TRILL Working Group W. Hao
INTERNET-DRAFT Y. Li
Intended Status: Standard Track Huawei Technologies
M. Durrani
Cisco
S. Gupta
IP Infusion
A. Qu
MediaTec
T. Han
Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 2016 March 08, 2016
Centralized Replication for Active-Active BUM Traffic
draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-05.txt
Abstract
In TRILL active-active access, an RPF check failure issue may occur
when using the pseudo-nickname mechanism specified in RFC 7781. This
draft describes a solution to resolve this RPF check failure issue
through centralized replication. All ingress RBridges send BUM
(Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Mutlicast) traffic to a centralized
node with unicast TRILL encapsulation. When the centralized node
receives the BUM traffic, it decapsulates the packets and forwards
them to all destination RBridges using a distribution tree
established as per TRILL base protocol RFC 6325. To avoid RPF check
failure on a RBridge sitting between the ingress RBridge and the
centralized replication node, some change in the RPF calculation
algorithm is required. RPF calculation on each RBridge should use
the centralized node as the ingress RBridge, instead of the real
ingress RBridge, which is denoted as RBv in RFC 7781, to perform the
calculation.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Hao & Li,etc Expires July 09, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Conventions used in this document ............................ 4
3. Centralized Replication Solution Overview .................... 4
4. Frame duplication from remote RBridge ........................ 6
5. Local forwarding behavior on ingress RBridge ................. 6
6. Loop prevention among RBridges in a edge group ............... 7
7. Centralized replication forwarding process ................... 8
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
8. BUM traffic loadbalancing among multiple centralized nodes... 10
9. Co-existing with the CMT solution ........................... 11
10. Network Upgrade Analysis ................................... 12
11. TRILL protocol extension ................................... 12
11.1. "R" and "C" Flag in the Nickname Flags APPsub-TLV...... 12
12. Security Considerations .................................... 13
13. IANA Considerations ........................................ 13
14. References ................................................ 13
14.1. Normative References .................................. 13
14.2. Informative References ................................ 14
15. Acknowledgments ........................................... 14
1. Introduction
The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
[RFC6325] protocol provides loop free and per hop based multipath
data forwarding with minimum configuration. TRILL uses IS-IS
[RFC6165] [RFC7176] as its control plane routing protocol and
defines a TRILL specific header for user data.
In active-active, Classic Ethernet (CE) devices typically are multi-
homed to edge RBridges which form an edge group. All of the uplinks
from CE are handled via a Local Active-Active Link Protocol (LAALP
[RFC7379]) such as Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) or
Distributed Resilient Network Interconnect (DRNI) [802.1AX]. An
active-active flow-based load sharing mechanism is normally
implemented to achieve better load balancing and high reliability. A
CE device can be a layer 3 end system by itself or a bridge switch
through which layer 3 end systems access to TRILL campus.
In active-active access, the pseudo-nickname solution in [RFC7781]
can be used to avoid MAC flip-flop on remote RBridges. The basic
idea is to use a virtual RBridge RBv with a single pseudo-nickname
to represent an edge group. Any member RBridge of that edge group
MUST use this pseudo-nickname rather than its own nickname as the
ingress nickname when it injects TRILL data frames to TRILL campus.
The use of the nickname solves the address flip flop issue by
binding the MAC address learnt by remote RBridge to the pseudo-
nickname. However, it introduces another issue of incorrect packet
dropping which will be described as follows: When a pseudo-nickname
is used by an edge RBridge as the ingress nickname to forward BUM
traffic, any RBridges (RBn) sitting between the ingress RBridge and
the distribution tree root will treat the traffic as if it was
ingressed from the virtual RBridge RBv. If the same distribution
tree is used by different edge RBridges of the same RBv, the traffic
may arrive at RBn from different ports. Then the RPF check fails,
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
and the BUM traffic received from unexpected ports will be dropped
by RBn.
This document proposes a centralized replication solution for
broadcast, unknown unicast and multicast (BUM) traffic forwarding to
resolve the issue of incorrect packet drop caused by RPF check
failure in the virtual RBridge case. The basic idea is that all
ingress RBridges send BUM traffic to a centralized node, that SHOULD
be a distribution tree root, using unicast TRILL encapsulation. When
the centralized node receives the packets, it decapsulates and
forwards them to all destination RBridges using a distribution tree
established as per the TRILL base protocol.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119
[RFC2119].The acronyms and terminology in [RFC6325] is used herein
with the following additions:
BUM - Broadcast, Unknown unicast and Multicast
CE - As in [RFC7783], Classic Ethernet device (end station or
bridge). The device can be either physical or virtual equipment.
