[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-mrw-trill-over-ip)  00 01 02 03         Standards Track
          04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16                        
          17                                                            
INTERNET-DRAFT                                           Margaret Cullen
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                     Painless Security
Updates: 7177, 7178                                      Donald Eastlake
                                                            Mingui Zhang
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           Dacheng Zhang
                                                                 Alibaba
Expires: January 5, 2016                                    July 6, 2015


      Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) over IP
                   <draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-03.txt>



Abstract
   The Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) protocol is
   implemented by devices called TRILL Switches or RBridges (Routing
   Bridges). TRILL supports both point-to-point and multi-access links
   and is designed so that a variety of link protocols can be used
   between TRILL switch ports. This document standardizes methods for
   encapsulating TRILL in IP (v4 or v6) so as to use IP as a TRILL link
   protocol in a unified TRILL campus. It updates RFC 7177 and RFC 7178.


Status of This Document

   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 author or the DNSEXT mailing list <dnsext@ietf.org>.

   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.








Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


Table of Contents

      1. Introduction............................................4
      2. Terminology.............................................4

      3. Use Cases for TRILL over IP.............................5
      3.1 Remote Office Scenario.................................5
      3.2 IP Backbone Scenario...................................5
      3.3 Important Properties of the Scenarios..................5
      3.3.1 Security Requirements................................6
      3.3.2 Multicast Handling...................................6
      3.3.3 RBridge Neighbor Discovery...........................7

      4. TRILL Packet Formats....................................8
      5. Some Link Protocol Specifics............................9

      6. TRILL over IP Port Configuration.......................10
      6.1 Per IP Port Configuration.............................10
      6.2 Additional per IP Address Cofiguration................10
      6.2.1 Native Multicast Configuration......................10
      6.2.2 Serial Unicast Configuration........................11
      6.2.3 Encapsulation Specific Configuration................11
      6.2.3.1 VXLAN Configuration...............................11
      6.2.3.2 Other Encapsulation Configuration.................12
      6.2.4 Security Configuration..............................12

      7. TRILL over IP Encapsulation Formats....................13
      7.1 Encapsulation Agreement...............................14
      7.2 IPsec ESP Format......................................14
      7.3 Broadcast Link Encapsulation Considerations...........15
      7.4 Native Encapsulaton...................................15
      7.5 VXLAN Encapsulation...................................16
      7.6 Other Encpaulsations..................................17

      8. Handling Multicast.....................................18

      9. Use of IPsec...........................................19
      9.1 Default Keys..........................................19
      9.2 Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms.....................19

      10. Transport Considerations..............................20
      10.1 Recursive Ingress....................................20
      10.2 Fat Flows............................................20
      10.3 Congestion Considerations............................21
      10.4 MTU Considerations...................................22
      10.5 QoS Considerations...................................23

      11. Middlebox Considerations..............................24
      12. Security Considerations...............................25



Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


Table of Contents (continued)

      13. IANA Considerations...................................26
      13.1 Port Assignments.....................................26
      13.2 Multicast Address Assignments........................26
      13.3 Encapsulation Method Support Indication..............26

      Normative References......................................28
      Informative References....................................30

      Acknowledgements..........................................31

      Authors' Addresses........................................32







































Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


1. Introduction

   TRILL switches (RBridges) are devices that implement the IETF TRILL
   protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7177] [rfc7180bis].

   RBridges provide transparent forwarding of frames within an arbitrary
   network topology, using least cost paths for unicast traffic. They
   support not only VLANs and Fine Grained Labels [RFC7172] but also
   multipathing of unicast and multi-destination traffic. They use IS-IS
   link state routing and encapsulation with a hop count.

   Ports on different RBridges can communicate with each other over
   various link types, such as Ethernet [RFC6325], pseudowires
   [RFC7173], or PPP [RFC6361].

   This document defines a method for RBridges to communicate over IP
   (v4 or v6). TRILL over IP will allow Internet-connected RBridges to
   form a single TRILL campus, or multiple TRILL over IP networks within
   a campus to be connected as a single TRILL campus via a TRILL over IP
   backbone.

   TRILL over IP connects RBridge ports using IPv4 or IPv6 as a
   transport in such a way that the ports appear to TRILL to be
   connected by a single multi-access link. Therefore, if more than two
   RBridge ports are connected via a single TRILL over IP link, any pair
   of them can communicate.

   To support the scenarios where RBridges are connected via IP paths
   (such as over the public Internet) that are not under the same
   administrative control as the TRILL campus and/or not physically
   secure, this document specifies the use of IPsec [RFC4301]
   Encapsulating Security Protocol [RFC4303] to secure all or part of
   such paths.

   To support the use of TRILL over IP encapsulation with good fast path
   hardware support, a method is provided for agreement between adjacent
   TRILL switches as to what encapsulation to use.  This document
   updates [RFC7177] and [RFC7178] as described in Section 7 by
   redefining an interval of RBridge Channel protocol numbers to
   indicate encapsulation method support for TRILL over IP and by making
   adjacency between TRILL over IP ports dependent on having a method of
   encapsulation in common.



2. Terminology

   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].


Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


3. Use Cases for TRILL over IP

   This section introduces two application scenarios (a remote office
   scenario and an IP backbone scenario) which cover typical situations
   where network administrators may choose to use TRILL over an IP
   network to connect TRILL switches.



