INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Linda Dunbar
Intended status: Proposed Standard                       Donald Eastlake
                                                           Radia Perlman
Expires: June 4, 2018                                   December 5, 2017

                 Directory Assisted TRILL Encapsulation


   This draft describes how data center networks can benefit from non-
   RBridge nodes performing TRILL encapsulation with assistance from a
   directory service.

Status of This Memo

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

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
   to the authors or the TRILL working group mailing list:

   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-

   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 The list of Internet-Draft
   Shadow Directories can be accessed at

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

Table of Contents

      1. Introduction............................................3
      2. Conventions Used in This Document.......................4

      3. Directory Assistance to Non-RBridge.....................5
      4. Source Nickname in Encapsulation by Non-RBridge Nodes...8

      5. Benefits of Non-RBridge Performing TRILL Encapsulation..9
      5.1. Avoid Nickname Exhaustion Issue.......................9
      5.2. Reduce MAC Tables for Switches on Bridged LANs........9

      6. Manageability Considerations...........................11
      7. Security Considerations................................11
      8. IANA Considerations....................................12

      Normative References......................................13
      Informative References....................................13

      Authors' Addresses........................................14

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

1. Introduction

   This document describes how data center networks can benefit from
   non-RBridge nodes performing TRILL encapsulation with assistance from
   a directory service and specifies a method for them to do so.

   [RFC7067] and [RFC8171] describe the framework and methods for edge
   RBridges to get MAC&VLAN <-> Edge RBridge mapping from a directory
   service instead of flooding unknown destination MAC addresses across
   a TRILL domain. If it has the needed directory information, any node,
   even a non-RBridge node, can perform the TRILL data packet
   encapsulation.  This draft describes the benefits of and a scheme for
   non-RBridge nodes performing TRILL encapsulation.

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

2. Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   AF:       Appointed Forwarder RBridge port [RFC8139].

   Bridge:   An IEEE 802.1Q compliant device. In this draft, Bridge is
             used interchangeably with Layer 2 switch.

   DA:       Destination Address.

   ES-IS:    End System to Intermediate Systems [RFC8171].

   Host:     A physical server or a virtual machine running
             applications. A host usually has at least one IP address
             and at least one MAC address.

   IS-IS:    Intermediate System to Intermediate System [RFC7176].

   SA:       Source Address.

   TRILL-EN: TRILL Encapsulating node. A node that performs the TRILL
             encapsulation but doesn't participate in RBridge's IS-IS

   VM:       Virtual Machines.

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

3. Directory Assistance to Non-RBridge

   With directory assistance [RFC7067] [RFC8171], a non-RBridge node can
   learn if a data packet needs to be forwarded across the RBridge
   domain and if so the corresponding egress RBridge. Suppose the
   RBridge domain boundary starts at network switches (not virtual
   switches embedded on servers), a directory can assist Virtual
   Switches embedded on servers to encapsulate with a proper TRILL
   header by providing the nickname of the egress RBridge edge to which
   the destination is attached. The other information needed to
   encapsulate can be either learned by listening to TRILL ES-IS and/or
   IS-IS Hellos [RFC7176] [RFC8171], which will indicate the MAC address
   and nickname of appropriate local edge RBridges, or by configuration.

   If a destination is not known to be attached to one or more RBridge
   edge nodes, based on the directory, the non-RBridge node can forward
   the data frames natively, i.e. not encapsulating with any TRILL
   header. Or, if the directory is known to be complete, the non-RBridge
   node can discard such data frames.

          \              +-------+         +------+ TRILL Domain/
           \           +/------+ |       +/-----+ |            /
            \          | Aggr11| + ----- |AggrN1| +           /
             \         +---+---+/        +------+/           /
              \         /     \            /      \         /
               \       /       \          /        \       /
                \   +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+   /
                 \- |T11|... |T1x|      |T21| ..  |T2y|---
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+
                      |        |          |         |
                    +-|-+    +-|-+      +-|-+     +-|-+
                    |   |... | V |      | V | ..  | V |<- vSwitch
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+
                    |   |... | V |      | V | ..  | V |
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+
                    |   |... | V |      | V | ..  | V |
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+

           Figure 1. TRILL domain in typical Data Center Network

   When a TRILL encapsulated data packet reaches the ingress RBridge,
   that RBridge simply performs the usual TRILL processing and forwards
   the pre-encapsulated packet to the RBridge that is specified by the
   egress nickname field of the TRILL header.  When an ingress RBridge
   receives a native Ethernet frame, it handles it as usual and may drop
   it if it has complete directory information indicating that the
   target is not attached to the TRILL campus. In an environment with
   complete directory information, the ingress RBridge doesn't flood or
   forward the received data frames when the destination MAC address in

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

   the Ethernet data frames is unknown.