FGL - Fine Grained Label [RFC7172].
LAALP - Local Active-Active Link Protocol [RFC7379].
MC-LAG - Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation.
3. Centralized Replication Solution Overview
When an edge RBridge receives BUM traffic from a CE device, it uses
unicast TRILL encapsulation instead of multicast encapsulation to
send the packets to a centralized node. The centralized node SHOULD
be a distribution tree root.
The TRILL header of the unicast TRILL encapsulation contains an
"ingress RBridge nickname" field and an "egress RBridge nickname"
field. If the ingress RBridge receives the BUM packet from a port
which is in an active-active edge group, it should set the ingress
RBridge nickname to be the pseudo-nickname rather than its own
nickname to avoid MAC flip-flop on remote RBridges as per [RFC7781].
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
The egress RBridge nickname is set to the special nickname of the
centralized node which is used to differentiate the centralized
replication purpose unicast TRILL encapsulation from a normal
unicast TRILL encapsulation. The special nickname is called an R-
nickname.
When the centralized RBridge receives a unicast TRILL encapsulated
packet with its R-nickname as egress nickname, it decapsulates the
packet. Then the centralized RBridge replicates and forwards the BUM
packet to all destination RBridges using one of the distribution
trees established as per TRILL base protocol. It SHOULD use a
distribution tree whose tree root is the centralized RBridge itself.
When the centralized RBridge forwards the BUM traffic, the ingress
nickname remains same as that in the packet it received to ensure
that the MAC address learning by all egress RBridges is bound to the
pseudo-nickname.
When the replicated packet is forwarded by each RBridge along the
distribution tree starting from the centralized node, the RPF check
will be performed as per [RFC6325]. For any RBridge sitting between
the ingress RBridge and the centralized replication node, the
incoming port of such BUM packet should be the centralized node
facing port as the multicast traffic always comes from the
centralized node in this solution. However the RPF port as the
result of distribution tree calculation as per [RFC6325] will be the
real ingress RBridge facing port as it uses virtual RBridge as the
ingress RBridge, so the RPF check will fail. To solve this problem,
some change in the RPF calculation algorithm is required. The RPF
calculation on each RBridge should use the centralized node as the
ingress RBridge instead of the real ingress virtual RBridge to
perform the calculation. As a result, RPF check will accept traffic
on the centralized node facing port of the RBridge for multi-
destination traffic. This prevents incorrect frame drops by the RPF
check.
To differentiate the centralized replication unicast TRILL
encapsulation from normal unicast TRILL encapsulation, the R-
nickname is introduced for centralized replication. When the
centralized node receives unicast TRILL encapsulation traffic with
the egress nickname R-nickname, it decapsulates the packet and then
forwards the packet to all destination RBridges through a
distribution tree by re-encapsulation as aforementioned. The campus
through the TRILL LSP extension specified in Section 11.
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
4. Frame duplication from remote RBridge
Frame duplication may occur when a remote host sends a multi-
destination frame to a local CE which has an active-active
connection to the TRILL campus. To avoid local CE receiving multiple
copies from a remote RBridge, the designated forwarder (DF)
mechanism is supported for egress direction multicast traffic.
The DF election mechanism [RFC7781] allows only one port of one
RBridge in an active-active group to forward multicast traffic from
the TRILL campus to the local access side for each VLAN. The basic
idea of DF is to elect one RBridge per VLAN from an edge group to be
responsible for egressing the BUM traffic. [RFC7781] describes the
detailed DF election mechanism among member RBridges involving in an
edge group.
If the DF election mechanism is used for frame duplication
prevention, access ports on an RBridge are categorized as three
types: non-group, group DF port and group non-DF port. The last two
types can be called group ports. Each of the group ports is
associated with a pseudo-nickname. If consistent nickname allocation
to edge group RBridges is used, it is possible that same pseudo-
nickname is associated with more than one port on a single RBridge.
A typical scenario is that CE1 is connected to RB1 & RB2 by LAALP1
while CE2 is connected to RB1 & RB2 by LAALP2. In order to conserve
the number of pseudo-nicknames used, member ports for both LAALP1
and LAALP2 on RB1 & RB2 are all associated with the same pseudo-
nickname.
