the network may be left with large amounts of stale
   TIEs in other nodes (though this is not necessarily a serious problem
   if the procedures described in Section 7 are implemented).

4.2.7.3.  Generic Fabric Example

   ZTP forces considerations of miscabled or unusually cabled fabric and
   how such a topology can be forced into a "lattice" structure which a
   fabric represents (with further restrictions).  A necessary and
   sufficient physical cabling is shown in Figure 27.  The assumption
   here is that all nodes are in the same PoD.






























Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 93]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


                  +---+
                  | A |                      s   = TOP_OF_FABRIC
                  | s |                      l   = LEAF_ONLY
                  ++-++                      l2l = LEAF_2_LEAF
                   | |
                +--+ +--+
                |       |
             +--++     ++--+
             | E |     | F |
             |   +-+   |   +-----------+
             ++--+ |   ++-++           |
              |    |    | |            |
              | +-------+ |            |
              | |  |      |            |
              | |  +----+ |            |
              | |       | |            |
             ++-++     ++-++           |
             | I +-----+ J |           |
             |   |     |   +-+         |
             ++-++     +--++ |         |
              | |         |  |         |
              +---------+ |  +------+  |
                |       | |         |  |
                +-----------------+ |  |
                        | |       | |  |
                       ++-++     ++-++ |
                       | X +-----+ Y +-+
                       |l2l|     | l |
                       +---+     +---+

               Figure 27: Generic ZTP Cabling Considerations

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

4.2.7.4.  Level Determination Procedure

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 94]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   1.  It computes HAT per procedures above but does *not* use it to
       compute DERIVED_LEVEL.  HAT is used to limit adjacency formation
       per Section 4.2.2.

   It MAY also follow modified procedures:

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 95]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

4.2.7.5.  ZTP FSM

   This section specifies the precise, normative ZTP FSM and can be
   omitted unless the reader is pursuing an implementation of the
   protocol.

   Initial state is ComputeBestOffer.

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 96]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

                             Figure 28: ZTP FSM

   The following words are used for well known procedures:

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

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

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

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 97]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

   *  PROCESS_OFFER:

      1.  if no level offered then REMOVE_OFFER

      2.  else

          1.  if offered level > leaf then UPDATE_OFFER

          2.  else REMOVE_OFFER

   States:

   *  ComputeBestOffer: processes received offers to derive ZTP
      variables

   *  HoldingDown: holding down while receiving updates

   *  UpdatingClients: updates other FSMs with computation results

   Events:

   *  ChangeLocalHierarchyIndications: node locally configured with new
      leaf flags.

   *  ChangeLocalConfiguredLevel: node locally configured with a defined
      level

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

   *  BetterHAL: better HAL computed internally.

   *  BetterHAT: better HAT computed internally.

   *  LostHAL: lost last HAL in computation.

   *  LostHAT: lost HAT in computation.

   *  ComputationDone: computation performed.

   *  HoldDownExpired: holddown timer expired.




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 98]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   *  ShortTic: one second timer tic, i.e. the event is generated for
      FSM by some external entity once a second.  To be ignored if
      transition does not exist.

   Actions:

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

   *  on BetterHAT in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

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

   *  on NeighborOffer in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown:
      PROCESS_OFFER

   *  on ComputationDone in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no
      action

   *  on BetterHAL in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on LostHAT in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on LostHAL in HoldingDown finishes in HoldingDown: no action

   *  on HoldDownExpired in HoldingDown finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      PURGE_OFFERS

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

   *  on LostHAT in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      LEVEL_COMPUTE

   *  on NeighborOffer in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      PROCESS_OFFER

   *  on BetterHAT in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      LEVEL_COMPUTE

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

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022               [Page 99]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

   *  on ComputationDone in ComputeBestOffer finishes in
      UpdatingClients: no action

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

   *  on BetterHAL in ComputeBestOffer finishes in ComputeBestOffer:
      LEVEL_COMPUTE

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

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

   *  on BetterHAT in UpdatingClients finishes in ComputeBestOffer: no
      action

   *  on BetterHAL in UpdatingClients finishes in ComputeBestOffer: no
      action

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

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

   *  on NeighborOffer in UpdatingClients finishes in UpdatingClients:
      PROCESS_OFFER

   *  on LostHAT in UpdatingClients finishes in ComputeBestOffer: no
      action

   *  on Entry into ComputeBestOffer: LEVEL_COMPUTE

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

4.2.7.6.  Resulting Topologies

   The procedures defined in Section 4.2.7.4 will lead to the RIFT
   topology and levels depicted in Figure 29.





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 100]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

               Figure 29: Generic ZTP Topology Autoconfigured

   In case where the LEAF_ONLY restriction on Y is removed the outcome
   would be very different however and result in Figure 30.  This
   demonstrates basically that auto configuration makes miscabling
   detection hard and with that can lead to undesirable effects in cases
   where leaves are not "nailed" by the accordingly configured flags and
   arbitrarily cabled.

   A node MAY analyze the outstanding level offers on its interfaces and
   generate warnings when its internal ruleset flags a possible
   miscabling.  As an example, when a node's sees ZTP level offers that
   differ by more than one level from its chosen level (with proper
   accounting for leaf's being at level `leaf_level`) this can indicate
   miscabling.








Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 101]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

               Figure 30: Generic ZTP Topology Autoconfigured

4.3.  Further Mechanisms

4.3.1.  Route Preferences

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

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






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 102]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

                  Table 5: TIEs and Contained Route Types

4.3.2.  Overload Bit

   Overload attribute is specified in the packet encoding schema
   (Appendix B).

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

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

4.3.3.  Optimized Route Computation on Leaves

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 103]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

   Leaf nodes would then attach necessary prefixes as described in
   Section 4.2.6.

4.3.4.  Mobility

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

   There are two classic approaches to explicitly maintain this
   information:

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 104]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

   *  The leaf node MAY advertise a timestamp of the latest sighting of
      a prefix, e.g., by snooping IP protocols or the node using the
      time at which it advertised the prefix.  RIFT transports the
      timestamp within the desired prefix North TIEs as 802.1AS
      timestamp.

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

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

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

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





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 105]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.3.4.1.  Clock Comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.4.2.  Interaction between Time Stamps and Sequence Counters

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

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

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

4.3.4.3.  Anycast vs. Unicast

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

   If a monotonic clock attribute is provided on the prefix, then the
   prefix with the `newest` clock value is strictly preferred.  An
   anycast prefix does not carry a clock or all clock attributes MUST be
   the same under the rules of Section 4.3.4.1.






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 106]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Observe that it is important that in mobility events the leaf is re-
   flooding as quickly as possible the absence of the prefix that moved
   away.

   Observe further that without support for [RFC8505] movements on the
   fabric within intervals smaller than 100msec will be seen as anycast.

4.3.4.4.  Overlays and Signaling

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

   In the context of mobility, overlays provide another possible
   solution to avoid injecting mobile prefixes into the fabric as well
   as improving scalability of the deployment.  It makes sense to
   consider overlays for mobility solutions in IP fabrics.  As an
   example, a mobility protocol such as LISP [RFC6830] may inform the
   ingress leaf of the location of the egress leaf in real time.

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

4.3.5.  Key/Value Store

4.3.5.1.  Southbound

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

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

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





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 107]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

4.3.5.2.  Northbound

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

   Only KV TIEs from nodes that are reachable via multiplane
   reachability computation mentioned in Section 4.2.5.2.3 SHOULD be
   considered.

4.3.6.  Interactions with BFD

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

      After RIFT ThreeWay hello adjacency convergence a BFD session MAY
      be formed automatically between the RIFT endpoints without further
      configuration using the exchanged discriminators.  The capability
      of the remote side to support BFD is carried in the LIEs in
      `LinkCapabilities`.

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

      In case of parallel links between nodes each link MAY run its own
      independent BFD session or they MAY share a session.

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

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 108]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


      BFD TTL follows [RFC5082].

4.3.7.  Fabric Bandwidth Balancing

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

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

4.3.7.1.  Northbound Direction

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

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

                       Figure 31: Balancing Bandwidth



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 109]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Figure 31 depicts an example topology where links between leaf and
   spine nodes are 10 MBit/s and links from spine nodes northbound are
   100 MBit/s.  It includes parallel link failure between Leaf 111 and
   Spine 111 and as a result, Leaf 111 wants to forward more traffic
   toward Spine 112.  Additionally, it includes as well an uplink
   failure on Spine 111.

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

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

      L_N_u: as sum of the bandwidth available to N

      N_u: as sum of the uplink bandwidth available on N

      T_N_u: as sum of L_N_u * OVERSUBSCRIPTION_CONSTANT + N_u

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

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

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

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

                          Table 6: BAD Computation



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 110]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

4.3.7.2.  Southbound Direction

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

4.3.8.  Label Binding

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

4.3.9.  Leaf to Leaf Procedures

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

      advertise the LEAF_2_LEAF flag in its node capabilities *and*

      set the overload bit on all leaf's node TIEs *and*

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

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



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 111]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

      never form southbound adjacencies.

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

4.3.10.  Address Family and Multi Topology Considerations

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

   BFD interactions in Section 4.3.6 are implementation dependent when
   multiple RIFT instances run on the same link.

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

   Based on the rules defined in Section 4.2.4, Section 4.2.3.8 and
   given presence of E-W links, RIFT can provide a one-hop protection
   for nodes that lost all their northbound links.  This can also be
   applied to multi-plane designs where complex link set failures occur
   at the Top-of-Fabric when links are exclusively used for flooding
   topology information.  Section 5.4 outlines this behavior.

4.4.  Security

4.4.1.  Security Model

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

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







Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 112]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

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

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

   a.  specification of the appropriate level in the fabric,

   b.  discovery and reporting of missing connections,

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

   Operators may only choose to configure the level of each node, but
   not explicitly configure which connections are allowed.  In this
   case, RIFT will only allow adjacencies to establish between nodes
   that are in adjacent levels.  Operators with the lowest security
   requirements may not use any configuration to specify which
   connections are allowed.  Nodes in such fabrics could rely fully on
   ZTP and only established adjacencies between nodes in adjacent
   levels.  Figure 32 illustrates inherent tradeoffs between the
   different security models.

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




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 113]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

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

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

   c.  each pair of levels or

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

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

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

                         Figure 32: Security Model

4.4.2.  Security Mechanisms

   RIFT Security goals are to ensure:

   1.  authentication

   2.  message integrity

   3.  the prevention of replay attacks




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 114]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   4.  low processing overhead

   5.  efficient messaging

   Message confidentiality is a non-goal.

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

   The protocol has provisions for "weak" nonces to prevent replay
   attacks and includes authentication mechanisms comparable to
   [RFC5709] and [RFC7987].

4.4.3.  Security Envelope

   A serialized schema `ProtocolPacket` MUST be carried in a secure
   envelope illustrated in Figure 33.  Any value in the packet following
   a security fingerprint MUST be used only after the appropriate
   fingerprint has been validated against the data covered by it and
   advertised key.

   Local configuration MAY allow for the envelope's integrity checks to
   be skipped.






