   When all end nodes attached to an ingress RBridge pre-encapsulate
   with a TRILL header for traffic across the TRILL domain, the ingress
   RBridge don't need to encapsulate any native Ethernet frames to the
   TRILL domain. The attached nodes can be connected to multiple edge
   RBridges by having multiple ports or through a bridged LAN.  All
   RBridge edge ports connected to one bridged LAN can receive and
   forward pre-encapsulated traffic, which can greatly improve the
   overall network utilization. However, it is still necessary to
   designate AF ports to, for example, be sure that multi-destination
   packets from the TRILL campus are only egressed through one RBridge.

   The TRILL base protocol specification [RFC6325] Section 4.6.2 Bullet
   8 specifies that an RBridge port can be configured to accept TRILL
   encapsulated frames from a neighbor that is not an RBridge.

   When a TRILL frame arrives at an RBridge whose nickname matches the
   destination nickname in the TRILL header of the frame, the processing
   is exactly as normal: as specified in [RFC6325] the RBridge
   decapsulates the received TRILL frame and forwards the decapsulated
   frame to the target attached to its edge ports.  When the destination
   MAC address of the decapsulated Ethernet frame is not in the egress
   RBridge's local MAC attachment tables, the egress RBridge floods the
   decapsulated frame to all attached links in the frame's VLAN, or
   drops the frame (if the egress RBridge is configured with that

   We call a node that, as specified herein, only performs TRILL
   encapsulation, but doesn't participate in RBridge's IS-IS routing, a
   TRILL Encapsulating node (TRILL-EN). The TRILL Encapsulating Node can
   pull MAC&VLAN <-> Edge RBridge mapping from directory servers
   [RFC8171]. In order to do this, a TRILL-EN MUST support TRILL ES-IS

   Upon receiving or locally generating a native Ethernet frame, the
   TRILL-EN checks the MAC&VLAN <-> Edge RBridge mapping, and perform
   the corresponding TRILL encapsulation if the mapping entry is found.
   If the destination MAC address and VLAN of the received Ethernet
   frame doesn't exist in the mapping table and there is no positive
   reply from pull requests to a directory, the Ethernet frame is
   dropped or is forwarded in native form to an edge RBridge, depending
   on the TRILL-EN configuration.

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

       |OuterEtherHd|TRILL HD| InnerDA | InnerSA |..|Payload|FCS|
               |             |<Inner Ether Header>  |
               |       +-------+  TRILL    +------+
               |       |  R1   |-----------|  R2  |  Decapsulate
               |       +---+---+  domain   +------+  TRILL header
               v           |                   |
               +---------->|                   |
                           |                   |
                        +-----+             +-----+
      Non-RBridge node: |T12  |             | T22 |
      Encapsulate TRILL +-----+             +-----+
      Header for data
      Frames to traverse TRILL domain.

                  Figure 2.  Data frames from a TRILL-EN

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

4. Source Nickname in Encapsulation by Non-RBridge Nodes

   The TRILL header includes a Source RBridge's Nickname (ingress) and
   Destination RBridge's Nickname (egress). When a TRILL header is added
   to a data packet by a TRILL-EN, the Ingress RBridge nickname field in
   the TRILL header is set to a nickname of the AF for the data packet's
   VLAN. The TRILL-EN determines the AF by listening to IS-IS Hellos
   from the edge RBridges on the link with the TRILL-EN in the same way
   that the RBridges on the link determine the AF [RFC8139]. A TRILL-EN
   is free to send the encapsulated data frame to any of the edge
   RBridges on its link.

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

5. Benefits of Non-RBridge Performing TRILL Encapsulation

   This section summarizing benefits of having a non-RBridge node
   perform TRILL encapsulation.

5.1. Avoid Nickname Exhaustion Issue

   For a large Data Center with hundreds of thousands of virtualized
   servers, setting the TRILL boundary at the servers' virtual switches
   will create a TRILL domain with hundreds of thousands of RBridge
   nodes, which has issues of TRILL Nickname exhaustion and challenges
   to IS-IS. On the other hand, setting the TRILL boundary at
   aggregation switches that have many virtualized servers attached can
   limit the number of RBridge nodes in a TRILL domain, but introduces
   the issue of very large MAC&VLAN <-> Edge RBridge mapping tables to
   be maintained by RBridge edge nodes.

   Allowing Non-RBridge nodes to pre-encapsulate data frames with TRILL
   header makes it possible to have a TRILL domain with a reasonable
   number of RBridge nodes in a large data center. All the TRILL-ENs
   attached to one RBridge can be represented by one TRILL nickname,
   which can avoid the Nickname exhaustion problem.

5.2. Reduce MAC Tables for Switches on Bridged LANs

   When hosts in a VLAN (or subnet) span across multiple RBridge edge
   nodes and each RBridge edge has multiple VLANs enabled, the switches
   on the bridged LANs attached to the RBridge edge are exposed to all
   MAC addresses among all the VLANs enabled.