5. Local forwarding behavior on ingress RBridge
When an ingress RBridge (RB1) receives BUM traffic from a local
active-active accessing CE (CE1) device, the traffic will be
injected into the TRILL campus with TRILL encapsulation, and it will
be replicated and forwarded to all destination RBridges through
central replication, including the ingress RBridge itself, along a
TRILL distribution tree. To avoid the traffic looping back to the
original sender CE, an ingress nickname of the CE group's pseudo-
nickname can be used for traffic filtering.
However, if there are two CEs, say CE1 and CE2, connecting to the
ingress RB1 and each associated with same pseudo-nickname, RB1 needs
to locally replicate and forward to CE2, because another copy of the
BUM traffic between CE1 and CE2 through TRILL campus will be blocked
by the traffic filtering.
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
If CE1 and CE2 are not associated with same pseudo-nickname, the
copy of the BUM traffic between CE1 and CE2 through TRILL campus
won't be blocked by the traffic filtering. To avoid duplicated
traffic on receiver CE, there should be no local replicated BUM
traffic between these two CEs on ingress RB1.
In summary, to ensure correct BUM traffic forwarding behavior for
each CE, the local replication behavior on ingress RBridge should be
carefully designed as follows:
1. Replicate to the ports associated with the same pseudo-
nickname as that associated to the incoming port.
2. Do not replicate to active-active group ports associated with
different pseudo-nicknames.
3. Do not replicate to non-edge-group ports.
The above local forwarding behavior on the ingress RBridge of RB1
can be called centralized replication local forwarding behavior A.
If ingress RBridge RB1 itself is the centralized replication node,
BUM traffic injected by RB1 to the TRILL campus won't loop back to
RB1. In this case, the local forwarding behavior is called
centralized replication local forwarding behavior B. Behavior B on
RB1 is as follows:
1. Local replication to the ports associated with the same
pseudo-nickname as that associated to the incoming port.
2. Local replication to the group DF port associated with
different pseudo-nicknames. Do not replicate to group non-DF port
associated with different pseudo-nicknames.
3. Local replication to non-edge-group ports.
6. Loop prevention among RBridges in a edge group
If a CE sends a broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM)
packet through a DF port to an ingress RBridge, that RBridge will
forward that packet to all or a subset of the other RBridges that
only have non-DF ports for that active-active group. Because BUM
traffic forwarding to non-DF ports isn't allowed, in this case the
frame won't loop back to the CE.
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
If a CE sends a BUM packet through a non-DF port to a ingress
RBridge, say RB1, then RB1 will forward that packet to other
RBridges that have a DF port for that active-active group. In this
case the frame will loop back to the CE and the traffic split-
horizon filtering mechanism is used to avoid looping back among
RBridges in the edge group.
This split-horizon mechanism relies on the ingress nickname to check
if a packet's egress port belongs to a same active-active group as
the packet's incoming port to the TRILL campus.
When the ingress RBridge receives BUM traffic from an active-active
accessing CE device, the traffic will be injected into the TRILL
campus with TRILL encapsulation, and it will be replicated and
forwarded to all destination RBridges, which include ingress RBridge
itself, through a TRILL distribution tree. If the same pseudo-
nickname is used for two active-active access CEs as ingress
nickname, an egress RBridge can use that nickname to filter traffic
forwarding to all local CEs. In this case, the traffic between these
two CEs goes through the local RBridge and another copy of the
traffic from the TRILL campus is filtered. If different ingress
nicknames are used for two connecting CE devices, the access ports
connecting to these two CEs should be isolated from each other. The
BUM traffic between these two CEs should go through the TRILL campus,
otherwise the destination CE connected to same RBridge with the
sender CE will receive two copies of the traffic.
7. Centralized replication forwarding process
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
+-----------+
| (RB5) |
+-----------+
|
+-----------+
| (RB4) |
+-----------+
| | |
-------- | --------
| | |
+------+ +------+ +------+
|(RB1) | |(RB2) | | (RB3)|
+------+ +------+ +------+
* | * | * | ^
* | * | * | ^
* ----------*-------------*-- ^
***************************** | ^
LAALP1 * LAALP2 | ^
+------+ +------+ +------+
| CE1 | | CE2 | | CE3 |
+------+ +------+ +------+
Figure 1 TRILL Active-active access
Assuming the centralized replication solution is used in the example
network of above figure 1, RB5 is the distribution tree root and
centralized replication node, CE1 and CE2 are active-active accessed
to RB1,RB2 and RB3 through LAALP1 and LAALP2 respectively, CE3 is
single homed to RB3. The RBridge's own nickname of RB1 to RB5 are
nick1 to nick5 respectively. RB1, RB2, and RB3 use the same pseudo-
nickname for LAALP1 and LAALP2; that pseudo-nickname is P-nick. The
R-nickname on the centralized replication node of RB5 is S-nick.