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 115]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1

      UDP Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Source Port         |       RIFT destination port   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Outer Security Envelope Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           RIFT MAGIC          |         Packet Number         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Reserved   |  RIFT Major   | Outer Key ID  | Fingerprint   |
      |               |    Version    |               |    Length     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~       Security Fingerprint covers all following content       ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Weak Nonce Local              | Weak Nonce Remote             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Remaining TIE Lifetime (all 1s in case of LIE)     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      TIE Origin Security Envelope Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |              TIE Origin Key ID                |  Fingerprint  |
      |                                               |    Length     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~       Security Fingerprint covers all following content       ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Serialized RIFT Model Object
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                Serialized RIFT Model Object                   ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 33: Security Envelope

   RIFT MAGIC:
      16 bits.  Constant value of 0xA1F7 that allows to classify RIFT
      packets easily independent of UDP port used.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 116]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Packet Number:
      16 bits.  An optional, per adjacency, per packet type
      monotonically increasing number rolling over using sequence number
      arithmetic defined in Appendix A.  A node SHOULD correctly set the
      number on subsequent packets or otherwise MUST set the value to
      `undefined_packet_number` as provided in the schema.  This number
      can be used to detect losses and misordering in flooding for
      either operational purposes or in implementation to adjust
      flooding behavior to current link or buffer quality.  This number
      MUST NOT be used to discard or validate the correctness of
      packets.  Packet numbers are incremented on each interface and
      within that for each type of packet independently.  This allows to
      parallelize packet generation and processing for different types
      within an implementation if so desired.

   RIFT Major Version:
      8 bits.  It allows to check whether protocol versions are
      compatible, i.e. if the serialized object can be decoded at all.
      An implementation MUST drop packets with unexpected values and MAY
      report a problem.

   Outer Key ID:
      8 bits to allow key rollovers.  This implies key type and
      algorithm.  Value `invalid_key_value_key` means that no valid
      fingerprint was computed.  This key ID scope is local to the nodes
      on both ends of the adjacency.

   TIE Origin Key ID:
      24 bits.  This implies key type and used algorithm.  Value
      `invalid_key_value_key` means that no valid fingerprint was
      computed.  This key ID scope is global to the RIFT instance since
      it may imply the originator of the TIE so the contained object
      does not have to be de-serialized to obtain the originator.

   Length of Fingerprint:
      8 bits.  Length in 32-bit multiples of the following fingerprint
      (not including lifetime or weak nonces).  It allows the structure
      to be navigated when an unknown key type is present.  To clarify,
      a common corner case when this value is set to 0 is when it
      signifies an empty (0 bytes long) security fingerprint.











Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 117]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   Security Fingerprint:
      32 bits * Length of Fingerprint.  This is a signature that is
      computed over all data following after it.  If the significant
      bits of fingerprint are fewer than the 32 bits padded length than
      the significant bits MUST be left aligned and remaining bits on
      the right padded with 0s.  When using PKI the Security fingerprint
      originating node uses its private key to create the signature.
      The original packet can then be verified provided the public key
      is shared and current.

   Remaining TIE Lifetime:
      32 bits.  In case of anything but TIEs this field MUST be set to
      all ones and Origin Security Envelope Header MUST NOT be present
      in the packet.  For TIEs this field represents the remaining
      lifetime of the TIE and Origin Security Envelope Header MUST be
      present in the packet.

   Weak Nonce Local:
      16 bits.  Local Weak Nonce of the adjacency as advertised in LIEs.

   Weak Nonce Remote:
      16 bits.  Remote Weak Nonce of the adjacency as received in LIEs.

   TIE Origin Security Envelope Header:
      It MUST be present if and only if the Remaining TIE Lifetime field
      is *not* all ones.  It carries through the originators key ID and
      according fingerprint of the object to protect TIE from
      modification during flooding.  This ensures origin validation and
      integrity (but does not provide validation of a chain of trust).

   Observe that due to the schema migration rules per Appendix B the
   contained model can be always decoded if the major version matches
   and the envelope integrity has been validated.  Consequently,
   description of the TIE is available to flood it properly including
   unknown TIE types.

4.4.4.  Weak Nonces

   The protocol uses two 16 bit nonces to salt generated signatures.
   The term "nonce" is used a bit loosely since RIFT nonces are not
   being changed in every packet as often common in cryptography.  For
   efficiency purposes they are changed at a high enough frequency to
   dwarf practical replay attack attempts.  And hence, such nonces are
   called from this point on "weak" nonces.

   Any implementation including RIFT security MUST generate and wrap
   around local nonces properly.  When a nonce increment leads to
   `undefined_nonce` value, the value MUST be incremented again



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 118]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   immediately.  All implementation MUST reflect the neighbor's nonces.
   An implementation SHOULD increment a chosen nonce on every LIE FSM
   transition that ends up in a different state from the previous one
   and MUST increment its nonce at least every
   `nonce_regeneration_interval` (such considerations allow for
   efficient implementations without opening a significant security
   risk).  When flooding TIEs, the implementation MUST use recent (i.e.
   within allowed difference) nonces reflected in the LIE exchange.  The
   schema specifies in `maximum_valid_nonce_delta` the maximum allowable
   nonce value difference on a packet compared to reflected nonces in
   the LIEs.  Any packet received with nonces deviating more than the
   allowed delta MUST be discarded without further computation of
   signatures to prevent computation load attacks.  The delta is either
   a negative or positive difference that a mirrored nonce can deviate
   from local value to be considered valid.  If nonces are not changed
   on every packet but at the maximum interval on both sides this opens
   statistically a `maximum_valid_nonce_delta`/2 window of identical
   LIEs, TIE and TI(x)E replays.  The interval cannot be too small since
   LIE FSM may change states fairly quickly during ZTP without sending
   LIEs and additionally, UDP can both loose as well as misorder
   packets.

   In cases where a secure implementation does not receive signatures or
   receives undefined nonces from a neighbor (indicating that it does
   not support or verify signatures), it is a matter of local policy as
   to how those packets are treated.  A secure implementation MAY refuse
   forming an adjacency with an implementation that is not advertising
   signatures or valid nonces, or it MAY continue signing local packets
   while accepting a neighbor's packets without further security
   validation.

   As a necessary exception, an implementation MUST advertise the remote
   nonce value as `undefined_nonce` when the FSM is not in TwoWay or
   ThreeWay state and accept an `undefined_nonce` for its local nonce
   value on packets in any other state than ThreeWay.

   As optional optimization, an implementation MAY send one LIE with
   previously negotiated neighbor's nonce to try to speed up a
   neighbor's transition from ThreeWay to OneWay and MUST revert to
   sending `undefined_nonce` after that.











Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 119]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


4.4.5.  Lifetime

   Protecting flooding lifetime may lead to an excessive number of
   security fingerprint computations and to avoid this the application
   generating the fingerprints for advertised TIEs MAY round the value
   down to the next `rounddown_lifetime_interval`.  This will limit the
   number of computations performed for security purposes caused by
   lifetime attacks as long the weak nonce did not advance.

4.5.  Security Association Changes

   There in no mechanism to convert a security envelope for the same key
   ID from one algorithm to another once the envelope is operational.
   The recommended procedure to change to a new algorithm is to take the
   adjacency down, make the necessary changes, and bring the adjacency
   back up.  Obviously, an implementation MAY choose to stop verifying
   security envelope for the duration of algorithm change to keep the
   adjacency up but since this introduces a security vulnerability
   window, such roll-over SHOULD NOT be recommended.

5.  Examples

5.1.  Normal Operation




























Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 120]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


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

                   Figure 34: Normal Case Topology

   This section describes RIFT deployment in example topology given in
   Figure 34 without any node or link failures.  The scenario disregards
   flooding reduction for simplicity's sake and compresses the node
   names in some cases to fit them into the picture better.

   First, the following bi-directional adjacencies will be established:

   1.  ToF 21 (PoD 0) to Spine 111, Spine 112, Spine 121, and Spine 122

   2.  ToF 22 (PoD 0) to Spine 111, Spine 112, Spine 121, and Spine 122

   3.  Spine 111 to Leaf 111, Leaf 112



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 121]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   4.  Spine 112 to Leaf 111, Leaf 112

   5.  Spine 121 to Leaf 121, Leaf 122

   6.  Spine 122 to Leaf 121, Leaf 122

   Leaf 111 and Leaf 112 originate N-TIEs for Prefix 111 and Prefix 112
   (respectively) to both Spine 111 and Spine 112 (Leaf 112 also
   originates an N-TIE for the multi-homed prefix).  Spine 111 and Spine
   112 will then originate their own N-TIEs, as well as flood the N-TIEs
   received from Leaf 111 and Leaf 112 to both ToF 21 and ToF 22.

   Similarly, Leaf 121 and Leaf 122 originate North TIEs for Prefix 121
   and Prefix 122 (respectively) to Spine 121 and Spine 122 (Leaf 121
   also originates an North TIE for the multi-homed prefix).  Spine 121
   and Spine 122 will then originate their own North TIEs, as well as
   flood the North TIEs received from Leaf 121 and Leaf 122 to both ToF
   21 and ToF 22.

   Spines hold only North TIEs of level 0 for their PoD, while leaves
   only hold their own North TIEs while at this point, both ToF 21 and
   ToF 22 (as well as any northbound connected controllers) would have
   the complete network topology.

   ToF 21 and ToF 22 would then originate and flood South TIEs
   containing any established adjacencies and a default IP route to all
   spines.  Spine 111, Spine 112, Spine 121, and Spine 122 will reflect
   all Node South TIEs received from ToF 21 to ToF 22, and all Node
   South TIEs from ToF 22 to ToF 21.  South TIEs will not be re-
   propagated southbound.

   South TIEs containing a default IP route are then originated by both
   Spine 111 and Spine 112 toward Leaf 111 and Leaf 112.  Similarly,
   South TIEs containing a default IP route are originated by Spine 121
   and Spine 122 toward Leaf 121 and Leaf 122.

   At this point IP connectivity across maximum number of viable paths
   has been established for all leaves, with routing information
   constrained to only the minimum amount that allows for normal
   operation and redundancy.

5.2.  Leaf Link Failure









Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 122]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


                      |   |              |   |
                    +-+---+-+          +-+---+-+
                    |       |          |       |
                    |Spin111|          |Spin112|
                    +-+---+-+          ++----+-+
                      |   |             |    |
                      |   +---------------+  X
                      |                 | |  X Failure
                      |   +-------------+ |  X
                      |   |               |  |
                    +-+---+-+          +--+--+-+
                    |       |          |       |
                    |Leaf111|          |Leaf112|
                    +-------+          +-------+
                          +                  +
                         Prefix111     Prefix112

                    Figure 35: Single Leaf Link Failure

   In the event of a link failure between Spine 112 and Leaf 112, both
   nodes will originate new Node TIEs that contain their connected
   adjacencies, except for the one that just failed.  Leaf 112 will send
   a Node North TIE to Spine 111.  Spine 112 will send a Node North TIE
   to ToF 21 and ToF 22 as well as a new Node South TIE to Leaf 111 that
   will be reflected to Spine 111.  Necessary SPF recomputation will
   occur, resulting in Spine 112 no longer being in the forwarding path
   for Prefix 112.

   Spine 111 will also disaggregate Prefix 112 by sending new Prefix
   South TIE to Leaf 111 and Leaf 112.  Though disaggregation is covered
   in more detail in the following section, it is worth mentioning ini
   this example as it further illustrates RIFT's blackhole mitigation
   mechanism.  Consider that Leaf 111 has yet to receive the more
   specific (disaggregated) route from Spine 111.  In such a scenario,
   traffic from Leaf 111 toward Prefix 112 may still use Spine 112's
   default route, causing it to traverse ToF 21 and ToF 22 back down via
   Spine 111.  While this behavior is suboptimal, it is transient in
   nature and preferred to black-holing traffic.

