TRILL Working Group                                                Y. Li
INTERNET-DRAFT                                               D. Eastlake
Intended Status: Standard Track                                   W. Hao
                                                                 H. Chen
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                           Radia Perlman
                                                                     EMC
                                                            Naveen Nimmu
                                                                Broadcom
                                                           S. Chatterjee
                                                                   Cisco
                                                       Sunny Rajagopalan
                                                                     IBM
Expires: September 4, 2015                                 March 3, 2015


   TRILL: Data Label based Tree Selection for Multi-destination Data
                  draft-yizhou-trill-tree-selection-04


Abstract

   TRILL uses distribution trees to deliver multi-destination frames.
   Multiple trees can be used by an ingress RBridge for flows regardless
   of the VLAN, Fine Grained Label (FGL), and/or multicast group of the
   flow. Different ingress RBridges may choose different distribution
   trees for TRILL Data packets in the same VLAN, FGL, and/or multicast
   group. To avoid unnecessary link utilization, distribution trees
   should be pruned based on VLAN and/or FGL and/or multicast
   destination address. If any VLAN, FGL, or multicast group can be sent
   on any tree, for typical fast path hardware, the amount of pruning
   information is multiplied by the number of tree; however, there is a
   limited capacity for such pruning information.

   This document specifies an optional facility to restrict the TRILL
   Data packets sent on particular distribution trees by VLAN, FGL,
   and/or multicast group thus reducing the total amount of pruning
   information so that it can more easily be accommodated by fast path
   hardware.


Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that



Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   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 and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Background Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2. Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2. Terminology Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3. Data Label based Tree Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2. Sub-TLVs for the Router Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.1. The Tree and VLANs APPsub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.2. The Tree and VLANs Used APPsub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.2.3. The Tree and FGLs APPsub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.2.4. The Tree and FGLs Used APPsub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3. Detailed Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.4. Failure Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.5. Multicast Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14



Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   4. Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.1  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     7.2  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17











































Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


1. Introduction

1.1.  Background Description

   One or more distribution trees, identified by their root nickname,
   are used to distribute multi-destination data in a TRILL campus
   [RFC6325]. The RBridge having the highest tree root priority
   announces the total number of trees that should be computed for the
   campus. It may also specify the ordered list of trees that RBridges
   need to compute using the Tree Identifiers (TREE-RT-IDs) sub-TLV
   [RFC7176]. Every RBridge can specify the trees it will use in the
   Trees Used Identifiers (TREE-USE-IDs) sub-TLV and the VLANs or fine
   grained labels (FGLs [RFC7172]) it is interested in are specified in
   Interested VLANs and/or Interested Labels sub-TLVs [RFC7176]. It is
   suggested that, by default, the ingress RBridge use the distribution
   tree whose root is the closest [RFC6325]. Trees Used Identifiers sub-
   TLVs are used to build the RPF Check table that is used for reverse
   path forwarding check; Interested VLANs and Interested Labels sub-
   TLVs are used for distribution tree pruning and the multi-destination
   forwarding table with pruning info is built based on that. Each
   distribution tree SHOULD be pruned per VLAN/FGL, eliminating branches
   that have no potential receivers downstream [RFC6325]. Further
   pruning based on Layer 2 or Layer 3 multicast address is also
   possible.

   Defaults are provided but it is implementation dependent how many
   trees to calculate, where the tree roots are located, and which
   tree(s) are to be used by an ingress RBridge. With the increasing
   demand to use TRILL in data center networks, there are some features
   we can explore for multi-destination frames in the data center use
   case. In order to achieve non-blocking data forwarding, a fat tree
   structure is often used. Figure 1 shows a typical fat tree structure
   based data center network. RB1 and RB2 are aggregation switches and
   RB11 to RB14 are access switches. It is a common practice to
   configure the tree roots to be at the aggregation switches for more
   efficient traffic transportation. All the ingress RBridges that are
   access switches have the same distance to all the tree roots.














Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


                       +-----+    +-----+
                       | RB1 |    | RB2 |
                       +-----+    +-----+
                        / | \\     / /|\
                       /  |  \ \  / / | \
                      /   |   \  \ /  |  \-----+
                     /    |    \/  \  |        |
                    /     |    /\/   \|        |
                   /  /---+---/ /\    |\       |
                  /  /    |    /  \   |  \     |
                 /  /     |   /    \  |    \   |
                /  /      |  /      \ |      \ |
             +-----+   +-----+   +-----+   +-----+
             | RB11|   | RB12|   | RB13|   | RB14|
             +-----+   +-----+   +-----+   +-----+

            Figure 1. Fat Tree Structure based TRILL network

1.2. Motivations

   In the structure of figure 1, if we choose to put the tree roots at
   RB1 and RB2, the ingress RBridge (e.g. RB11) would find more than one
   closest tree root (i.e. RB1 & RB2). An ingress RBridge has two
   options to select the tree root for multi-destination frames: choose
   one and only one as distribution tree root or use ECMP-like algorithm
   to balance the traffic among the multiple trees whose roots are at
   the same distance.

   - For the former, a single tree used by each ingress RBridge, can
   have the obvious problem of inefficient link usage. For example, if
   RB11 chooses the tree1 that is rooted at RB1 as the distribution
   tree, the link between RB11 and RB2 will never be used for multi-
   destination frames ingressed by RB11.

   - For the latter, ECMP based tree selection results in a linear
   increase in multicast forwarding table size with the number of trees
   as explained in the next paragraph.

   A multicast forwarding table at an RBridge is normally used to map
   the key of (tree nickname + VLAN) to an index to a list of ports for
   multicast packet replication. The key used for mapping is simply the
   tree nickname when the RBridge does not prune the tree and the key
   could be (tree nickname + VLAN + Layer 2 or 3 multicast address) when
   the RBridge was programmed by control plane with Layer 2 or 3
   multicast pruning information.

   For any RBridge RBn, for each VLAN x, if RBn is in a distribution
   tree t for VLAN x, there will be an entry of (t, x, port list) in the



Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   multicast forwarding table on RBn. Typically each entry contains a
   distinct combination of (tree nickname, VLAN) as the lookup key. If
   there are n such trees and m such VLANs, the multicast forwarding
   table size on RBn is n*m entries. If fine-grained label is used
   [RFC7172] and/or finer pruning is used (for example, VLAN + multicast
   group address is used for pruning), the value of m increases. In the
   larger scale data center, more trees would be necessary for better
   load balancing purpose and it results in the increasing of value n.
   In either case, the number of table entries n*m will increase
   dramatically.

   The left table in Figure 2 shows an example of the multicast
   forwarding table on RB11 in the Figure 1 topology with 2 distribution
   trees in a campus using typical fast path hardware. The number of
   entries is approximately 2 * 4K in this case. If 4 distribution trees
   are used in a TRILL campus and RBn has 4K VLANs with downstream
   receivers, it consumes 16K table entries. TRILL multicast forwarding
   tables have a limited size in hardware implementation. The table
   entries are a precious resource. In some implementations, the table
   is shared with Layer 3 IP multicast for a total of 16K or 8K table
   entries. Therefore we want to reduce the table size consumed as much
   as possible and at the same time maintain the load balancing among
   trees.

   In cases where blocks of consecutive VLANs or FGLs can be assigned to
   a tree, it would be very helpful in compressing the multicast
   forwarding table if entries could have a Data Label value and mask
   and the fast path hardware could do longest prefix matching. But few
   if any fast path implementations provide such logic.

   A straightforward way to alleviate the limited table entries problem
   is not to prune the distribution tree. However this can only be used
   in the restricted scenarios for the following reasons:

   - Not pruning unnecessarily wastes bandwidth for multi-destination
   packets. There is broadcast traffic in each VLAN, like ARP and
   unknown unicast. In addition, if there is a lot of Layer 3 multicast
   traffic in some VLAN, no pruning may result in the worse consequence
   of Layer 3 user data unnecessarily flooded over the campus. The
   volume could be huge if certain applications like IPTV are supported.
   Finer pruning like pruning based on multicast group may be desirable
   in this case.