The BUM traffic forwarding process from CE1 to CE2 and CE3 is as
follows:
1. CE1 sends BUM traffic to RB3.
2. RB3 replicates and sends the BUM traffic to CE2 locally. RB2
also sends the traffic to RB5 using unicast TRILL encapsulation. In
the TRILL Header, the ingress nickname is set as P-nick and the
egress nickname is set as S-nick.
3. RB5 decapsulates the unicast TRILL Data packet. Then it uses
the distribution tree whose root is RB5 to forward the packet as a
multi-destination TRILL Data packet. The egress nickname in the
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
multi-destination TRILL Header is the nick5and the ingress nickname
is still P-nick.
4. RB4 receives multicast TRILL traffic from RB5. Traffic
incoming port is the up port facing the distribution tree root,
RB4's RPF check will be correct based on the changed RPF port
calculation algorithm in this document. After the RPF check is
performed, it forwards the traffic to all other egress RBridges(RB1,
RB2, and RB3).
5. RB3 receives multicast TRILL traffic from RB4. It decapsulates
the multi-destination TRILL Data packet. Because the ingress
nickname of P-nick is equivalent to the nickname of local LAALPs
connecting to CE1 and CE2, RB3 doesn't forward the traffic to CE1
and CE2 to avoid duplicated frame. RB3 only forwards the packet to
CE3.
6. RB1 and RB2 receive multicast TRILL traffic from RB4. The
forwarding process is similar to the process on RB3, i.e, because
the ingress nickname of P-nick is equivalent to the nickname of the
local LAALPs connecting CE1 and CE2, they also don't forward the
traffic to local CE1 and CE2.
8. BUM traffic loadbalancing among multiple centralized nodes
To support unicast TRILL encapsulation BUM traffic load balancing,
multiple centralized replication nodes can be deployed and the
traffic can be load balanced between these nodes based on VLAN or
FGL.
Assuming there are k centralized nodes in TRILL campus, each
centralized node has a different R-nickname, the VLAN-based (or FGL-
based [RFC7172]) load balancing algorithm used by ingress active-
active access RBridge is as follows:
1. All R-nicknames are ordered and numbered from 0 to k-1 in
ascending order treating the nicknames as unsigned 16-bit integers.
2. For VLAN or FGL ID m, choose the R-nickname whose number
equals (m mod k) as egress nickname for BUM traffic unicast TRILL
encapsulation.
For examples, there are 3 centralized nodes (CN) each having one R-
nickname. The CN nodes will be ordered based on the R-nickname from
CN0 to CN2. Assuming there are 5 VLANs from VLAN ID 1 to OD 5
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
spreading among edge RBridges, the traffic in VLAN 1 will go to CN1,
VLAN 2 will go to CN2, and so on.
When an ingress RBridge participating in active-active connection
receives BUM traffic from local CE, the RBridge decides which
centralized node to send the traffic to based on the VLAN-based load
balancing algorithm, thus VLAN/FGL-based load balancing for the BUM
traffic can be achieved among multiple centralized nodes.
9. Co-existing with the CMT solution
+------+ +------+
|(RB6) | |(RB7) |
+------+ +------+
------------------|-----------|----------------------
| | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
|(RB1) | |(RB2) | |(RB3) | |(RB4) | |(RB5) |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | |
------------ -------------------------
| |
+------+ +------+
| CE1 | | CE2 |
+------+ +------+
Figure 1 CMT and centralized replication co-existing scenario
Both the centralized replication solution and the CMT [RFC7783]
solution rely on using pseudo-nicknames to avoid MAC flip-flop on
remote RBridges. These two solutions can co-exist in a single TRILL
campus. Each solution can be selected by each active-active edge
group of RBridges independently.
As illustrated in figure 2, RB1 and RB2 use CMT for CE1's active-
active access, RB3, RB4, and RB5 use the centralized replication for
CE2's active-active access.
For the centralized replication solution, edge group RBridges MUST
announce the local pseudo-nickname using Nickname Flags APPsub-TLV
with C-flag. A nickname with the C-flag set is called a "C-nickname".