5.3.  Partitioned Fabric











Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 123]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


                         +--------+          +--------+
 Level 2                 |ToF   21|          |ToF   22|
                         ++-+--+-++          ++-+--+-++
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
                          | |  | |            | |  | 0/0
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
                          | |  | |            | |  | |
           +--------------+ |  +--- XXXXXX +  | |  | +---------------+
           |                |    |         |  | |  |                 |
           |    +-----------------------------+ |  |                 |
           0/0  |           |    |         |    |  |                 |
           |    0/0       0/0    +- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX -+     |
           |  1.1/16        |              |    |  |           |     |
           |    |           +-+    +-0/0-----------+           |     |
           |    |             |   1.1./16  |    |              |     |
         +-+----++          +-+-----+     ++-----0/0          ++----0/0
 Level 1 |       |          |       |     |    1.1/16         |   1.1/16
         |Spin111|          |Spin112|     |Spin121|           |Spin122|
         +-+---+-+          ++----+-+     +-+---+-+           ++---+--+
           |   |             |    |         |   |              |   |
           |   +---------------+  |         |   +----------------+ |
           |                 | |  |         |                  | | |
           |   +-------------+ |  |         |   +--------------+ | |
           |   |               |  |         |   |                | |
         +-+---+-+          +--+--+-+     +-+---+-+          +---+-+-+
 Level 3 |       |          |       |     |       |          |       |
         |Leaf111|          |Leaf112|     |Leaf121|          |Leaf122|
         +-+-----+          ++------+     +-----+-+          +-+-----+
           +                 +                  +              +
           Prefix111    Prefix112             Prefix121     Prefix122
                                                1.1/16

                      Figure 36: Fabric Partition

   Figure 36 shows one of more catastrophic scenarios where ToF 21 is
   completely severed from access to Prefix 121 due to a double link
   failure.  If only default routes existed, this would result in 50% of
   traffic from Leaf 111 and Leaf 112 toward Prefix 121 being black-
   holed.












Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 124]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   The mechanism to resolve this scenario hinges on ToF 21's South TIEs
   being reflected from Spine 111 and Spine 112 to ToF 22.  Once ToF 22
   sees that Prefix 121 cannot be reached from ToF 21, it will begin to
   disaggregate Prefix 121 by advertising a more specific route (1.1/16)
   along with the default IP prefix route to all spines (ToF 21 still
   only sends a default route).  The result is Spine 111 and Spine112
   using the more specific route to Prefix 121 via ToF 22.  All other
   prefixes continue to use the default IP prefix route toward both ToF
   21 and ToF 22.

   The more specific route for Prefix 121 being advertised by ToF 22
   does not need to be propagated further south to the leaves, as they
   do not benefit from this information.  Spine 111 and Spine 112 are
   only required to reflect the new South Node TIEs received from ToF 22
   to ToF 21.  In short, only the relevant nodes received the relevant
   updates, thereby restricting the failure to only the partitioned
   level rather than burdening the whole fabric with the flooding and
   recomputation of the new topology information.

   To finish this example, the following table shows sets computed by
   ToF 22 using notation introduced in Section 4.2.5:

      |R = Prefix 111, Prefix 112, Prefix 121, Prefix 122

      |H (for r=Prefix 111) = Spine 111, Spine 112

      |H (for r=Prefix 112) = Spine 111, Spine 112

      |H (for r=Prefix 121) = Spine 121, Spine 122

      |H (for r=Prefix 122) = Spine 121, Spine 122

      |A (for ToF 21) = Spine 111, Spine 112

   With that and |H (for r=Prefix 121) and |H (for r=Prefix 122) being
   disjoint from |A (for ToF 21), ToF 22 will originate an South TIE
   with Prefix 121 and Prefix 122, which will be flooded to all spines.

5.4.  Northbound Partitioned Router and Optional East-West Links












Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 125]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


            +                  +                  +
            X N1               | N2               | N3
            X                  |                  |
         +--+----+          +--+----+          +--+-----+
         |       |0/0>  <0/0|       |0/0>  <0/0|        |
         |  A01  +----------+  A02  +----------+  A03   | Level 1
         ++-+-+--+          ++--+--++          +---+-+-++
          | | |              |  |  |               | | |
          | | +----------------------------------+ | | |
          | |                |  |  |             | | | |
          | +-------------+  |  |  |  +--------------+ |
          |               |  |  |  |  |          | |   |
          | +----------------+  |  +-----------------+ |
          | |             |     |     |          | | | |
          | | +------------------------------------+ | |
          | | |           |     |     |          |   | |
         ++-+-+--+        | +---+---+ |        +-+---+-++
         |       |        +-+       +-+        |        |
         |  L01  |          |  L02  |          |  L03   | Level 0
         +-------+          +-------+          +--------+

                    Figure 37: North Partitioned Router

   Figure 37 shows a part of a fabric where level 1 is horizontally
   connected and A01 lost its only northbound adjacency.  Based on N-SPF
   rules in Section 4.2.4.1 A01 will compute northbound reachability by
   using the link A01 to A02.  A02 however, will *not* use this link
   during N-SPF.  The result is A01 utilizing the horizontal link for
   default route advertisement and unidirectional routing.

   Furthermore, if A02 also loses its only northbound adjacency (N2),
   the situation evolves.  A01 will no longer have northbound
   reachability while it sees A03's northbound adjacencies in South Node
   TIEs reflected by nodes south of it.  As a result, A01 will no longer
   advertise its default route in accordance with Section 4.2.3.8.

6.  Further Details on Implementation

6.1.  Considerations for Leaf-Only Implementation

   RIFT can and is intended to be stretched to the lowest level in the
   IP fabric to integrate ToRs or even servers.  Since those entities
   would run as leaves only, it is worth to observe that a leaf only
   version is significantly simpler to implement and requires much less
   resources:






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 126]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   1.  Leaf nodes only need to maintain a multipath default route under
       normal circumstances.  However, in cases of catastrophic
       partitioning, leaf nodes SHOULD be capable of accommodating all
       the leaf routes in its own PoD to prevent black-holing.

   2.  Leaf nodes hold only their own North TIEs and South TIEs of Level
       1 nodes they are connected to.

   3.  Leaf nodes do not have to support any type of disaggregation
       computation or propagation.

   4.  Leaf nodes are not required to support overload bit.

   5.  Leaf nodes do not need to originate S-TIEs unless optional leaf-
       2-leaf features are desired.

6.2.  Considerations for Spine Implementation

   Nodes that do not act as ToF are not required to discover fallen
   leaves by comparing reachable destinations with peers and therefore
   do not need to run the computation of disaggregated routes based on
   that discovery.  On the other hand, non-ToF nodes need to respect
   disaggregated routes advertised from the north.  In the case of
   negative disaggregation, spines nodes need to generate southbound
   disaggregated routes when all parents are lost for a fallen leaf.

7.  Security Considerations

7.1.  General

   One can consider attack vectors where a router may reboot many times
   while changing its system ID and pollute the network with many stale
   TIEs or TIEs are sent with very long lifetimes and not cleaned up
   when the routes vanish.  Those attack vectors are not unique to RIFT.
   Given large memory footprints available today those attacks should be
   relatively benign.  Otherwise a node SHOULD implement a strategy of
   discarding contents of all TIEs that were not present in the SPF tree
   over a certain, configurable period of time.  Since the protocol,
   like all modern link-state protocols, is self-stabilizing and will
   advertise the presence of such TIEs to its neighbors, they can be re-
   requested again if a computation finds that it sees an adjacency
   formed towards the system ID of the discarded TIEs.









Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 127]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


7.2.  Malformed Packets

   The protocol protects packets extensively through optional signatures
   and nonces so if the possibility of maliciously injected malformed or
   replayed packets exist in a deployment, this conclusively protects
   against such attacks.

   Even with security envelope, since RIFT relies on Thrift encoders and
   decoders generated automatically from IDL it is conceivable that
   errors in such encoders/decoders could be discovered and lead to
   delivery of corrupted packets or reception of packets that cannot be
   decoded.  Misformatted packets lead normally to decoder returning an
   error condition to the caller and with that the packet is basically
   unparsable with no other choice but to discard it.  Should the
   unlikely scenario occur of the decoder being forced to abort the
   protocol this is neither better nor worse than today's behavior of
   other protocols.

7.3.  ZTP

   Section 4.2.7 presents many attack vectors in untrusted environments,
   starting with nodes that oscillate their level offers to the
   possibility of nodes offering a ThreeWay adjacency with the highest
   possible level value and a very long holdtime trying to put itself
   "on top of the lattice" thereby allowing it to gain access to the
   whole southbound topology.  Session authentication mechanisms are
   necessary in environments where this is possible and RIFT provides
   the security envelope to ensure this if so desired.

7.4.  Lifetime

   Traditional IGP protocols are vulnerable to lifetime modification and
   replay attacks that can be somewhat mitigated by using techniques
   like [RFC7987].  RIFT removes this attack vector by protecting the
   lifetime behind a signature computed over it and additional nonce
   combination which makes even the replay attack window very small and
   for practical purposes irrelevant since lifetime cannot be
   artificially shortened by the attacker.

7.5.  Packet Number

   Optional packet number is carried in the security envelope without
   any encryption protection and is hence vulnerable to replay and
   modification attacks.  Contrary to nonces this number must change on
   every packet and would present a very high cryptographic load if
   signed.  The attack vector packet number present is relatively
   benign.  Changing the packet number by a man-in-the-middle attack
   will only affect operational validation tools and possibly some



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 128]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   performance optimizations on flooding.  It is expected that an
   implementation detecting too many "fake losses" or "misorderings" due
   to the attack on the packet number would simply suppress its further
   processing.

7.6.  Outer Fingerprint Attacks

   A node can try to inject LIE packets observing a conversation on the
   wire by using the outer key ID albeit it cannot generate valid hashes
   in case it changes the integrity of the message so the only possible
   attack is DoS due to excessive LIE validation.

   A node can try to replay previous LIEs with changed state that it
   recorded but the attack is hard to replicate since the nonce
   combination must match the ongoing exchange and is then limited to a
   single flap only since both nodes will advance their nonces in case
   the adjacency state changed.  Even in the most unlikely case the
   attack length is limited due to both sides periodically increasing
   their nonces.

7.7.  TIE Origin Fingerprint DoS Attacks

   A compromised node can attempt to generate "fake TIEs" using other
   nodes' TIE origin key identifiers.  Albeit the ultimate validation of
   the origin fingerprint will fail in such scenarios and not progress
   further than immediately peering nodes, the resulting denial of
   service attack seems unavoidable since the TIE origin key id is only
   protected by the, here assumed to be compromised, node.

7.8.  Host Implementations

   It can be reasonably expected that with the proliferation of RotH
   servers, rather than dedicated networking devices, will represent a
   significant amount of RIFT devices.  Given their normally far wider
   software envelope and access granted to them, such servers are also
   far more likely to be compromised and present an attack vector on the
   protocol.  Hijacking of prefixes to attract traffic is a trust
   problem and cannot be easily addressed within the protocol if the
   trust model is breached, i.e. the server presents valid credentials
   to form an adjacency and issue TIEs.  In an even more devious way,
   the servers can present DoS (or even DDos) vectors of issuing too
   many LIE packets, flood large amounts of North TIEs and attempt
   similar resource overrun attacks.  A prudent implementation forming
   adjacencies to leaves should implement according thresholds
   mechanisms and raise warnings when e.g. a leaf is advertising an
   excess number of TIEs or prefixes.  Additionally, such implementation
   could refuse any topology information except the node's own TIEs and
   authenticated, reflected South Node TIEs at own level.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 129]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   To isolate possible attack vectors on the leaf to the largest
   possible extent a dedicated leaf-only implementation could run
   without any configuration by hard-coding a well-known adjacency key
   (which can be always rolled-over by the means of e.g. well-known key-
   value distributed from top of the fabric), leaf level value and
   always setting overload bit.  All other values can be derived by
   automatic means as described earlier in the protocol specification.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This specification requests multicast address assignments and
   standard port numbers.  Additionally registries for the schema are
   requested and suggested values provided that reflect the numbers
   allocated in the given schema.