3.1 Remote Office Scenario

   In the Remote Office Scenario, a remote TRILL network is connected to
   a TRILL campus across a multihop IP network, such as the public
   Internet. The TRILL network in the remote office becomes a part of
   TRILL campus, and nodes in the remote office can be attached to the
   same VLANs or Fine Grained Labels [RFC7172] as local campus nodes. In
   many cases, a remote office may be attached to the TRILL campus by a
   single pair of RBridges, one on the campus end, and the other in the
   remote office. In this use case, the TRILL over IP link will often
   cross logical and physical IP networks that do not support TRILL, and
   are not under the same administrative control as the TRILL campus.



3.2 IP Backbone Scenario

   In the IP Backbone Scenario, TRILL over IP is used to connect a
   number of TRILL networks to form a single TRILL campus. For example,
   a TRILL over IP backbone could be used to connect multiple TRILL
   networks on different floors of a large building, or to connect TRILL
   networks in separate buildings of a multi-building site. In this use
   case, there may often be several TRILL switches on a single TRILL
   over IP link, and the IP link(s) used by TRILL over IP are typically
   under the same administrative control as the rest of the TRILL
   campus.



3.3 Important Properties of the Scenarios

   There are a number of differences between the above two application
   scenarios, some of which drive features of this specification. These
   differences are especially pertinent to the security requirements of
   the solution, how multicast data frames are handled, and how the
   TRILL switch ports discover each other.







Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


3.3.1 Security Requirements

   In the IP Backbone Scenario, TRILL over IP is used between a number
   of RBridge ports, on a network link that is in the same
   administrative control as the remainder of the TRILL campus. While it
   is desirable in this scenario to prevent the association of
   unauthorized RBridges, this can be accomplished using existing IS-IS
   security mechanisms. There may be no need to protect the data
   traffic, beyond any protections that are already in place on the
   local network.

   In the Remote Office Scenario, TRILL over IP may run over a network
   that is not under the same administrative control as the TRILL
   network. Nodes on the network may think that they are sending traffic
   locally, while that traffic is actually being sent, in an IP tunnel,
   over the public Internet. It is necessary in this scenario to protect
   the integrity and confidentiality of user traffic, as well as
   ensuring that no unauthorized RBridges can gain access to the RBridge
   campus. The issues of protecting integrity and confidentiality of
   user traffic are addressed by using IPsec for both TRILL IS-IS and
   TRILL Data packets between RBridges in this scenario.



3.3.2 Multicast Handling

   In the IP Backbone scenario, native IP multicast may be supported on
   the TRILL over IP link. If so, it can be used to send TRILL IS-IS and
   multicast data packets, as discussed later in this document.
   Alternatively, multi-destination packets can be transmitted serially
   by IP unicast to the intended recipients.

   In the Remote Office Scenario there will often be only one pair of
   RBridges connecting a given site and, even when multiple RBridges are
   used to connect a Remote Office to the TRILL campus, the intervening
   network may not provide reliable (or any) multicast connectivity.
   Issues such as complex key management also make it difficult to
   provide strong data integrity and confidentiality protections for
   multicast traffic. For all of these reasons, the connections between
   local and remote RBridges will commonly be treated like point-to-
   point links, and all TRILL IS-IS control messages and multicast data
   packets that are transmitted between the Remote Office and the TRILL
   campus will be serially transmitted by IP unicast, as discussed later
   in this document.








Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


3.3.3 RBridge Neighbor Discovery

   In the IP Backbone Scenario, RBridges that use TRILL over IP can use
   the normal TRILL IS-IS Hello mechanisms to discover the existence of
   other RBridges on the link [RFC7177], and to establish authenticated
   communication with those RBridges.

   In the Remote Office Scenario, an IPsec session will need to be
   established before TRILL IS-IS traffic can be exchanged, as discussed
   below. In this case, one end will need to be configured to establish
   a IPSEC session with the other. This will typically be accomplished
   by configuring the RBridge or a border device at a Remote Office to
   initiate an IPsec session and subsequent TRILL exchanges with a TRILL
   over IP-enabled RBridge attached to the TRILL campus.






































Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


4. TRILL Packet Formats

   To support the TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325], two types of
   packets are transmitted between RBridges: TRILL Data packets and
   TRILL IS-IS packets.

   The on-the-wire form of a TRILL Data packet in transit between two
   neighboring RBridges is as shown below:

      +--------------+----------+----------------+-----------+
      | TRILL Data   |  TRILL   |  Native Frame  |   Link    |
      | Link Header  |  Header  |     Payload    |  Trailer  |
      +--------------+----------+----------------+-----------+

   Where the encapsulated Native Frame Payload is similar to an Ethernet
   frame with a VLAN tag or Fine Grained Label [RFC7172] but with no
   trailing Frame Check Sequence (FCS).

   TRILL IS-IS packets are formatted on-the-wire as follows:

      +--------------+---------------+-----------+
      | TRILL IS-IS  |  TRILL IS-IS  |   Link    |
      | Link Header  |    Payload    |  Trailer  |
      +--------------+---------------+-----------+

   The Link Header and Link Trailer in these formats depend on the
   specific link technology. The Link Header contains one or more fields
   that distinguish TRILL Data from TRILL IS-IS. For example, over
   Ethernet, the TRILL Data Link Header ends with the TRILL Ethertype
   while the TRILL IS-IS Link Header ends with the L2-IS-IS Ethertype;
   on the other hand, over PPP, there are no Ethertypes but PPP protocol
   code points are included that distinguish TRILL Data from TRILL IS-
   IS.

   In TRILL over IP, we will use IP (v4 or v6) in the link header. (On
   the wire, the IP header will be preceeded by the lower layer protocol
   that is carrying IP, such as Ethernet.) However, there are several IP
   based encapsulations usable for TRILL over IP as further discussed in
   Section 7 that differ in exactly what appears after the IP header and
   before the TRILL header.












Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


5. Some Link Protocol Specifics

   TRILL Data packets can be unicast to a specific RBridge or multicast
   to all RBridges on a link. TRILL IS-IS packets are always multicast
   to all other RBridge on the link (except for MTU PDUs, which may be
   unicast [RFC7177]. On Ethernet links, the Ethernet multicast address
   All-RBridges is used for TRILL Data and All-IS-IS-RBridges for TRILL
   IS-IS.

   To properly handle TRILL base protocol packets on a TRILL over IP
   link in the general case, either native IP multicast mode must be
   used on that link, or multicast must be simulated using serial IP
   unicast, as discussed in Section 8. (Of course, if the IP link
   happens to actually be point-to-point no special provision is needed
   for handling multicast addressed packets.)

   In TRILL Hello PDUs used on TRILL IP links, the IP addresses of the
   connected IP ports are their real SNPA (SubNetwork Point of
   Attachment [IS-IS]) addresses and, for IPv6, the 16-byte IPv6 address
   is used as the SNPA; however, for easy in re-using code designed for
   common 48-bit IS-IS SNPAs, for TRILL over IPv4, a 48-bit synthetic
   SNPA that looks like a unicast MAC address is constructed for use in
   the SNPA field of TRILL Neighbor TLVs [RFC7176] [RFC7177] on that
   link. This synthetic SNPA derived from an IPv4 address is as follows:

                           1 1 1 1 1 1
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  0xFE         |  0x00         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  IPv4 upper half              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  IPv4 lower half              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   This synthetic SNPA (MAC) address has the local (0x02) bit on in the
   first byte and so cannot conflict with any globally unique 48-bit
   Ethernet MAC. However, at the IP level, where TRILL operates on an IP
   link, TRILL sees only IP stations, not MAC stations, even if the
   TRILL over IP Link is being carried over Ethernet, so conflict on the
   link in TRILL IS-IS between a real MAC address and the synethic SNPA
   (MAC) address as above would be impossible in any case.










Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


6. TRILL over IP Port Configuration

   This section specifies the configuration information needed at a
   TRILL over IP port beyond that needed for a general RBridge port.



6.1 Per IP Port Configuration

   Each RBridge port used for a TRILL over IP link should have at least
   one IP (v4 or v6) address. If no IP address is associated with the
   port, perhaps as a transient condition during re-configuration, the
   port is disabled. Implementations MAY allow a single port to operate
   as multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 logical ports. Each IP address
   constitutes a different logical port and the RBridge with those ports
   MUST associate a different Port ID (see Section 4.4.2 of [RFC6325])
   with each logical port.

   By default an TRILL over IP port discards output packets that fail
   the possible recursive ingress test (see Section 10.1) unless
   configured to disable that test.



6.2 Additional per IP Address Cofiguration

   The configuration information specified below is per IP address at a
   TRILL over IP port.

   The mapping from TRILL packet priority to Differentiated Services
   Code Point (DSCP [RFC2474]) can be configured (see Section 10.5).

   Each TRILL over IP port has a list of acceptable encapsulations it
   will use. By default this list consists of one entry for native
   encapsulation. (See Section 7.) Additional configuration is possible
   for specific encapsulations as described in Section 6.2.3.

   Each IP address at a TRILL over IP port uses native IP multicast by
   default but may be configured whether to use serial IP unicast
   (Section 6.2.2) or native IP multicast (Section 6.2.1). Each IP
   address at a TRILL over IP is configured whether or not to use IPsec
   (Section 6.2.3).



6.2.1 Native Multicast Configuration

   If a TRILL over IP port address is using native IP multicast for
   multi-destination TRILL packets (IS-IS and data), by default
   transmissions from that IP address use the appropriate IP multicast


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   address (IPv4 or IPv6) specified in Section 13.2. The TRILL over IP
   port may be configured to use a different IP multicast address for
   multi-destination packets.



6.2.2 Serial Unicast Configuration

   If a TRILL over IP port address has been configured to use serial
   unicast for multi-destination packets (IS-IS and data), it should
   have associated with it a non-empty list of unicast IP destination
   addresses with the same IP version as the version of the ports IP
   address (IPv4 or IPv6). Multi-destination TRILL packets are serially
   unicast to the addresses in this list. Such a TRILL over IP port will
   only be able to form adjacencies [RFC7177] with the RBridges at the
   addresses in this list as those are the only RBridges to which it
   will send TRILL Hellos.

   If this list of destination IP addresses is empty, there is no way to
   transmit a multi-destination TRILL over IP packet such as a TRILL
   Hello. Thus it is impossible to achieve adjacency [RFC7177] or if
   adjacency had been achieved (perhaps the list was non-empty and has
   just been configured to be empty), no way to maintain such adjacency.
   Thus, in the empty list case, TRILL Data multi-destination packets
   cannot be sent and TRILL Data unicast packets will not start flowing
   or, if they are already flowing, will soon cease, effectively
   disabling the port.



6.2.3 Encapsulation Specific Configuration

   Specific TRILL over IP encapsulation methods may provide for futher
   configuration as specified in the subsections below.



6.2.3.1 VXLAN Configuration

   A TRILL over IP port using VXLAN encapsulation can be configured with
   a non-default VXLAN Network Identifier (VNI) which is used in that
   field of the VXLAN header for all TRILL packets sent using the
   encapsulation and required in all TRILL packets received using the
   encapsulation. In this case, a TRILL packet received with the wrong
   VNI is discarded.

   A TRILL over IP port using VXLAN encapsulation can also be configured
   to place the Inner.VLAN or Inner.FGL of a TRILL Data packet being
   transported in the VNI field.