   For example, for an Access Switch with 40 physical servers attached,
   where each server has 100 VMs, there are 4000 hosts under the Access
   Switch. If indeed hosts/VMs can be moved anywhere, the worst case for
   the Access Switch is when all those 4000 VMs belong to different
   VLANs, i.e. the access switch has 4000 VLANs enabled. If each VLAN
   has 200 hosts, this access switch's MAC table potentially has
   200*4000 = 800,000 entries.

   If the virtual switches on servers pre-encapsulate the data frames
   destined for hosts attached to remote RBridge Edge nodes, the outer
   MAC destination address of those TRILL encapsulated data frames will
   be the MAC address of a local RBridge edge, i.e.  the ingress
   RBridge. The switches on the local bridged LAN don't need to keep the
   MAC entries for remote hosts attached to other edge RBridges.

   But the TRILL traffic from nodes attached to other RBridges is

L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

   decapsulated and has the true source and destination MACs. One simple
   way to prevent local bridges from learning remote hosts' MACs and
   adding to their MAC tables, if that would be a problem, is to disable
   this data plane learning on local bridges. The local bridges can be
   pre-configured with MAC addresses of local hosts with the assistance
   of a directory.  The local bridges can always send frames with
   unknown destination MAC addresses to the ingress RBridge. In an
   environment where a large number of VMs are instantiated in one
   server, the number of remote MAC addresses could be very large. If it
   is not feasible to disable learning and pre- configure MAC tables for
   local bridges and all important traffic is IP, one effective method
   to minimize local bridges' MAC table size is to use the server's MAC
   address to hide MAC addresses of the attached VMs. I.e., the server
   acting as an edge node uses its own MAC address in the source MAC
   address field of the packets originated from a host (or VM) embedded.
   When the Ethernet frame arrives at the target edge node (the egress),
   the target edge node can send the packet to the corresponding
   destination host based on the packet's IP address. Very often, the
   target edge node communicates with the embedded VMs via a layer 2
   virtual switch. In this case, the target edge node can construct the
   proper Ethernet header with the assistance of the directory.  The
   information from the directory includes the proper host IP to MAC
   mapping information.

L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

6. Manageability Considerations

   Directory assistance [RFC8171] is required to make it possible for a
   non-TRILL node to pre-encapsulate packets destined towards remote
   RBridges. TRILL-EN have the same configuration options as any pull
   directory client.

7. Security Considerations

   The mechanism described in this document requires non-RBridge nodes
   to be aware of the MAC address(es) of the TRILL edge node(s) to which
   the TRILL-EN is attached and the egress RBridge nickname from which
   the destination of the packets is reachable. With that information,
   TRILL-ENs can learn a substantial amount about the topology of the
   TRILL domain. Therefore, there could be a potential security risk
   when the TRIL-ENs are not trusted.  In addition, if the path between
   the directory and the TRILL-ENs are attacked, false mappings can be
   sent to the TRILL-EN causing packets from the TRILL-EN to be sent to
   wrong destinations, possibly violating security policy. Therefore, a
   combination of authentication and encryption should be used between
   the Directory and TRILL-EN. The entities involved will need to
   properly authenticate with each other to protect sensitive

   For Pull Directory and TRILL ES-IS security considerations, see

   For general TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325].

L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 11]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

8. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: please remove
   this section before publication.

L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 12]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,
          March 1997, <>.

   [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,

   [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, <>.

   [RFC8139] Eastlake 3rd, D., Li, Y., Umair, M., Banerjee, A., and F.
          Hu, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
          Appointed Forwarders", RFC 8139, DOI 10.17487/RFC8139, June
          2017, <>.

   [RFC8171] Eastlake 3rd, D., Dunbar, L., Perlman, R., and Y. Li,
          "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Edge
          Directory Assistance Mechanisms", RFC 8171, DOI
          10.17487/RFC8171, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-

Informative References

   [RFC7067] Dunbar, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., and I.
          Gashinsky, "Directory Assistance Problem and High-Level Design
          Proposal", RFC 7067, DOI 10.17487/RFC7067, November 2013,


   The following are thanked for their contributions:

      Igor Gashinsky
      Ben Nevin-Jenkins

   The document was prepared in raw nroff. All macros used were defined
   within the source file.

L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 13]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

Authors' Addresses

      Linda Dunbar
      Huawei Technologies
      5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 175
      Plano, TX 75024, USA

      Phone: +1-469-277-5840

      Donald Eastlake
      Huawei Technologies
      155 Beaver Street
      Milford, MA 01757 USA

      Phone: +1-508-333-2270

      Radia Perlman
      2010 256th Avenue NE, #200
      Bellevue, WA 98007 USA


L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 14]

INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap

Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( 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.  The definitive version of
   an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
   IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
   including those that are translated into other languages, should not
   be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
   definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
   that are published by third parties, including those that are
   translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
   definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.  For the avoidance of
   doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
   Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
   Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
   language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
   from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
   RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
   published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such

L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 15]