8.1.  Requested Multicast and Port Numbers

   This document requests allocation in the 'IPv4 Multicast Address
   Space' registry the suggested value of 224.0.0.120 as
   'ALL_V4_RIFT_ROUTERS' and in the 'IPv6 Multicast Address Space'
   registry the suggested value of FF02::A1F7 as 'ALL_V6_RIFT_ROUTERS'.

   This document requests allocation in the 'Service Name and Transport
   Protocol Port Number Registry' the allocation of a suggested value of
   914 on udp for 'RIFT_LIES_PORT' and suggested value of 915 for
   'RIFT_TIES_PORT'.

8.2.  Requested Registries with Suggested Values

   This section requests registries that help govern the schema via
   usual IANA registry procedures.  A top level 'RIFT' registry should
   hold the according registries requested in the following sections
   with their pre-defined values.  IANA is requested to store the schema
   version introducing the allocated value as well as, optionally, its
   description when present.  This will allow to assign different values
   to an entry depending on schema version.  Alternately, IANA is
   requested to consider a root RIFT/3 registry to store RIFT schema
   major version 3 values and may be requested in the future to create a
   RIFT/4 registry under that.  In any case, IANA is requested to store
   the schema version in the entries since that will allow to
   distinguish between minor versions in the same major schema version.
   All values not suggested as to be considered `Unassigned`. The range
   of every registry is a 16-bit integer.  Allocation of new values is
   always performed via `Expert Review` action.







Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 130]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.1.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/AddressFamilyType"

   Address family type.

8.2.1.1.  Requested Entries

   +=======================+=======+================+=============+
   | Name                  | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +=======================+=======+================+=============+
   | Illegal               |     0 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | AddressFamilyMinValue |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | IPv4                  |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | IPv6                  |     3 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | AddressFamilyMaxValue |     4 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                               Table 7

8.2.2.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/HierarchyIndications"

   Flags indicating node configuration in case of ZTP.

8.2.2.1.  Requested Entries

   +======================================+=====+========+=============+
   | Name                                 |Value|  Schema| Description |
   |                                      |     | Version|             |
   +======================================+=====+========+=============+
   | leaf_only                            |    0|     5.0|             |
   +--------------------------------------+-----+--------+-------------+
   | leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures |    1|     5.0|             |
   +--------------------------------------+-----+--------+-------------+
   | top_of_fabric                        |    2|     5.0|             |
   +--------------------------------------+-----+--------+-------------+

                                  Table 8

8.2.3.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType"

   Timestamp per IEEE 802.1AS, all values MUST be interpreted in
   implementation as unsigned.






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 131]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.3.1.  Requested Entries

   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name    | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | AS_sec  |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | AS_nsec |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                        Table 9

8.2.4.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPAddressType"

   IP address type.

8.2.4.1.  Requested Entries

   +=============+=======+================+=================+
   | Name        | Value | Schema Version | Description     |
   +=============+=======+================+=================+
   | ipv4address |     1 |            5.0 | Content is IPv4 |
   +-------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+
   | ipv6address |     2 |            5.0 | Content is IPv6 |
   +-------------+-------+----------------+-----------------+

                            Table 10

8.2.5.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPPrefixType"

   Prefix advertisement.

   @note: for interface addresses the protocol can propagate the address
   part beyond the subnet mask and on reachability computation that has
   to be normalized.  The non-significant bits can be used for
   operational purposes.

8.2.5.1.  Requested Entries

   +============+=======+================+=============+
   | Name       | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +============+=======+================+=============+
   | ipv4prefix |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | ipv6prefix |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +------------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                          Table 11



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 132]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.6.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPv4PrefixType"

   IPv4 prefix type.

8.2.6.1.  Requested Entries

   +===========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name      | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +===========+=======+================+=============+
   | address   |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | prefixlen |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                         Table 12

8.2.7.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/IPv6PrefixType"

   IPv6 prefix type.

8.2.7.1.  Requested Entries

   +===========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name      | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +===========+=======+================+=============+
   | address   |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | prefixlen |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                         Table 13

8.2.8.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/PrefixSequenceType"

   Sequence of a prefix in case of move.
















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 133]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.8.1.  Requested Entries

   +===============+=======+=========+============================+
   | Name          | Value |  Schema | Description                |
   |               |       | Version |                            |
   +===============+=======+=========+============================+
   | timestamp     |     1 |     5.0 |                            |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------------------------+
   | transactionid |     2 |     5.0 |      Transaction ID set by |
   |               |       |         | client in e.g. in 6LoWPAN. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+----------------------------+

                               Table 14

8.2.9.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/RouteType"

   RIFT route types.  @note: The only purpose of those values is to
   introduce an ordering whereas an implementation can choose internally
   any other values as long the ordering is preserved

8.2.9.1.  Requested Entries

   +=====================+=======+================+=============+
   | Name                | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +=====================+=======+================+=============+
   | Illegal             |     0 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | RouteTypeMinValue   |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | Discard             |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | LocalPrefix         |     3 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | SouthPGPPrefix      |     4 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | NorthPGPPrefix      |     5 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | NorthPrefix         |     6 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | NorthExternalPrefix |     7 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | SouthPrefix         |     8 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | SouthExternalPrefix |     9 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | NegativeSouthPrefix |    10 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | RouteTypeMaxValue   |    11 |            5.0 |             |



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 134]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   +---------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                              Table 15

8.2.10.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/TIETypeType"

   Type of TIE.

8.2.10.1.  Requested Entries

   +===========================================+=====+=======+===========+
   |Name                                       |Value| Schema|Description|
   |                                           |     |Version|           |
   +===========================================+=====+=======+===========+
   |Illegal                                    |    0|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |TIETypeMinValue                            |    1|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |NodeTIEType                                |    2|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |PrefixTIEType                              |    3|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |PositiveDisaggregationPrefixTIEType        |    4|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |NegativeDisaggregationPrefixTIEType        |    5|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |PGPrefixTIEType                            |    6|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |KeyValueTIEType                            |    7|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |ExternalPrefixTIEType                      |    8|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |PositiveExternalDisaggregationPrefixTIEType|    9|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+
   |TIETypeMaxValue                            |   10|    5.0|           |
   +-------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----------+

                                  Table 16

8.2.11.  Registry RIFT_v5/common/TieDirectionType"

   Direction of TIEs.









Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 135]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.11.1.  Requested Entries

   +===================+=======+================+=============+
   | Name              | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +===================+=======+================+=============+
   | Illegal           |     0 |            5.0 |             |
   +-------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | South             |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +-------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | North             |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +-------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | DirectionMaxValue |     3 |            5.0 |             |
   +-------------------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                             Table 17

8.2.12.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/Community"

   Prefix community.

8.2.12.1.  Requested Entries

   +========+=======+================+===================+
   | Name   | Value | Schema Version | Description       |
   +========+=======+================+===================+
   | top    |     1 |            5.0 | Higher order bits |
   +--------+-------+----------------+-------------------+
   | bottom |     2 |            5.0 |  Lower order bits |
   +--------+-------+----------------+-------------------+

                           Table 18

8.2.13.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/KeyValueTIEElement"

   Generic key value pairs.

8.2.13.1.  Requested Entries

   +===========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name      | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +===========+=======+================+=============+
   | keyvalues |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +-----------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                         Table 19






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 136]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.14.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/LIEPacket"

   RIFT LIE Packet.

   @note: this node's level is already included on the packet header

8.2.14.1.  Requested Entries

   +=============================+=======+=========+=================+
   | Name                        | Value |  Schema | Description     |
   |                             |       | Version |                 |
   +=============================+=======+=========+=================+
   | name                        |     1 |     5.0 |         Node or |
   |                             |       |         | adjacency name. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | local_id                    |     2 |     5.0 |  Local link ID. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | flood_port                  |     3 |     5.0 |     UDP port to |
   |                             |       |         |    which we can |
   |                             |       |         | receive flooded |
   |                             |       |         |           TIEs. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | link_mtu_size               |     4 |     5.0 |    Layer 3 MTU, |
   |                             |       |         |         used to |
   |                             |       |         |        discover |
   |                             |       |         |       mismatch. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | link_bandwidth              |     5 |     5.0 |      Local link |
   |                             |       |         |    bandwidth on |
   |                             |       |         |  the interface. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | neighbor                    |     6 |     5.0 |    Reflects the |
   |                             |       |         |   neighbor once |
   |                             |       |         |     received to |
   |                             |       |         |   provide 3-way |
   |                             |       |         |   connectivity. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | pod                         |     7 |     5.0 |     Node's PoD. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | node_capabilities           |    10 |     5.0 |            Node |
   |                             |       |         |    capabilities |
   |                             |       |         |      supported. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | link_capabilities           |    11 |     5.0 | Capabilities of |
   |                             |       |         |      this link. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | holdtime                    |    12 |     5.0 |        Required |
   |                             |       |         | holdtime of the |



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 137]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   |                             |       |         | adjacency, i.e. |
   |                             |       |         |  for how long a |
   |                             |       |         |   period should |
   |                             |       |         |    adjacency be |
   |                             |       |         | kept up without |
   |                             |       |         |       valid LIE |
   |                             |       |         |      reception. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | label                       |    13 |     5.0 |       Optional, |
   |                             |       |         |    unsolicited, |
   |                             |       |         |      downstream |
   |                             |       |         |        assigned |
   |                             |       |         |         locally |
   |                             |       |         |     significant |
   |                             |       |         | label value for |
   |                             |       |         |  the adjacency. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | not_a_ztp_offer             |    21 |     5.0 |  Indicates that |
   |                             |       |         |    the level on |
   |                             |       |         |    the LIE must |
   |                             |       |         |  not be used to |
   |                             |       |         |    derive a ZTP |
   |                             |       |         |    level by the |
   |                             |       |         | receiving node. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | you_are_flood_repeater      |    22 |     5.0 |    Indicates to |
   |                             |       |         |      northbound |
   |                             |       |         |   neighbor that |
   |                             |       |         |    it should be |
   |                             |       |         | reflooding TIEs |
   |                             |       |         |   received from |
   |                             |       |         |    this node to |
   |                             |       |         |   achieve flood |
   |                             |       |         |   reduction and |
   |                             |       |         |   balancing for |
   |                             |       |         |      northbound |
   |                             |       |         |       flooding. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+
   | you_are_sending_too_quickly |    23 |     5.0 |    Indicates to |
   |                             |       |         |     neighbor to |
   |                             |       |         | flood node TIEs |
   |                             |       |         |   only and slow |
   |                             |       |         |  down all other |
   |                             |       |         |  TIEs.  Ignored |
   |                             |       |         |   when received |
   |                             |       |         | from southbound |
   |                             |       |         |       neighbor. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 138]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   | instance_name               |    24 |     5.0 |   Instance name |
   |                             |       |         |         in case |
   |                             |       |         |   multiple RIFT |
   |                             |       |         |       instances |
   |                             |       |         | running on same |
   |                             |       |         |      interface. |
   +-----------------------------+-------+---------+-----------------+

                                 Table 20

8.2.15.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/LinkCapabilities"

   Link capabilities.

8.2.15.1.  Requested Entries

   +=========================+=======+=========+===================+
   | Name                    | Value |  Schema | Description       |
   |                         |       | Version |                   |
   +=========================+=======+=========+===================+
   | bfd                     |     1 |     5.0 |    Indicates that |
   |                         |       |         |       the link is |
   |                         |       |         |   supporting BFD. |
   +-------------------------+-------+---------+-------------------+
   | ipv4_forwarding_capable |     2 |     5.0 | Indicates whether |
   |                         |       |         |     the interface |
   |                         |       |         | will support IPv4 |
   |                         |       |         |       forwarding. |
   +-------------------------+-------+---------+-------------------+

                                Table 21

8.2.16.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/LinkIDPair"

   LinkID pair describes one of parallel links between two nodes.