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


6.2.3.2 Other Encapsulation Configuration

   [Specific configuration for other encapsulation methods will be added
   here.]



6.2.4 Security Configuration

   tbd ...










































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


7. TRILL over IP Encapsulation Formats

   There are a variety of TRILL over IP formats possible. In all cases,
   there must be a method specified, with each format, to distinguish
   TRILL Data and TRILL IS-IS packets, or that format is not useful for
   TRILL. The following criteria can be helpful is choosing between
   different encapsulations:

   a) Fast path support - For most applications, it is highly desireable
      to be able to encapsulate/decpasulate TRILL over IP at line speed
      so a format where existing or anticipated fast path hardware can
      do that is best.

   b) Ease of multi-pathing - The IP path between TRILL over IP port may
      include internal equal cost multipath routes so a method of
      encapsulation that provides variable fields available for existing
      or anticipated fast path hardware multi-pathing is better.

   c) Fragmentaton and robust ID support - tbd

   d) Checksum strength - Depending on the particular circumstances of
      the TRILL over IP link, a checksum provided by the encapsulation
      may be an important factor. Use of IPsec as provided herein can
      also provide a strong integrity check.

   TRILL over IP adopts a hybrid encapsulation approach by default.

   There is one format, called "native encapsulation" that MUST be
   implemented. Although native encapsulation does not typically have
   good fast path support, as a lowest common denominator it can be used
   with low bandwidth control messages to detetmine a preferred
   encapsulation with better performance. In particular, by default all
   TRILL IS-IS Hellos are sent using native encapsulation and those
   Hellos are used to determine the encpasulation used for all TRILL
   Data packets and all other TRILL IS-IS PDUs with the possible
   exception of IS-IS MTU-probe and MTU-ack PDUs as discussed in Section
   7.

   Alternatively, the network operator can pre-configure a TRILL over IP
   port to use a particular encapsulation choosen for their particular
   network needs and TRILL over IP port capabiliies for all TRILL data
   and IS-IS packets.

   Section 7.1 discusses encapsulation agreement. Section 7.2 discusses
   TRILL over IP IPsec ESP format, which is independent of
   encapsulation. Section 7.3 discusses broadcast link encapsulation
   considerations. The subsequent subsections discuss particular
   encapsulations.




Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


7.1 Encapsulation Agreement

   TRILL Hellos sent out a TRILL over IP port indicate the
   encapsulations that port is willing to use through the mechanism
   described in [RFC7178] and [RFC7176]. RBridge Channel Protocol
   numbers 0xFC0 through 0xFF7 are hereby redefined to be link
   technology dependent flags that, for TRILL over IP, indicate support
   for different encapsulations, allowing for up to 24 encapsulations to
   be specified. Support for an encapsulation is indicated in the Hello
   PDU in the same way that support for an RBridge Channel was
   indicated. (See also section 13.3.) "Support" indicates willingness
   to use that encapsulation for TRILL data and TRILL IS-IS other than
   Hellos. Even if support is not indicated for native encapsulation, by
   default support for native encapsulation of TRILL Hellos is assumed.

   If no encapsulation support is indicated in a TRILL Hello, then the
   port from which it was sent is assumed to support only native
   encapsualtion (see Section 7.4).

   An adjacency is formed between two TRILL over IP ports ONLY if the
   intersection of the sets of encapsulation methods they support is not
   null. If that intersection is null, then no adjaceny is formed. In
   particular, for a TRILL over IP link, the adjacency state machine
   MUST NOT advance to the Report state unless the ports share an
   encapsulation [RFC7177].

   If any TRILL over IP packet, other than a IS-IS Hello or MTU PDU in
   native encapsulation, is received in an encapsulation for which
   support is not being indicated, it MUST be discarded (see Section
   7.3).

   It expected to normally be the case in a well configured network that
   all the TRILL over IP ports connected to an IP network that are
   intended to communicate with each other will support the same
   encapsulation. But the network will operate correctly if this is not
   true.



7.2 IPsec ESP Format

   TRILL over IP link security uses IPsec Encapsulating Security
   Protocol (ESP) in tunnel mode [RFC4303]. Since TRILL over IP always
   starts with an IP Header (on the wire this appears right after any
   required Layer 2 header), the modifications when IPsec is in effect
   are independent of the TRILL over IP encapsulation fields that occur
   after that IP Header and before the TRILL Header. The resulting
   packet formats are as follows for IPv4 and IPv6:




Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


          ------------------------------------------------------------
    IPv4  | new IP hdr  |     | TRILL IP hdr  |  TRILL  | ESP   | ESP|
          |(any options)| ESP | (any options) |  Encap2 |Trailer| ICV|
          ------------------------------------------------------------
                              |<--------- encryption ---------->|
                        |<------------- integrity ------------->|

          -------------------------------------------------------------
    IPv6  | new  |new ext |   | orig |orig ext |  TRILL  | ESP   | ESP|
          |IP hdr| hdrs   |ESP|IP hdr| hdrs    |  Encap2 |Trailer| ICV|
          ------------------------------------------------------------.
                              |<--------- encryption ----------->|
                          |<------------ integrity ------------->|

   The "TRILL Encap2" above includes whatever additional fields are
   required by the encapsulation in use followed by the TRILL Header and
   then the native frame payload (see Section 4).

   This architecture permits the ESP tunnel termination to be separated
   from the TRILL over IP RBridge port and, for example, placed at a
   physical or administrative security boundary.