A transit RBridge will perform the centralized replication specific
RPF check algorithm if it receives TRILL Data packets with a C-
nickname as ingress nickname.
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
10. Network Upgrade Analysis
Centralized nodes will typically need software and hardware upgrades
to support centralized replication, which stitches TRILL unicast
traffic decapsulation process and the process of normal TRILL
multicast traffic forwarding along distribution tree.
Active-active connection edge RBridges will typically need software
and hardware upgrade to support unicast TRILL encapsulation for BUM
traffic; the process is similar to other head-end replication
processes.
Transit nodes typically need a software upgrade to support the
changed RPF port calculation algorithm.
11. TRILL protocol extension
Two Flags of "R" and "C" are specified in the Nickname Flags APPsub-
TLV [RFC7780]. The nickname with "R" flag set is called the R-
nickname and the nickname with the "C" flag set is called the C-
nickname. The R-nickname is a specialized nickname attached on a
centralized node to differentiate unicast TRILL encapsulation BUM
traffic from normal unicast TRILL traffic. The C-nickname flag is
set on each edge group RBridge, C-nickname is a specialized pseudo-
nickname for which transit RBridges perform a different RPF check
algorithm.
When active-active edge RBridges use centralized replication to
forward BUM traffic, the R-nickname is used as the egress nickname
and the C-nickname is used as ingress nickname in the TRILL header
for the unicast TRILL encapsulation of BUM traffic.
11.1. "R" and "C" Flag in the Nickname Flags APPsub-TLV
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Nickname |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|IN|SE|R | C| RESV |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
NICKFLAG RECORD
o R = If R flag is one, it indicates that the advertising
TRILL switch is a centralized replication node, and the nickname is
used as egress nickname for edge group RBridges to inject BUM
traffic to TRILL campus when the edge group RBridges use centralized
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
replication solution for active-active access. If flag is zero, that
nickname will not be used for that purpose.
o C = If C flag is one, it indicates that the TRILL traffic
with this nickname as an ingress nickname requires the special RPF
check algorithm. If flag is zero, that nickname will not be used for
that purpose.
12. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce any extra security risks. For general
TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325]. For Security
Considerations related to pseudo-nickname active-active, see
[RFC7781].
13. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign two bits in the Nickname Flags APPsubTLV
flags for the R and C bits discussed in Section 11.1 [Bits 3 and 4
suggested] and update the ''NickFlags'' Bits registry on the TRILL
Parameters page as follows:
Bit Mnemonic Description Reference
--- -------- -------------------- -----------
3 R Replication Nickname [This document]
4 C Special RFC Check [This document]
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC6165] Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2
Systems", RFC 6165, DOI 10.17487/RFC6165, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6165>.
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification", RFC
6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[RFC7172] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Agarwal, P., Perlman, R., and D.
Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Fine-Grained
Labeling", RFC 7172, DOI 10.17487/RFC7172, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7172>.
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D., and
A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of
IS-IS", RFC 7176, DOI 10.17487/RFC7176, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7176>.
[RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates", RFC 7780, DOI
10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.
14.2. Informative References
[RFC7781] Zhai, H., Senevirathne, T., Perlman, R., Zhang, M., and Y. Li,
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Pseudo-Nickname for
Active-Active Access", RFC 7781, DOI 10.17487/RFC7781, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7781>.
[RFC7379] Li, Y., Hao, W., Perlman, R., Hudson, J., and H. Zhai, "Problem
Statement and Goals for Active-Active Connection at the Transparent
Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Edge", RFC 7379, DOI
10.17487/RFC7379, October 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7379>.
[RFC7783] Senevirathne, T., Pathangi, J., and J. Hudson, "Coordinated
Multicast Trees (CMT) for Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL)", RFC 7783, DOI 10.17487/RFC7783, February 2016, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7783>.
15. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the important contributions of
Donald Eastlake, Hongjun Zhai, Xiaomin Wu, Liang Xia.
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Centralized replication for BUM traffic March 2016
Authors' Addresses
Weiguo Hao
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
Muhammad Durrani
Cisco
Email: mdurrani@cisco.com
Sujay Gupta
IP Infusion
RMZ Centennial
Mahadevapura Post
Bangalore - 560048
India
Email: sujay.gupta@ipinfusion.com
Andrew Qu
MediaTec
Email: laodulaodu@gmail.com
Tao Han
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Email: billow.han@huawei.com
Hao & Li,etc Expires September 09, 2016 [Page 15]