8.2.16.1.  Requested Entries

   +============================+=======+=========+====================+
   | Name                       | Value |  Schema | Description        |
   |                            |       | Version |                    |
   +============================+=======+=========+====================+
   | local_id                   |     1 |     5.0 |   Node-wide unique |
   |                            |       |         |      value for the |
   |                            |       |         |        local link. |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+
   | remote_id                  |     2 |     5.0 |    Received remote |
   |                            |       |         |   link ID for this |



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 139]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   |                            |       |         |              link. |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+
   | platform_interface_index   |    10 |     5.0 |      Describes the |
   |                            |       |         |    local interface |
   |                            |       |         |       index of the |
   |                            |       |         |              link. |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+
   | platform_interface_name    |    11 |     5.0 |      Describes the |
   |                            |       |         |    local interface |
   |                            |       |         |              name. |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+
   | trusted_outer_security_key |    12 |     5.0 |          Indicates |
   |                            |       |         |   whether the link |
   |                            |       |         |   is secured, i.e. |
   |                            |       |         |       protected by |
   |                            |       |         |         outer key, |
   |                            |       |         |    absence of this |
   |                            |       |         |   element means no |
   |                            |       |         |        indication, |
   |                            |       |         |    undefined outer |
   |                            |       |         |      key means not |
   |                            |       |         |           secured. |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+
   | bfd_up                     |    13 |     5.0 |          Indicates |
   |                            |       |         |   whether the link |
   |                            |       |         |    is protected by |
   |                            |       |         |    established BFD |
   |                            |       |         |           session. |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+
   | address_families           |    14 |     5.0 |           Optional |
   |                            |       |         |   indication which |
   |                            |       |         |   address families |
   |                            |       |         |      are up on the |
   |                            |       |         |          interface |
   +----------------------------+-------+---------+--------------------+

                                  Table 22

8.2.17.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/Neighbor"

   Neighbor structure.










Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 140]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.17.1.  Requested Entries

   +============+=======+================+===================+
   | Name       | Value | Schema Version | Description       |
   +============+=======+================+===================+
   | originator |     1 |            5.0 |  System ID of the |
   |            |       |                |       originator. |
   +------------+-------+----------------+-------------------+
   | remote_id  |     2 |            5.0 | ID of remote side |
   |            |       |                |      of the link. |
   +------------+-------+----------------+-------------------+

                             Table 23

8.2.18.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeCapabilities"

   Capabilities the node supports.

8.2.18.1.  Requested Entries

   +========================+=======+=========+======================+
   | Name                   | Value |  Schema | Description          |
   |                        |       | Version |                      |
   +========================+=======+=========+======================+
   | protocol_minor_version |     1 |     5.0 |       Must advertise |
   |                        |       |         |      supported minor |
   |                        |       |         | version dialect that |
   |                        |       |         |                 way. |
   +------------------------+-------+---------+----------------------+
   | flood_reduction        |     2 |     5.0 |  indicates that node |
   |                        |       |         |       supports flood |
   |                        |       |         |           reduction. |
   +------------------------+-------+---------+----------------------+
   | hierarchy_indications  |     3 |     5.0 |   indicates place in |
   |                        |       |         | hierarchy, i.e. top- |
   |                        |       |         |    of-fabric or leaf |
   |                        |       |         |     only (in ZTP) or |
   |                        |       |         |    support for leaf- |
   |                        |       |         |   2-leaf procedures. |
   +------------------------+-------+---------+----------------------+

                                 Table 24

8.2.19.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeFlags"

   Indication flags of the node.





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 141]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.19.1.  Requested Entries

   +==========+=======+=========+=====================================+
   | Name     | Value |  Schema | Description                         |
   |          |       | Version |                                     |
   +==========+=======+=========+=====================================+
   | overload |     1 |     5.0 | Indicates that node is in overload, |
   |          |       |         |  do not transit traffic through it. |
   +----------+-------+---------+-------------------------------------+

                                 Table 25

8.2.20.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeNeighborsTIEElement"

   neighbor of a node

8.2.20.1.  Requested Entries

   +===========+=======+=========+====================================+
   | Name      | Value |  Schema | Description                        |
   |           |       | Version |                                    |
   +===========+=======+=========+====================================+
   | level     |     1 |     5.0 |                  level of neighbor |
   +-----------+-------+---------+------------------------------------+
   | cost      |     3 |     5.0 | Cost to neighbor.  Ignore anything |
   |           |       |         |    larger than `infinite_distance` |
   |           |       |         |             and `invalid_distance` |
   +-----------+-------+---------+------------------------------------+
   | link_ids  |     4 |     5.0 |  can carry description of multiple |
   |           |       |         |            parallel links in a TIE |
   +-----------+-------+---------+------------------------------------+
   | bandwidth |     5 |     5.0 |  total bandwith to neighbor as sum |
   |           |       |         |              of all parallel links |
   +-----------+-------+---------+------------------------------------+

                                 Table 26

8.2.21.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/NodeTIEElement"

   Description of a node.











Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 142]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.21.1.  Requested Entries

   +=================+=======+=========+=============================+
   | Name            | Value |  Schema | Description                 |
   |                 |       | Version |                             |
   +=================+=======+=========+=============================+
   | level           |     1 |     5.0 |          Level of the node. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | neighbors       |     2 |     5.0 | Node's neighbors.  Multiple |
   |                 |       |         |         node TIEs can carry |
   |                 |       |         | disjoint sets of neighbors. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | capabilities    |     3 |     5.0 |   Capabilities of the node. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | flags           |     4 |     5.0 |          Flags of the node. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | name            |     5 |     5.0 |      Optional node name for |
   |                 |       |         |          easier operations. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | pod             |     6 |     5.0 |       PoD to which the node |
   |                 |       |         |                    belongs. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | startup_time    |     7 |     5.0 |    optional startup time of |
   |                 |       |         |                    the node |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+
   | miscabled_links |    10 |     5.0 |      If any local links are |
   |                 |       |         |  miscabled, this indication |
   |                 |       |         |                 is flooded. |
   +-----------------+-------+---------+-----------------------------+

                                 Table 27

8.2.22.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PacketContent"

   Content of a RIFT packet.

8.2.22.1.  Requested Entries

   +======+=======+================+=============+
   | Name | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +======+=======+================+=============+
   | lie  |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | tide |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | tire |     3 |            5.0 |             |
   +------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | tie  |     4 |            5.0 |             |



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 143]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   +------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                       Table 28

8.2.23.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PacketHeader"

   Common RIFT packet header.

8.2.23.1.  Requested Entries

   +===============+=======+=========+===============================+
   | Name          | Value |  Schema | Description                   |
   |               |       | Version |                               |
   +===============+=======+=========+===============================+
   | major_version |     1 |     5.0 |    Major version of protocol. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+-------------------------------+
   | minor_version |     2 |     5.0 |    Minor version of protocol. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+-------------------------------+
   | sender        |     3 |     5.0 |   Node sending the packet, in |
   |               |       |         |    case of LIE/TIRE/TIDE also |
   |               |       |         |         the originator of it. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+-------------------------------+
   | level         |     4 |     5.0 | Level of the node sending the |
   |               |       |         |           packet, required on |
   |               |       |         | everything except LIEs.  Lack |
   |               |       |         | of presence on LIEs indicates |
   |               |       |         |   UNDEFINED_LEVEL and is used |
   |               |       |         |            in ZTP procedures. |
   +---------------+-------+---------+-------------------------------+

                                 Table 29

8.2.24.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PrefixAttributes"

   Attributes of a prefix.

8.2.24.1.  Requested Entries

   +===================+=======+=========+========================+
   | Name              | Value |  Schema | Description            |
   |                   |       | Version |                        |
   +===================+=======+=========+========================+
   | metric            |     2 |     5.0 |        Distance of the |
   |                   |       |         |                prefix. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+------------------------+
   | tags              |     3 |     5.0 |  Generic unordered set |
   |                   |       |         |  of route tags, can be |
   |                   |       |         | redistributed to other |



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 144]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   |                   |       |         |       protocols or use |
   |                   |       |         |  within the context of |
   |                   |       |         |   real time analytics. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+------------------------+
   | monotonic_clock   |     4 |     5.0 |    Monotonic clock for |
   |                   |       |         |      mobile addresses. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+------------------------+
   | loopback          |     6 |     5.0 |       Indicates if the |
   |                   |       |         |       prefix is a node |
   |                   |       |         |              loopback. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+------------------------+
   | directly_attached |     7 |     5.0 |     Indicates that the |
   |                   |       |         |     prefix is directly |
   |                   |       |         |              attached. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+------------------------+
   | from_link         |    10 |     5.0 |      link to which the |
   |                   |       |         |    address belongs to. |
   +-------------------+-------+---------+------------------------+

                               Table 30

8.2.25.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/PrefixTIEElement"

   TIE carrying prefixes

8.2.25.1.  Requested Entries

   +==========+=======+================+========================+
   | Name     | Value | Schema Version | Description            |
   +==========+=======+================+========================+
   | prefixes |     1 |            5.0 |      Prefixes with the |
   |          |       |                | associated attributes. |
   +----------+-------+----------------+------------------------+

                              Table 31

8.2.26.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/ProtocolPacket"

   RIFT packet structure.

8.2.26.1.  Requested Entries

   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name    | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | header  |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | content |     2 |            5.0 |             |



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 145]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                        Table 32

8.2.27.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIDEPacket"

   TIDE with *sorted* TIE headers.

8.2.27.1.  Requested Entries

   +=============+=======+================+=====================+
   | Name        | Value | Schema Version | Description         |
   +=============+=======+================+=====================+
   | start_range |     1 |            5.0 | First TIE header in |
   |             |       |                |    the tide packet. |
   +-------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | end_range   |     2 |            5.0 |  Last TIE header in |
   |             |       |                |    the tide packet. |
   +-------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | headers     |     3 |            5.0 |    _Sorted_ list of |
   |             |       |                |            headers. |
   +-------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+

                              Table 33

8.2.28.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEElement"

   Single element in a TIE.

8.2.28.1.  Requested Entries

   +=========================================+=====+=======+=================================+
   |Name                                     |Value| Schema|Description                      |
   |                                         |     |Version|                                 |
   +=========================================+=====+=======+=================================+
   |node                                     |    1|    5.0|             Used in case of enum|
   |                                         |     |       |  common.TIETypeType.NodeTIEType.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+
   |prefixes                                 |    2|    5.0|             Used in case of enum|
   |                                         |     |       |common.TIETypeType.PrefixTIEType.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+
   |positive_disaggregation_prefixes         |    3|    5.0|        Positive prefixes (always|
   |                                         |     |       |                     southbound).|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+
   |negative_disaggregation_prefixes         |    5|    5.0|    Transitive, negative prefixes|
   |                                         |     |       |              (always southbound)|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+
   |external_prefixes                        |    6|    5.0|  Externally reimported prefixes.|



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 146]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+
   |positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes|    7|    5.0|  Positive external disaggregated|
   |                                         |     |       |    prefixes (always southbound).|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+
   |keyvalues                                |    9|    5.0|        Key-Value store elements.|
   +-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+---------------------------------+

                                  Table 34

8.2.29.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEHeader"

   Header of a TIE.