7.3 Broadcast Link Encapsulation Considerations

   It is possible for the Hellos from a TRILL over IP port P1 to
   establish adjacency with multiple other TRILL over IP ports (P2, P3,
   ...) forming a broadcast link. In a well configured network one would
   expect such multiple other IP ports to support the same encapsulation
   but, if P1 supports multiple encapsulations, it is possible that P2
   and P3, for example, do not have an encapsulation in common that is
   supported by P1. IS-IS can handle such non-transitive adjacencies
   which are reported as specified in [RFC7177]. If serial IP unicast is
   being used by P1, it can use different encapsulatons for different
   transmission.  If native IP multicast is being used by P1, it will
   have to send one transmission per encapsulation method by which it
   has an adjanceny on the link. (It is for this reason that a TRILL
   over IP port MUST discard any packet received with the wrong
   encapsulation. Otherwise, packets would be duplicated.)



7.4 Native Encapsulaton

   The mandatory to implement "native encapsulaton" format of a TRILL
   over IP packet, when used without security, is TRILL over UDP as
   shown below.




Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


               +----------+--------+-----------------------+
               | IP       | UDP    |  TRILL                |
               | Header   | Header |  Payload              |
               +----------+--------+-----------------------+

   Where the UDP Header is as follows:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Source Port = Entropy      |      Destination Port         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TRILL Payload ...

      Source Port - see Section 10.2

      Destination Port - indicates TRILL Data or IS-IS, see Section 13

      UDP Length - as specified in [RFC0768]

      UDP Checksum - as specified in [RFC0768]

   The TRILL Payload starts with the TRILL Header (not including the
   TRILL Ethertype) for TRILL Data packets and starts with the 0x83
   Intradomain Routeing Protocol Discriminator byte (thus not including
   the L2-IS-IS Ethertype) for TRILL IS-IS packets.



7.5 VXLAN Encapsulation

   VXLAN [RFC7348] IP encapsulation of TRILL looks, on the wire, as
   TRILL over Ethernet over VXLAN over UDP over IP.

   The outer UDP uses a destination port number indicating VXLAN and the
   outer UDP source port may be used for entropy as with native
   encapsulation (see Section 7.2). The VXLAN header after the outer UDP
   header adds a 24 bit Virtual Network Identifier. The Ethernet header
   after the VXLAN header and before the TRILL header provides an
   Ethertype field that distinguishes TRILL data from TRILL IS-IS;
   however, the destination and source MAC addresses in this inner
   Ethernet header before the TRILL header are not used and represent 12
   wasted bytes.

   A TRILL over IP port using VXLAN encapsulation by default uses a VNI
   of 1 but can be configured as described in Section 6.2.3.1.




Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


7.6 Other Encpaulsations

   [Additional encpasulations will be added here as additional
   subsections.]
















































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


8. Handling Multicast

   By default, both TRILL IS-IS packets and multi-destination TRILL Data
   packets are sent to an All-RBridges IPv4 or IPv6 IP multicast Address
   as appropriate (see Section 13.2); however, a TRILL over IP port may
   be configured (see Section 6) to use serial IP unicast with a list of
   one or more unicast IP addresses of other TRILL over IP ports to
   which multi-destination packets are sent. In that case the outer IP
   header shows the IP unicast even through the TRILL header has the M
   bit set to one to indicate multi-destination. Serial unicast
   configuration is necessary if the TRILL over IP port is connected to
   an IP network that does not support IP multicast. In any case,
   unicast TRILL packets are sent by unicast IP.

   When a TRILL over IP port is using IP multicast, it MUST periodically
   transmit appropriate IGMP (IPv4 [RFC3376] or MLD (IPv6 [RFC2710])
   packets so that the TRILL multicast IP traffic will be sent to it.

   Although TRILL fully supports broadcast links with more than 2
   RBridges connected to the link, even where native IP multicast is
   available, there may be good reasons for configuring TRILL over IP
   ports to use serial unicast. In some networks, unicast is more
   reliable than multicast. If multiple unicast connections between
   parts of a TRILL campus are configured, TRILL will in any case spread
   traffic across them, treating them as parallel links, and
   appropriately fail over traffic if a link ceases to operate or
   incorporate a new link that comes up.

























Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


9. Use of IPsec

   All RBridges that support TRILL over IP MUST implement IPsec
   [RFC4301] and support the use of IPsec Encapsulating Security
   Protocol (ESP [RFC4303]) to secure both TRILL IS-IS and TRILL data
   packets. When IPsec is used to secure a TRILL over IP link and no IS-
   IS security is enabled, the IPsec session MUST be fully established
   before any TRILL IS-IS or data packets are exchanged. When there is
   IS-IS security [RFC5310] provided, implementors may elect use IS-IS
   security to protect TRILL IS-IS packets. However, in this case, the
   IPsec session still MUST be fully established before any data packets
   transmission since IS-IS security does not provide any protection to
   data packets.



9.1 Default Keys

   The default pre-shared keys for IPsec usage are derived as follows:

      HMAC-SHA256 ("TRILL IP"| IS-IS-shared key )

   In the above "|" indicates concatenation, HMAC-SHA256 is as described
   in [FIPS180] [RFC6234] and "TRILL IP" is the eight byte US ASCII
   [RFC0020] string indicated. "IS-IS-shared key" is a link (or wider
   scope) IS-IS key usable for IS-IS security of link local IS-IS local
   PDUs such as Hello, CSNP, and PSNP. With [RFC5310] there could be
   multiple keys identified with 16-bit key IDs. In this case, the Key
   ID of IS-IS-shared key is also used to identify the derived key.