8.2.29.1.  Requested Entries

   +======================+=======+=========+=========================+
   | Name                 | Value |  Schema | Description             |
   |                      |       | Version |                         |
   +======================+=======+=========+=========================+
   | tieid                |     2 |     5.0 |          ID of the tie. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+
   | seq_nr               |     3 |     5.0 |  Sequence number of the |
   |                      |       |         |                    tie. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+
   | origination_time     |    10 |     5.0 | Absolute timestamp when |
   |                      |       |         |  the TIE was generated. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+
   | origination_lifetime |    12 |     5.0 |  Original lifetime when |
   |                      |       |         |  the TIE was generated. |
   +----------------------+-------+---------+-------------------------+

                                 Table 35

8.2.30.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEHeaderWithLifeTime"

   Header of a TIE as described in TIRE/TIDE.















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 147]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.30.1.  Requested Entries

   +====================+=======+================+=====================+
   | Name               | Value | Schema Version | Description         |
   +====================+=======+================+=====================+
   | header             |     1 |            5.0 |                     |
   +--------------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+
   | remaining_lifetime |     2 |            5.0 |           Remaining |
   |                    |       |                |           lifetime. |
   +--------------------+-------+----------------+---------------------+

                                  Table 36

8.2.31.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEID"

   Unique ID of a TIE.

8.2.31.1.  Requested Entries

   +============+=======+================+======================+
   | Name       | Value | Schema Version | Description          |
   +============+=======+================+======================+
   | direction  |     1 |            5.0 |     direction of TIE |
   +------------+-------+----------------+----------------------+
   | originator |     2 |            5.0 | indicates originator |
   |            |       |                |           of the TIE |
   +------------+-------+----------------+----------------------+
   | tietype    |     3 |            5.0 |      type of the tie |
   +------------+-------+----------------+----------------------+
   | tie_nr     |     4 |            5.0 |    number of the tie |
   +------------+-------+----------------+----------------------+

                              Table 37

8.2.32.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIEPacket"

   TIE packet














Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 148]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


8.2.32.1.  Requested Entries

   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name    | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | header  |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+
   | element |     2 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                        Table 38

8.2.33.  Registry RIFT_v5/encoding/TIREPacket"

   TIRE packet

8.2.33.1.  Requested Entries

   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | Name    | Value | Schema Version | Description |
   +=========+=======+================+=============+
   | headers |     1 |            5.0 |             |
   +---------+-------+----------------+-------------+

                        Table 39

9.  Acknowledgments

   A new routing protocol in its complexity is not a product of a parent
   but of a village as the author list shows already.  However, many
   more people provided input, fine-combed the specification based on
   their experience in design, implementation or application of
   protocols in IP fabrics.  This section will make an inadequate
   attempt in recording their contribution.

   Many thanks to Naiming Shen for some of the early discussions around
   the topic of using IGPs for routing in topologies related to Clos.
   Russ White to be especially acknowledged for the key conversation on
   epistemology that allowed to tie current asynchronous distributed
   systems theory results to a modern protocol design presented in this
   scope.  Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Jeffrey Zhang, Krzysztof
   Szarkowicz, Nagendra Kumar, Melchior Aelmans, Kaushal Tank, Will
   Jones, Moin Ahmed, Sandy Zhang and Jordan Head (in no particular
   order) provided thoughtful comments that improved the readability of
   the document and found good amount of corners where the light failed
   to shine.  Kris Price was first to mention single router, single arm
   default considerations.  Jeff Tantsura helped out with some initial
   thoughts on BFD interactions while Jeff Haas corrected several



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 149]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   misconceptions about BFD's finer points and helped to improve the
   security section around leaf considerations.  Artur Makutunowicz
   pointed out many possible improvements and acted as sounding board in
   regard to modern protocol implementation techniques RIFT is
   exploring.  Barak Gafni formalized first time clearly the problem of
   partitioned spine and fallen leaves on a (clean) napkin in Singapore
   that led to the very important part of the specification centered
   around multiple Top-of-Fabric planes and negative disaggregation.
   Igor Gashinsky and others shared many thoughts on problems
   encountered in design and operation of large-scale data center
   fabrics.  Xu Benchong found a delicate error in the flooding
   procedures and a schema datatype size mismatch.

   Last but not least, Alvaro Retana guided the undertaking by asking
   many necessary procedural and technical questions which did not only
   improve the content but did also lay out the track towards
   publication.

10.  Contributors

   This work is a product of a list of individuals which are all to be
   considered major contributors independent of the fact whether their
   name made it to the limited boilerplate author's list or not.

   +======================+===+================+===+==================+
   +======================+===+================+===+==================+
   | Tony Przygienda, Ed. | | | Alankar Sharma | | | Pascal Thubert   |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Juniper              | | | Comcast        | | | Cisco            |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Bruno Rijsman        | | | Jordan Head    | | | Dmitry Afanasiev |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Individual           | | | Juniper        | | | Yandex           |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Don Fedyk            | | | Alia Atlas     | | | John Drake       |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Individual           | | | Individual     | | | Juniper          |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Ilya Vershkov        | | | |              | | | |                |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+
   | Mellanox             | | | |              | | | |                |
   +----------------------+---+----------------+---+------------------+

                          Table 40: RIFT Authors

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 150]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   [EUI64]    IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier
              (EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and
              Company ID (CID)", IEEE EUI,
              <http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf>.

   [RFC1982]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2365]  Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
              RFC 2365, DOI 10.17487/RFC2365, July 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2365>.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.

   [RFC5082]  Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
              Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
              (GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.

   [RFC5120]  Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
              Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
              Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.

   [RFC5709]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
              Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
              Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.

   [RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 151]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6830>.

   [RFC7987]  Ginsberg, L., Wells, P., Decraene, B., Przygienda, T., and
              H. Gredler, "IS-IS Minimum Remaining Lifetime", RFC 7987,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7987, October 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7987>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8202]  Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
              Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
              2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.

   [RFC8505]  Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
              Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
              Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.

   [thrift]   Apache Software Foundation, "Thrift Interface Description
              Language", <https://thrift.apache.org/docs/idl>.

   [VFR]      Erlebach et al., T., "Cuts and Disjoint Paths in the
              Valley-Free Path Model of Internet BGP Routing", Springer
              Berlin Heidelberg Combinatorial and Algorithmic Aspects of
              Networking, 2005.

11.2.  Informative References

   [APPLICABILITY]
              Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Afanasiev, D., Thubert, P., Verhaeg,
              T., and J. Kowalczyk, "RIFT Applicability", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-applicability-
              05, 26 April 2021, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-rift-applicability-05>.






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 152]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   [CLOS]     Yuan, X., "On Nonblocking Folded-Clos Networks in Computer
              Communication Environments", IEEE International Parallel &
              Distributed Processing Symposium, 2011.

   [DIJKSTRA] Dijkstra, E. W., "A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with
              Graphs", Journal Numer. Math. , 1959.

   [DYNAMO]   De Candia et al., G., "Dynamo: amazon's highly available
              key-value store", ACM SIGOPS symposium on Operating
              systems principles (SOSP '07), 2007.

   [EPPSTEIN] Eppstein, D., "Finding the k-Shortest Paths", 1997.

   [FATTREE]  Leiserson, C. E., "Fat-Trees: Universal Networks for
              Hardware-Efficient Supercomputing", 1985.

   [IEEEstd1588]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
              Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
              IEEE Standard 1588,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4579760/>.

   [IEEEstd8021AS]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive
              Applications in Bridged Local Area Networks",
              IEEE Standard 802.1AS,
              <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5741898/>.

   [RFC0826]  Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
              Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
              Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
              RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc826>.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 153]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   [RFC8415]  Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
              Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
              "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
              RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.

   [VAHDAT08] Al-Fares, M., Loukissas, A., and A. Vahdat, "A Scalable,
              Commodity Data Center Network Architecture", SIGCOMM ,
              2008.

   [Wikipedia]
              Wikipedia,
              "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_number_arithmetic",
              2016.

Appendix A.  Sequence Number Binary Arithmetic

   The only reasonably reference to a cleaner than [RFC1982] sequence
   number solution is given in [Wikipedia].  It basically converts the
   problem into two complement's arithmetic.  Assuming a straight two
   complement's subtractions on the bit-width of the sequence number the
   according >: and =: relations are defined as:

      U_1, U_2 are 12-bits aligned unsigned version number

      D_f is  ( U_1 - U_2 ) interpreted as two complement signed 12-bits
      D_b is  ( U_2 - U_1 ) interpreted as two complement signed 12-bits

      U_1 >: U_2 IIF D_f > 0 *and* D_b < 0
      U_1 =: U_2 IIF D_f = 0

   The >: relationship is anti-symmetric but not transitive.  Observe
   that this leaves >: of the numbers having maximum two complement
   distance, e.g. ( 0 and 0x800 ) undefined in the 12-bits case since
   D_f and D_b are both -0x7ff.

   A simple example of the relationship in case of 3-bit arithmetic
   follows as table indicating D_f/D_b values and then the relationship
   of U_1 to U_2:












Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 154]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


                  U2 / U1   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
                  0        +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+
                  1        -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+
                  2        -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+
                  3        -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-
                  4        -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-  +/-
                  5        +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-  +/-
                  6        +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+  +/-
                  7        +/-  +/-  +/-  -/-  -/+  -/+  -/+  +/+

                  U2 / U1   0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
                  0         =    >    >    >    ?    <    <    <
                  1         <    =    >    >    >    ?    <    <
                  2         <    <    =    >    >    >    ?    <
                  3         <    <    <    =    >    >    >    ?
                  4         ?    <    <    <    =    >    >    >
                  5         >    ?    <    <    <    =    >    >
                  6         >    >    ?    <    <    <    =    >
                  7         >    >    >    ?    <    <    <    =

Appendix B.  Information Elements Schema

   This section introduces the schema for information elements.  The IDL
   is Thrift [thrift].

   On schema changes that

   1.   change field numbers *or*

   2.   add new *required* fields *or*

   3.   remove any fields *or*

   4.   change lists into sets, unions into structures *or*

   5.   change multiplicity of fields *or*

   6.   changes name of any field or type *or*

   7.   change data types of any field *or*

   8.   adds, changes or removes a default value of any *existing* field
        *or*

   9.   removes or changes any defined constant or constant value *or*






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 155]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   10.  changes any enumeration type except extending
        `common.TIETypeType` (use of enumeration types is generally
        discouraged) *or*

   11.  add new TIE type to `TIETypeType` with flooding scope different
        from prefix TIE flooding scope

   major version of the schema MUST increase.  All other changes MUST
   increase minor version within the same major.

   Introducing an optional field does not cause a major version increase
   even if the fields inside the structure are optional with defaults.

   All signed integer as forced by Thrift [thrift] support must be cast
   for internal purposes to equivalent unsigned values without
   discarding the signedness bit.  An implementation SHOULD try to avoid
   using the signedness bit when generating values.

   The schema is normative.

B.1.  Backwards-Compatible Extension of Schema

   The set of rules in Appendix B guarantees that every decoder can
   process serialized content generated by a higher minor version of the
   schema and with that the protocol can progress without a 'fork-lift'.
   Contrary to that, content serialized using a major version X is *not*
   expected to be decodable by any implementation using decoder for a
   model with a major version lower than X.

   Additionally, based on the propagated minor version in encoded
   content and added optional node capabilities new TIE types or even
   de-facto mandatory fields can be introduced without progressing the
   major version albeit only nodes supporting such new extensions would
   decode them.  Given the model is encoded at the source and never re-
   encoded flooding through nodes not understanding any new extensions
   will preserve the according fields.  However, it is important to
   understand that a higher minor version of a schema does *not*
   guarantee that capabilities introduced in lower minors of the same
   major are supported.  The `node_capabilities` field is used to
   indicate which capabilities are supported.

   Specifically, the schema may add elements to `NodeCapabilities` field
   future capabilities to indicate whether it will support
   interpretation of schema extensions on the same major revision.  Such
   fields MUST be optional and have an implicit or explicit false
   default value.  If a future capability changes route selection or
   generates blackholes if some nodes are not supporting it then a major
   version increment will be however unavoidable.  `NodeCapabilities`



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 156]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   shown in LIE MUST match the capabilities shown in the Node TIEs,
   otherwise the behavior is unspecified.  A node detecting the mismatch
   SHOULD generate a notification.

   To support new TIE types without increasing the major version
   enumeration `TIEElement` can be extended with new optional elements
   for new `common.TIETypeType` values as long the scope of the new TIE
   matches the prefix TIE scope.  In case it is necessary to understand
   whether all nodes can parse the new TIE type a node capability MUST
   be added in `NodeCapabilities` to prevent a non-homogenous network.

B.2.  common.thrift

/**
    Thrift file with common definitions for RIFT
*/

namespace py common

/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned 64 bits.
 */
typedef i64      SystemIDType
typedef i32      IPv4Address
/** this has to be long enough to accomodate prefix */
typedef binary   IPv6Address
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i16      UDPPortType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      TIENrType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      MTUSizeType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned
    rolling over number */
typedef i64      SeqNrType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      LifeTimeInSecType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i8       LevelType
typedef i16      PacketNumberType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      PodType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned.
          This is carried in the
          security envelope and must hence fit into 8 bits. */
typedef i8       VersionType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i16      MinorVersionType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 157]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


typedef i32      MetricType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned
          and unstructured */
typedef i64      RouteTagType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unstructured
          label value */
typedef i32      LabelType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned */
typedef i32      BandwithInMegaBitsType
/** @note Key Value key ID type */
typedef i32      KeyIDType
/** node local, unique identification for a link (interface/tunnel
  * etc. Basically anything RIFT runs on). This is kept
  * at 32 bits so it aligns with BFD [RFC5880] discriminator size.
  */
typedef i32    LinkIDType
/** @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned,
          especially since we have the /128 IPv6 case. */
typedef i8     PrefixLenType
/** timestamp in seconds since the epoch */
typedef i64    TimestampInSecsType
/** security nonce.
    @note MUST be interpreted in implementation as rolling
          over unsigned value */
typedef i16    NonceType
/** LIE FSM holdtime type */
typedef i16    TimeIntervalInSecType
/** Transaction ID type for prefix mobility as specified by RFC6550,
    value MUST be interpreted in implementation as unsigned  */
typedef i8     PrefixTransactionIDType
/** Timestamp per IEEE 802.1AS, all values MUST be interpreted in
    implementation as unsigned.  */
struct IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType {
    1: required     i64     AS_sec;
    2: optional     i32     AS_nsec;
}
/** generic counter type */
typedef i64 CounterType
/** Platform Interface Index type, i.e. index of interface on hardware,
    can be used e.g. with RFC5837 */
typedef i32 PlatformInterfaceIndex

/** Flags indicating node configuration in case of ZTP.
 */
enum HierarchyIndications {
    /** forces level to `leaf_level` and enables according procedures */
    leaf_only                            = 0,
    /** forces level to `leaf_level` and enables according procedures */



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 158]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


    leaf_only_and_leaf_2_leaf_procedures = 1,
    /** forces level to `top_of_fabric` and enables according
        procedures */
    top_of_fabric                        = 2,
}

const PacketNumberType  undefined_packet_number    = 0
/** used when node is configured as top of fabric in ZTP.*/
const LevelType   top_of_fabric_level              = 24
/** default bandwidth on a link */
const BandwithInMegaBitsType  default_bandwidth    = 100
/** fixed leaf level when ZTP is not used */
const LevelType   leaf_level                  = 0
const LevelType   default_level               = leaf_level
const PodType     default_pod                 = 0
const LinkIDType  undefined_linkid            = 0

/** invalid key for key value */
const KeyIDType   invalid_key_value_key    = 0
/** default distance used */
const MetricType  default_distance         = 1
/** any distance larger than this will be considered infinity */
const MetricType  infinite_distance       = 0x7FFFFFFF
/** represents invalid distance */
const MetricType  invalid_distance        = 0
const bool overload_default               = false
const bool flood_reduction_default        = true
/** default LIE FSM LIE TX internval time */
const TimeIntervalInSecType   default_lie_tx_interval  = 1
/** default LIE FSM holddown time */
const TimeIntervalInSecType   default_lie_holdtime  = 3
/** multipler for default_lie_holdtime to hold down multiple neighbors */
const i8                      multiple_neighbors_lie_holdtime_multipler = 4
/** default ZTP FSM holddown time */
const TimeIntervalInSecType   default_ztp_holdtime  = 1
/** by default LIE levels are ZTP offers */
const bool default_not_a_ztp_offer        = false
/** by default everyone is repeating flooding */
const bool default_you_are_flood_repeater = true
/** 0 is illegal for SystemID */
const SystemIDType IllegalSystemID        = 0
/** empty set of nodes */
const set<SystemIDType> empty_set_of_nodeids = {}
/** default lifetime of TIE is one week */
const LifeTimeInSecType default_lifetime      = 604800
/** default lifetime when TIEs are purged is 5 minutes */
const LifeTimeInSecType purge_lifetime        = 300
/** optional round down interval when TIEs are sent with security hashes



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 159]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


    to prevent excessive computation. **/
const LifeTimeInSecType rounddown_lifetime_interval = 60
/** any `TieHeader` that has a smaller lifetime difference
    than this constant is equal (if other fields equal). */
const LifeTimeInSecType lifetime_diff2ignore  = 400

/** default UDP port to run LIEs on */
const UDPPortType     default_lie_udp_port       =  914
/** default UDP port to receive TIEs on, that can be peer specific */
const UDPPortType     default_tie_udp_flood_port =  915

/** default MTU link size to use */
const MTUSizeType     default_mtu_size           = 1400
/** default link being BFD capable */
const bool            bfd_default                = true

/** undefined nonce, equivalent to missing nonce */
const NonceType       undefined_nonce            = 0;
/** outer security key id, MUST be interpreted as in implementation
    as unsigned */
typedef i8            OuterSecurityKeyID
/** security key id, MUST be interpreted as in implementation
    as unsigned */
typedef i32           TIESecurityKeyID
/** undefined key */
const TIESecurityKeyID undefined_securitykey_id   = 0;
/** Maximum delta (negative or positive) that a mirrored nonce can
    deviate from local value to be considered valid. */
const i16                     maximum_valid_nonce_delta   = 5;
const TimeIntervalInSecType   nonce_regeneration_interval = 300;

/** Direction of TIEs. */
enum TieDirectionType {
    Illegal           = 0,
    South             = 1,
    North             = 2,
    DirectionMaxValue = 3,
}

/** Address family type. */
enum AddressFamilyType {
   Illegal                = 0,
   AddressFamilyMinValue  = 1,
   IPv4     = 2,
   IPv6     = 3,
   AddressFamilyMaxValue  = 4,
}




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 160]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


/** IPv4 prefix type. */
struct IPv4PrefixType {
    1: required IPv4Address    address;
    2: required PrefixLenType  prefixlen;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** IPv6 prefix type. */
struct IPv6PrefixType {
    1: required IPv6Address    address;
    2: required PrefixLenType  prefixlen;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** IP address type. */
union IPAddressType {
    /** Content is IPv4 */
    1: optional IPv4Address   ipv4address;
    /** Content is IPv6 */
    2: optional IPv6Address   ipv6address;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Prefix advertisement.

    @note: for interface
        addresses the protocol can propagate the address part beyond
        the subnet mask and on reachability computation that has to
        be normalized. The non-significant bits can be used
        for operational purposes.
*/
union IPPrefixType {
    1: optional IPv4PrefixType   ipv4prefix;
    2: optional IPv6PrefixType   ipv6prefix;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Sequence of a prefix in case of move.
 */
struct PrefixSequenceType {
    1: required IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType  timestamp;
    /** Transaction ID set by client in e.g. in 6LoWPAN. */
    2: optional PrefixTransactionIDType   transactionid;
}

/** Type of TIE.
*/
enum TIETypeType {
    Illegal                                     = 0,
    TIETypeMinValue                             = 1,
    /** first legal value */
    NodeTIEType                                 = 2,



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 161]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


    PrefixTIEType                               = 3,
    PositiveDisaggregationPrefixTIEType         = 4,
    NegativeDisaggregationPrefixTIEType         = 5,
    PGPrefixTIEType                             = 6,
    KeyValueTIEType                             = 7,
    ExternalPrefixTIEType                       = 8,
    PositiveExternalDisaggregationPrefixTIEType = 9,
    TIETypeMaxValue                             = 10,
}

/** RIFT route types.
    @note: The only purpose of those values is to introduce an
           ordering whereas an implementation can choose internally
           any other values as long the ordering is preserved
 */
enum RouteType {
    Illegal               =  0,
    RouteTypeMinValue     =  1,
    /** First legal value. */
    /** Discard routes are most preferred */
    Discard               =  2,

    /** Local prefixes are directly attached prefixes on the
     *  system such as e.g. interface routes.
     */
    LocalPrefix           =  3,
    /** Advertised in S-TIEs */
    SouthPGPPrefix        =  4,
    /** Advertised in N-TIEs */
    NorthPGPPrefix        =  5,
    /** Advertised in N-TIEs */
    NorthPrefix           =  6,
    /** Externally imported north */
    NorthExternalPrefix   =  7,
    /** Advertised in S-TIEs, either normal prefix or positive
        disaggregation */
    SouthPrefix           =  8,
    /** Externally imported south */
    SouthExternalPrefix   =  9,
    /** Negative, transitive prefixes are least preferred */
    NegativeSouthPrefix   = 10,
    RouteTypeMaxValue     = 11,
}

B.3.  encoding.thrift






Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 162]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


/**
    Thrift file for packet encodings for RIFT

*/

include "common.thrift"

namespace py encoding

/** Represents protocol encoding schema major version */
const common.VersionType protocol_major_version = 5
/** Represents protocol encoding schema minor version */
const common.MinorVersionType protocol_minor_version =  0

/** Common RIFT packet header. */
struct PacketHeader {
    /** Major version of protocol. */
    1: required common.VersionType      major_version =
            protocol_major_version;
    /** Minor version of protocol. */
    2: required common.MinorVersionType minor_version =
            protocol_minor_version;
    /** Node sending the packet, in case of LIE/TIRE/TIDE
        also the originator of it. */
    3: required common.SystemIDType  sender;
    /** Level of the node sending the packet, required on everything
        except LIEs. Lack of presence on LIEs indicates UNDEFINED_LEVEL
        and is used in ZTP procedures.
     */
    4: optional common.LevelType            level;
}

/** Prefix community. */
struct Community {
    /** Higher order bits */
    1: required i32          top;
    /** Lower order bits */
    2: required i32          bottom;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Neighbor structure.  */
struct Neighbor {
    /** System ID of the originator. */
    1: required common.SystemIDType        originator;
    /** ID of remote side of the link. */
    2: required common.LinkIDType          remote_id;
} (python.immutable = "")




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 163]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


/** Capabilities the node supports. */
struct NodeCapabilities {
    /** Must advertise supported minor version dialect that way. */
    1: required common.MinorVersionType        protocol_minor_version =
            protocol_minor_version;
    /** indicates that node supports flood reduction. */
    2: optional bool                           flood_reduction =
            common.flood_reduction_default;
    /** indicates place in hierarchy, i.e. top-of-fabric or
        leaf only (in ZTP) or support for leaf-2-leaf
        procedures. */
    3: optional common.HierarchyIndications    hierarchy_indications;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Link capabilities. */
struct LinkCapabilities {
    /** Indicates that the link is supporting BFD. */
    1: optional bool                           bfd =
            common.bfd_default;
    /** Indicates whether the interface will support IPv4 forwarding. */
    2: optional bool                           ipv4_forwarding_capable =
            true;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** RIFT LIE Packet.