   Although we are using pre-shared keys at the IPsec level, the IS-IS-
   shared keys from which they are derived expire and can be updated as
   described in RFC 5310.  The derived keys MUST expire within the
   lifetime as the IS-IS-shared keys from which they were derived.



9.2 Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms

   All RBridges that support TRILL over IP MUST implement the following
   algorithms for IPsec ESP, as recommended in [RFC4308]:

      Protocol            ESP [RFC4303]
      ESP encryption      AES with 128-bit keys in CBC mode [RFC3602]
      ESP integrity       AES-XCBC-MAC-96 [RFC3566]







Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 19]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


10. Transport Considerations

   This section discusses a variety of transport considerations.



10.1 Recursive Ingress

   TRILL is designed to transport end station traffic to and from end
   stations over IEEE 802.3 and IP is frequently transported over IEEE
   802.3 or similar protocols. Thus, an end station native data frame EF
   might get TRILL ingressed to TRILL(EF) which was then sent oout a
   TRILL over IP over 802.3 port resulting in an 802.3 frame of the form
   802.3(IP(TRILL(EF))).  There is a risk of such a packet being re-
   ingressed by the same TRILL campus, due to physical or logical
   misconfiguration, looping round, being further re-ingressed, etc. The
   packet might get discarded if it got too large but if fragmentation
   is enabled, it would just keep getting split into fragments that
   would continue to loop and grow and re-fragment until the path was
   saturated with junk and packets were being discarded due to queue
   overflow. The TRILL Header TTL would provide no protection because
   each TRILL ingress adds a new Header and TTL.

   To protect against this scenario, a TRILL over IP port MUST by,
   default, test whether a TRILL packet it is about to transmit is, in
   fact a TRILL ingress of a TRILL over IP over 802.3 or the like
   packets. That is, is it of the form TRILL(802.3(IP(TRILL(...)))? If
   so, the default action of the TRILL over IP output port is to discard
   the packet rather than transmit it. However, there are cases where
   some level of nested ingress is desired so it MUST be possible to
   configure the port to allow such packets.



10.2 Fat Flows

   For the purpose of load balancing, it is worthwhile to consider how
   to transport the TRILL packets over the Equal Cost Multiple Paths
   (ECMPs) existing internal to the IP path between two TRILL over IP
   ports.

   The ECMP election for the IP traffic could be based, at least for
   IPv4, on the quintuple of the outer IP header { Source IP,
   Destination IP, Source Port, Destination Port, and IP protocol }.
   Such tuples, however, could be exactly the same for all TRILL Data
   packets between two RBridge ports, even if there is a huge amount of
   data being sent between a variety of ingress and egress RBridges.
   Therefore, in order to better support ECMP, a RBridge SHOULD set the
   Source Port as an entropy field for ECMP decisions. (This idea is
   also introduced in [gre-in-udp].) For example, for TRILL Data this


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 20]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   entropy field could be based on the Inner.MacDA, Inner.MacSA, and
   Inner.VLAN or Inner.FGL.



10.3 Congestion Considerations

   Section 3.1.3 of [RFC5405] discussed the congestion implications of
   UDP tunnels. As discussed in [RFC5405], because other flows can share
   the path with one or more UDP tunnels, congestion control [RFC2914]
   needs to be considered.

   The default initial determination of the TRILL over IP encapsulation
   to be used through the exchange of TRILL IS-IS Hellos is a low
   bandwidth process. Hellos are not permitted to be sent any more often
   than once per second, and so are unlikely to cause congestion.

   One motivation for including UDP in a TRILL encapsulation is to
   improve the use of multipath (such as ECMP) in cases where traffic is
   to traverse routers which are able to hash on UDP Port and IP
   address. In many cases this may reduce the occurrence of congestion
   and improve usage of available network capacity. However, it is also
   necessary to ensure that the network, including applications that use
   the network, responds appropriately in more difficult cases, such as
   when link or equipment failures have reduced the available capacity.

   The impact of congestion must be considered both in terms of the
   effect on the rest of the network of a UDP tunnel that is consuming
   excessive capacity, and in terms of the effect on the flows using the
   UDP tunnels. The potential impact of congestion from a UDP tunnel
   depends upon what sort of traffic is carried over the tunnel, as well
   as the path of the tunnel.

   TRILL is used to carry a wide range of traffic. In many cases TRILL
   is used to carry IP traffic. IP traffic is generally assumed to be
   congestion controlled, and thus a tunnel carrying general IP traffic
   (as might be expected to be carried across the Internet) generally
   does not need additional congestion control mechanisms. As specified
   in [RFC5405]:

   "IP-based traffic is generally assumed to be congestion- controlled,
   i.e., it is assumed that the transport protocols generating IP-based
   traffic at the sender already employ mechanisms that are sufficient
   to address congestion on the path. Consequently, a tunnel carrying
   IP-based traffic should already interact appropriately with other
   traffic sharing the path, and specific congestion control mechanisms
   for the tunnel are not necessary".

   For this reason, where TRILL is sent using UDP and used to carry IP
   traffic that is known to be congestion controlled, the UDP paths MAY


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 21]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   be used across any combination of a single or cooperating service
   providers or across the general Internet.

   However, TRILL is also used to carry traffic that is not necessarily
   congestion controlled. For example, TRILL may be used to carry
   traffic where specific bandwidth guarantees are provided.

   In such cases congestion may be avoided by careful provisioning of
   the network and/or by rate limiting of user data traffic. Where TRILL
   is carried, directly or indirectly, over UDP over IP, the identity of
   each individual TRILL flow is in general lost.