    @note: this node's level is already included on the packet header
*/
struct LIEPacket {
    /** Node or adjacency name. */
    1: optional string                    name;
    /** Local link ID. */
    2: required common.LinkIDType         local_id;
    /** UDP port to which we can receive flooded TIEs. */
    3: required common.UDPPortType        flood_port =
            common.default_tie_udp_flood_port;
    /** Layer 3 MTU, used to discover mismatch. */
    4: optional common.MTUSizeType        link_mtu_size =
            common.default_mtu_size;
    /** Local link bandwidth on the interface. */
    5: optional common.BandwithInMegaBitsType
            link_bandwidth = common.default_bandwidth;
    /** Reflects the neighbor once received to provide
        3-way connectivity. */
    6: optional Neighbor                  neighbor;
    /** Node's PoD. */
    7: optional common.PodType            pod =
            common.default_pod;



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 164]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


    /** Node capabilities supported. */
   10: required NodeCapabilities          node_capabilities;
   /** Capabilities of this link. */
   11: optional LinkCapabilities          link_capabilities;
   /** Required holdtime of the adjacency, i.e. for how
       long a period should adjacency be kept up without valid LIE reception. */
   12: required common.TimeIntervalInSecType
            holdtime = common.default_lie_holdtime;
   /** Optional, unsolicited, downstream assigned locally significant label
       value for the adjacency. */
   13: optional common.LabelType          label;
    /** Indicates that the level on the LIE must not be used
        to derive a ZTP level by the receiving node. */
   21: optional bool                      not_a_ztp_offer =
            common.default_not_a_ztp_offer;
   /** Indicates to northbound neighbor that it should
       be reflooding TIEs received from this node to achieve flood
       reduction and balancing for northbound flooding. */
   22: optional bool                      you_are_flood_repeater =
             common.default_you_are_flood_repeater;
   /** Indicates to neighbor to flood node TIEs only and slow down
       all other TIEs. Ignored when received from southbound neighbor. */
   23: optional bool                      you_are_sending_too_quickly =
             false;
   /** Instance name in case multiple RIFT instances running on same
       interface. */
   24: optional string                    instance_name;
}

/** LinkID pair describes one of parallel links between two nodes. */
struct LinkIDPair {
    /** Node-wide unique value for the local link. */
    1: required common.LinkIDType      local_id;
    /** Received remote link ID for this link. */
    2: required common.LinkIDType      remote_id;

    /** Describes the local interface index of the link. */
   10: optional common.PlatformInterfaceIndex platform_interface_index;
   /** Describes the local interface name. */
   11: optional string                        platform_interface_name;
   /** Indicates whether the link is secured, i.e. protected by
       outer key, absence of this element means no indication,
       undefined outer key means not secured. */
   12: optional common.OuterSecurityKeyID
                trusted_outer_security_key;
   /** Indicates whether the link is protected by established
       BFD session. */
   13: optional bool                          bfd_up;



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 165]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   /** Optional indication which address families are up on the
       interface */
   14: optional set<common.AddressFamilyType>
       (python.immutable = "")                address_families;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Unique ID of a TIE. */
struct TIEID {
    /** direction of TIE */
    1: required common.TieDirectionType    direction;
    /** indicates originator of the TIE */
    2: required common.SystemIDType        originator;
    /** type of the tie */
    3: required common.TIETypeType         tietype;
    /** number of the tie */
    4: required common.TIENrType           tie_nr;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Header of a TIE. */
struct TIEHeader {
    /** ID of the tie. */
    2: required TIEID                             tieid;
    /** Sequence number of the tie. */
    3: required common.SeqNrType                  seq_nr;

    /** Absolute timestamp when the TIE was generated. */
   10: optional common.IEEE802_1ASTimeStampType   origination_time;
   /** Original lifetime when the TIE was generated.  */
   12: optional common.LifeTimeInSecType          origination_lifetime;
}

/** Header of a TIE as described in TIRE/TIDE.
*/
struct TIEHeaderWithLifeTime {
    1: required     TIEHeader                       header;
    /** Remaining lifetime. */
    2: required     common.LifeTimeInSecType        remaining_lifetime;
}

/** TIDE with *sorted* TIE headers. */
struct TIDEPacket {
    /** First TIE header in the tide packet. */
    1: required TIEID                       start_range;
    /** Last TIE header in the tide packet. */
    2: required TIEID                       end_range;
    /** _Sorted_ list of headers. */
    3: required list<TIEHeaderWithLifeTime>
       (python.immutable = "")              headers;



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 166]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


}

/** TIRE packet */
struct TIREPacket {
    1: required set<TIEHeaderWithLifeTime>
       (python.immutable = "")              headers;
}

/** neighbor of a node */
struct NodeNeighborsTIEElement {
    /** level of neighbor */
    1: required common.LevelType                level;
    /**  Cost to neighbor. Ignore anything larger than `infinite_distance` and `invalid_distance` */
    3: optional common.MetricType               cost
                = common.default_distance;
    /** can carry description of multiple parallel links in a TIE */
    4: optional set<LinkIDPair>
       (python.immutable = "")                  link_ids;
    /** total bandwith to neighbor as sum of all parallel links */
    5: optional common.BandwithInMegaBitsType
                bandwidth = common.default_bandwidth;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Indication flags of the node. */
struct NodeFlags {
    /** Indicates that node is in overload, do not transit traffic
        through it. */
    1: optional bool         overload = common.overload_default;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Description of a node. */
struct NodeTIEElement {
    /** Level of the node. */
    1: required common.LevelType            level;
    /** Node's neighbors. Multiple node TIEs can carry disjoint sets of neighbors. */
    2: required map<common.SystemIDType,
                NodeNeighborsTIEElement>    neighbors;
    /** Capabilities of the node. */
    3: required NodeCapabilities            capabilities;
    /** Flags of the node. */
    4: optional NodeFlags                   flags;
    /** Optional node name for easier operations. */
    5: optional string                      name;
    /** PoD to which the node belongs. */
    6: optional common.PodType              pod;
    /** optional startup time of the node */
    7: optional common.TimestampInSecsType  startup_time;




Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 167]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


    /** If any local links are miscabled, this indication is flooded. */
   10: optional set<common.LinkIDType>
        (python.immutable = "")             miscabled_links;

} (python.immutable = "")

/** Attributes of a prefix. */
struct PrefixAttributes {
    /** Distance of the prefix. */
    2: required common.MetricType            metric
            = common.default_distance;
    /** Generic unordered set of route tags, can be redistributed
        to other protocols or use within the context of real time
        analytics. */
    3: optional set<common.RouteTagType>
       (python.immutable = "")               tags;
    /** Monotonic clock for mobile addresses.  */
    4: optional common.PrefixSequenceType    monotonic_clock;
    /** Indicates if the prefix is a node loopback. */
    6: optional bool                         loopback = false;
    /** Indicates that the prefix is directly attached. */
    7: optional bool                         directly_attached = true;
    /** link to which the address belongs to.  */
   10: optional common.LinkIDType            from_link;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** TIE carrying prefixes */
struct PrefixTIEElement {
    /** Prefixes with the associated attributes. */
    1: required map<common.IPPrefixType, PrefixAttributes> prefixes;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Generic key value pairs. */
struct KeyValueTIEElement {
    1: required map<common.KeyIDType, binary>    keyvalues;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** Single element in a TIE. */
union TIEElement {
    /** Used in case of enum common.TIETypeType.NodeTIEType. */
    1: optional NodeTIEElement     node;
    /** Used in case of enum common.TIETypeType.PrefixTIEType. */
    2: optional PrefixTIEElement          prefixes;
    /** Positive prefixes (always southbound). */
    3: optional PrefixTIEElement   positive_disaggregation_prefixes;
    /** Transitive, negative prefixes (always southbound) */
    5: optional PrefixTIEElement   negative_disaggregation_prefixes;
    /** Externally reimported prefixes. */



Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 168]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


    6: optional PrefixTIEElement          external_prefixes;
    /** Positive external disaggregated prefixes (always southbound). */
    7: optional PrefixTIEElement
            positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes;
    /** Key-Value store elements. */
    9: optional KeyValueTIEElement keyvalues;
} (python.immutable = "")

/** TIE packet */
struct TIEPacket {
    1: required TIEHeader  header;
    2: required TIEElement element;
}

/** Content of a RIFT packet. */
union PacketContent {
    1: optional LIEPacket     lie;
    2: optional TIDEPacket    tide;
    3: optional TIREPacket    tire;
    4: optional TIEPacket     tie;
}

/** RIFT packet structure. */
struct ProtocolPacket {
    1: required PacketHeader  header;
    2: required PacketContent content;
}


Appendix C.  Constants

C.1.  Configurable Protocol Constants

   This section gathers constants that are provided in the schema files
   and in the document.
















Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 169]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


   +================+==============+==================================+
   |                | Type         | Value                            |
   +================+==============+==================================+
   | LIE IPv4       | Default      | 224.0.0.120 or all-rift-routers  |
   | Multicast      | Value,       | to be assigned in IPv4 Multicast |
   | Address        | Configurable | Address Space Registry in Local  |
   |                |              | Network Control Block            |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | LIE IPv6       | Default      | FF02::A1F7 or all-rift-routers   |
   | Multicast      | Value,       | to be assigned in IPv6 Multicast |
   | Address        | Configurable | Address Assignments              |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | LIE            | Default      | 914                              |
   | Destination    | Value,       |                                  |
   | Port           | Configurable |                                  |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | Level value    | Constant     | 24                               |
   | for            |              |                                  |
   | TOP_OF_FABRIC  |              |                                  |
   | flag           |              |                                  |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | Default LIE    | Default      | 3 seconds                        |
   | Holdtime       | Value,       |                                  |
   |                | Configurable |                                  |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | TIE            | Default      | 1 second                         |
   | Retransmission | Value        |                                  |
   | Interval       |              |                                  |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | TIDE           | Default      | 5 seconds                        |
   | Generation     | Value,       |                                  |
   | Interval       | Configurable |                                  |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | MIN_TIEID      | Constant     | TIE Key with minimal values:     |
   | signifies      |              | TIEID(originator=0,              |
   | start of TIDEs |              | tietype=TIETypeMinValue,         |
   |                |              | tie_nr=0, direction=South)       |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+
   | MAX_TIEID      | Constant     | TIE Key with maximal values:     |
   | signifies end  |              | TIEID(originator=MAX_UINT64,     |
   | of TIDEs       |              | tietype=TIETypeMaxValue,         |
   |                |              | tie_nr=MAX_UINT64,               |
   |                |              | direction=North)                 |
   +----------------+--------------+----------------------------------+

                         Table 41: all_constants





Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 170]


Internet-Draft                    RIFT                         July 2021


Authors' Addresses

   Tony Przygienda (editor)
   Juniper
   1137 Innovation Way
   Sunnyvale, CA
   United States of America

   Email: prz@juniper.net


   Alankar Sharma
   Comcast
   1800 Bishops Gate Blvd
   Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
   United States of America

   Email: Alankar_Sharma@comcast.com


   Pascal Thubert
   Cisco Systems, Inc
   Building D
   45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
   06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
   France

   Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
   Email: pthubert@cisco.com


   Bruno Rijsman
   Individual

   Email: brunorijsman@gmail.com


   Dmitry Afanasiev
   Yandex

   Email: fl0w@yandex-team.ru










Przygienda, et al.       Expires 12 January 2022              [Page 171]