   For this reason, where the TRILL traffic is not congestion
   controlled, TRILL over UDP/IP MUST only be used within a single
   service provider that utilizes careful provisioning (e.g., rate
   limiting at the entries of the network while over-provisioning
   network capacity) to ensure against congestion, or within a limited
   number of service providers who closely cooperate in order to jointly
   provide this same careful provisioning. As such, TRILL over UDP/IP
   MUST NOT be used over the general Internet, or over non-cooperating
   service providers, to carry traffic that is not congestion-
   controlled.

   Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent non-congestion-controlled TRILL
   over UDP/IP traffic from "escaping" to the general Internet, for
   example the following:

   a. Physical or logical isolation of the TRILL over IP links from the
      general Internet.

   b. Deployment of packet filters that block the UDP ports assigned for
      TRILL-over-UDP.

   c. Imposition of restrictions on TRILL over UDP/IP traffic by
      software tools used to set up TRILL over UDP paths between
      specific end systems (as might be used within a single data
      center).

   d. Use of a "Managed Circuit Breaker" for the TRILL traffic as
      described in [circuit-breaker].



10.4 MTU Considerations

   In TRILL each RBridge advertises in its LSP number zero the largest
   LSP frame it can accept (but not less than 1,470 bytes) on any of its
   interfaces (at least those interfaces with adjacencies to other
   RBridges in the campus) through the originatingLSPBufferSize TLV
   [RFC6325] [RFC7177]. The campus minimum MTU, denoted Sz, is then


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 22]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   established by taking the minimum of this advertised MTU for all
   RBridges in the campus. Links that do not meet the Sz MTU are not
   included in the routing topology. This protects the operation of IS-
   IS from links that would be unable to accommodate some LSPs.

   A method of determining originatingLSPBufferSize for an RBridge with
   one or more TRILL over IP ports is described in [rfc7180bis].
   However, if an IP link either can accommodate jumbo frames or is a
   link on which IP fragmentation is enabled and acceptable, then it is
   unlikely that the IP link will be a constraint on the
   originatingLSPBufferSize of an RBridge using the link. On the other
   hand, if the IP link can only handle smaller frames and fragmentation
   is to be avoided when possible, a TRILL over IP port might constrain
   the RBridge's originatingLSPBufferSize. Because TRILL sets the
   minimum values of Sz at 1,470 bytes, there may be links that meet the
   minimum MTU for the IP protocol (1,280 bytes for IPv6, theoretically
   68 bytes for IPv4) on which it would be necessary to enable
   fragmentation for TRILL use.

   The optional use of TRILL IS-IS MTU PDUs, as specified in [RFC6325]
   and [RFC7177] can provide added assurance of the actual MTU of a
   link.



10.5 QoS Considerations

   Within TRILL, priority is indicated by a three bit (0 through 7)
   priority field in TRILL data packets and by configuration for TRILL
   IS-IS packets.  When TRILL packets are sent on a TRILL over IP link,
   this priority is mapped to a Differential Services Code Point (DSCP
   [RFC2474] Section 4.2.2).

   The default mapping, which may be configured per TRILL over IP port,
   is an follows. Note that, to provide a potentially lower priority
   service than the default 0, priority 1 is considered lower priority
   than 0. So the priority squence from lower to higher priority is 1,
   0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

      TRILL Priority  DiffServ Field (Binary/decimal)
      --------------  -------------------------------
                  0    00100000 / 8
                  1    00000000 / 0
                  2    01000000 / 16
                  3    01100000 / 24
                  4    10000000 / 32
                  5    10100000 / 40
                  6    11000000 / 48
                  7    11100000 / 56



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 23]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


11. Middlebox Considerations

   TBD ...

















































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 24]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


12. Security Considerations

   TRILL over IP is subject to all of the security considerations for
   the base TRILL protocol [RFC6325]. In addition, there are specific
   security requirements for different TRILL deployment scenarios, as
   discussed in the "Use Cases for TRILL over IP" section above.

   This document specifies that all RBridges that support TRILL over IP
   MUST implement IPsec, and makes it clear that it is both wise and
   good to use IPsec in all cases where a TRILL over IP link will
   traverse a network that is not under the same administrative control
   as the rest of the TRILL campus or is not physically secure. IPsec is
   necessary, in these cases to protect the privacy and integrity of
   data traffic.

   TRILL over IP is compatible with the use of IS-IS Security [RFC5310],
   which can be used to authenticate RBridges before allowing them to
   join a TRILL campus. This is sufficient to protect against rogue
   RBridges, but is not sufficient to protect data packets that may be
   sent in IP outside of the local network, or even across the public
   Internet. To protect the privacy and integrity of that traffic, use
   IPsec.

   In cases were IPsec is used, the use of IS-IS security may not be
   necessary, but there is nothing about this specification that would
   prevent using both IPsec and IS-IS security together. In cases where
   both types of security are enabled, by default, a key derived from
   the IS-IS key will be used for IPsec.
























Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 25]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


13. IANA Considerations

   IANA considerations are given below.



13.1 Port Assignments

   IANA has allocated the following destination UDP Ports for the TRILL
   IS-IS and Data channels:

          UDP Port           Protocol
         ----------         ---------------------
          (TBD1)             TRILL IS-IS Channel
          (TBD2)             TRILL Data Channel



13.2 Multicast Address Assignments

   IANA has allocated one IPv4 and one IPv6 multicast address, as shown
   below, which correspond to the All-RBridges and All-IS-IS-RBridges
   multicast MAC addresses that the IEEE Registration Authority has
   assigned for TRILL. Because the low level hardware MAC address
   dispatch considerations for TRILL over Ethernet do not apply to TRILL
   over IP, one IP multicast address for each version of IP is
   sufficient.

   (Values recommended to IANA in square brackets)

      Name              IPv4                  IPv6
   ------------      ------------------   --------------------------
   All-RBridges      TBD3[233.252.14.0]   TBD4[FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:205]

   Note: when these IPv4 and IPv6 multicast addresses are used and the
   resulting IP frame is sent over Ethernet, the usual IP derived MAC
   address is used.

   [Need to discuss scopes for IPv6 multicast (the "X" in the addresses)
   somewhere. Default to "site" scope but MUST be configurable?]



13.3 Encapsulation Method Support Indication

   The existing "RBridge Channel Protocols" registry is re-named and a
   new sub-registry under that registry added as follows:

   The TRILL Parameters registry for "RBridge Channel Protocols" is
   renamed the "RBridge Channel Protocols and Link Technology Flags"


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 26]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   registry. [this document] is added as a second reference for this
   registry. The first part of the table is changed to the following:

         Range      Registration        Note
      -----------   ----------------   ----------------------------
      0x002-0x0FF   Standards Action
      0x100-0xFBF   RFC Required       allocation of a single value
      0x100-0xFBF   IESG Approval      allocation of multiple values
      0xFC0 0xFF7   see Note           link technology dependent,
                                       see subregistry

   In the existing table of RBridge Channel Protocols, the following
   line is changed to two lines as shown:

      OLD
        0x004-0xFF7   Unassigned
      NEW
        0x004-0xFBF   Unassigned
        0xFC0-0xFF7   (link technology dependent, see subregistry)

   A new subregistry under the newly named "RBridge Channel Protocols
   and Link Technology Flags" registry is added as follows:

      Name: TRILL over IP Link Flags
      Registration Procedure: IETF Review
      Reference: [this document]

          Flag      Meaning
      -----------  ------------------------------
            0xFC0  Native encapsulation supported
            0xFC1  VXLAN encapsulation supported
      0xFC2-0xFF7  Unassigned




















Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 27]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


Normative References

   [IS-IS] - "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
         information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the
         Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
         (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 2002".

   [RFC0020] - Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
         RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc20>.

   [RFC0768] - Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI
         10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
         Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,
         March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2474] - Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
         "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in
         the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474,
         December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2710] - Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
         Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, DOI
         10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC2914] - Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
         2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc2914>.

   [RFC3376] - Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
         Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3",
         RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc3376>.

   [RFC3566] - Frankel, S. and H. Herbert, "The AES-XCBC-MAC-96
         Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec", RFC 3566, DOI
         10.17487/RFC3566, September 2003, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc3566>.

   [RFC3602] - Frankel, S., Glenn, R., and S. Kelly, "The AES-CBC Cipher
         Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 3602, DOI
         10.17487/RFC3602, September 2003, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc3602>.

   [RFC4301] - Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
         Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, December


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 28]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


         2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC4303] - Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
         4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc4303>.

   [RFC4308] - Hoffman, P., "Cryptographic Suites for IPsec", RFC 4308,
         DOI 10.17487/RFC4308, December 2005, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc4308>.

   [RFC5405] - Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
         Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October 2008,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

   [RFC5310] - Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
         and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC
         5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 2009, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7177] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H.,
         and V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
         (TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177, May 2014,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.

   [RFC7178] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Manral, V., Li, Y., Aldrin, S., and D.
         Ward, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
         RBridge Channel Support", RFC 7178, DOI 10.17487/RFC7178, May
         2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7178>.

   [RFC7348] - Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
         L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
         eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
         Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks",
         RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [rfc7180bis] - Eastlake, D., et al, "TRILL: Clarifications,
         Corrections, and Updates", draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis, work in
         progress.



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 29]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   [FIPS180] - "Secure Hash Standard (SHS)", United States of American,
         National Institute of Science and Technology, Federal
         Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 180-4, March 2012.



Informative References

   [RFC6234] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash
         Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI
         10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC6361] - Carlson, J. and D. Eastlake 3rd, "PPP Transparent
         Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol Control
         Protocol", RFC 6361, DOI 10.17487/RFC6361, August 2011,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6361>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7173] - Yong, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Aldrin, S., and J. Hudson,
         "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transport
         Using Pseudowires", RFC 7173, DOI 10.17487/RFC7173, May 2014,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7173>.

   [gre-in-udp] - Crabbe, E., Yong, L., and X. Xu, "Generic UDP
         Encapsulation for IP Tunneling", draft-yong-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-
         encap, work in progress.

   [circuit-breaker] - Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit
         Breakers", draft-ietf-tsvwg-circuit-breaker, work in progress.

















Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 30]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


Acknowledgements

   The following people have provided useful feedback on the contents of
   this document: Sam Hartman, Adrian Farrel.

   Some material in Section 10.2 is derived from draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp
   by Xiaohu Xu, Nischal Sheth, Lucy Yong, Carlos Pignataro, and
   Yongbing Fan.

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









































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 31]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


Authors' Addresses

      Margaret Cullen
      Painless Security
      356 Abbott Street
      North Andover, MA  01845
      USA

      Phone: +1 781 405-7464
      Email: margaret@painless-security.com
      URI:   http://www.painless-security.com


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

      Phone: +1 508 333-2270
      Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com


      Mingui Zhang
      Huawei Technologies
      No.156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District,
      Beijing 100095 P.R. China

      EMail: zhangmingui@huawei.com


      Dacheng Zhang
      Alibaba
      Beijing, Chao yang District
      P.R. China

      Email: dacheng.zdc@alibaba-inc.com



Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   Copyright (c) 2015 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


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 32]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                             TRILL over IP


   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.
















































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 33]