   - Not pruning is only useful at pure transit nodes. Edge nodes always
   need to maintain the multicast forwarding table with the key of (tree
   nickname + VLAN) since the edge node needs to decide whether and how
   to replicate the frame to local access ports based on VLAN. It is
   very likely that edge nodes are relatively low scale switches with



Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   the smaller shared table size, say 4K, available.

   - Security concerns. VLAN based traffic isolation is a basic
   requirement in some scenarios. No pruning may result in the
   unnecessary leakage of the traffic. Misbehaved RBridges may take
   advantage of this.

   In addition to the multicast table size concern, some silicon does
   not currently support hashing-based tree nickname selection at the
   ingress RBridge. VLAN based tree selection is used instead. The
   control plane of the ingress RBridge maps the incoming VLAN x to a
   tree nickname t. Then the data plane will always use tree t for VLAN
   x multi-destination frames. Though an ingress RBridge may choose
   multiple trees to be used for load sharing, it can use one and only
   one tree for each VLAN. If we make sure all ingress RBridges campus-
   wide send VLAN x multi-destination packets only using tree t, then
   there would be no need to store the multicast table entry with the
   key of (tree-other- than-t, x) on any RBridge.

   This document describes the TRILL control plane support for a VLAN
   based tree selection mechanism to reduce the multicast forwarding
   table size. It is compatible with the silicon implementation
   mentioned in the previous paragraph. Here VLAN based tree selection
   is a general term which also includes finer granularity case such as
   VLAN + Layer 2 or 3 multicast or FGL group based selection.


2. Terminology Used in This Document

   This document uses the terminology from [RFC6325] and [RFC7172], some
   of which is repeated below for convenience, along with some
   additional terms listed below:

   campus: Name for a TRILL network, like "bridged LAN" is a name for a
   bridged network. It does not have any academic implication.

   Data Label: VLAN or FGL.

   ECMP: Equal Cost Multi-Path [RFC6325].

   FGL: Finge Grainge Lable [RFC7172].

   IPTV: "Television" (video) over IP.

   RBridge: An alternative name for a TRILL switch.

   TRILL: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (or Tunneled
   Routing in the Link Layer).



Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   TRILL switch: A device implementing the TRILL protocol. Sometimes
   called an RBridge.

   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].


3. Data Label based Tree Selection

   Data Label based tree selection can be used as a complementary
   distribution tree selection mechanism, especially when the multicast
   forwarding table size is a concern.

3.1 Overview

   The tree root with the highest priority announces the tree nicknames
   and the Data Labels allowed on each tree. Such tree to Data Label
   correspondence announcements can be based on static configuration or
   some predefined algorithm beyond the scope of this document. An
   ingress RBridge selects the tree-VLAN correspondence it wishes to use
   from the list announced by the highest priority tree root. It SHOULD
   NOT transmit VLAN x frame on tree y if the highest priority tree root
   does not say VLAN x is allowed on tree y.

   If we make sure one VLAN is allowed on one and only one tree, we can
   keep the number of multicast forwarding table entries on any RBridge
   fixed at 4K maximum (or up to 16M in case of fine grained label).
   Take Figure 1 as example, two trees rooted at RB1 and RB2
   respectively. The highest priority tree root appoints the tree1 to
   carry VLAN 1-2000 and tree2 to carry VLAN 2001-4095. With such
   announcement by the highest priority tree root, every RBridge which
   understands the announcement will not send VLAN 2001-4095 traffic on
   tree1 and not send VLAN 1-2000 traffic on tree2. Then no RBridge
   would need to store the entries for tree1/VLAN2001-4095 or
   tree2/VLAN1-2000. Figure 2 shows the multicast forwarding table on an
   RBridge before and after we perform the VLAN based tree selection.
   The number of entries is reduced by a factor f, f being the number of
   trees used in the campus. In this example, it is reduced from 2*4095
   to 4095. This affects both transit nodes and edge nodes. Data plane
   encoding does not change.










Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |tree nickname |VLAN |port list|  |tree nickname |VLAN |port list|
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     |  1  |         |  |   tree 1     |  1  |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     |  2  |         |  |   tree 1     |  2  |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     | ... |         |  |   tree 1     | ... |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     | ... |         |  |   tree 1     | 1999|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     | ... |         |  |   tree 1     | 2000|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     | 4094|         |  |   tree 2     | 2001|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 1     | 4095|         |  |   tree 2     | 2002|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     |  1  |         |  |   tree 2     | ... |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     |  2  |         |  |   tree 2     | 4094|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     | ... |         |  |   tree 2     | 4095|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+  +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     | ... |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     | ... |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     | ... |         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     | 4094|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+
   |   tree 2     | 4095|         |
   +--------------+-----+---------+

    Figure 2. Multicast forwarding table before (left) & after (right)


3.2. Sub-TLVs for the Router Capability TLV

   Four new APPsub-TLVs that can be carried in E-L1FS FS-LSPs
   [rfc7180bis] are defined below. They can be considered analogous to
   finer granularity versions of the Tree Identifiers Sub-TLV and the
   Trees Used Identifiers Sub-TLV in [RFC7176].

3.2.1. The Tree and VLANs APPsub-TLV

   The Tree and VLANs (TREE-VLANs) APPsub-TLV is used to announce the
   VLANs allowed on each tree by the RBridge that has the highest



Yizhou, et al                                                   [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   priority to be a tree root. Multiple instances of this sub-TLV may be
   carried. The same tree nicknames may occur in the multiple Tree-VLAN
   RECORDs within the same or across multiple sub-TLVs. The sub-TLV
   format 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
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |   Type = tbd1                 |         (2 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |   Length                      |         (2 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+
           |   Tree-VLAN RECORD (1)                    |  (6 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+
           |   .................                       |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+
           |   Tree-VLAN RECORD (N)                    |  (6 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+

   where each Tree-VLAN RECORD is of the form:
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |            Nickname                   |  (2 bytes)
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          | RESV  |        Start.VLAN             |  (2 bytes)
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          | RESV  |        End.VLAN               |  (2 bytes)
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o Type: TRILL GENINFO APPsub-TLV type, set to tbd1 (TREE-VLANs).

   o Length: 6*n bytes, where there are n Tree-VLAN RECORDs. Thus the
   value of Length can be used to determine n. If Length is not a
   multiple of 6, the sub-TLV is corrupt and MUST be ignored.

   o  Nickname: The nickname identifying the distribution tree by its
   root.

   o  RESV: 4 bits that MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.

   o  Start.VLAN, End.VLAN: These fields are the VLAN IDs of the allowed
   VLAN range on the tree, inclusive. To specify a single VLAN, the
   VLAN's ID appears as both the start and end VLAN. If End.VLAN is less
   than Start.VLAN the Tree-VLAN RECORD MUST be ignored.

3.2.2. The Tree and VLANs Used APPsub-TLV

   This APPsub-TLV has the same structure as the Tree and VLANs APPsub-
   TLV (TREE-VLANs) specified in Section 3.2.1.  The only difference is



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   that its APPsub-TLV type is set to tbd2 (TREE-VLAN-USE), and the
   Tree-VLAN RECORDs listed are those the originating RBridge allows.

3.2.3. The Tree and FGLs APPsub-TLV

   The Tree and FGLs (TREE-FGLs) APPsub-TLV is used to announce the FGLs
   allowed on each tree by the RBridge that has the highest priority to
   be a tree root. Multiple instances of this APPsub-TLV may be carried.
   The same tree nicknames may occur in the multiple Tree-FGL RECORDs
   within the same or across multiple APPsub-TLVs. Its format 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
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |   Type = tbd3                 |         (2 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |   Length                      |         (2 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+
           |   Tree-FGL RECORD (1)                     |  (8 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+
           |   .................                       |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+
           |   Tree-FGL RECORD (N)                     |  (8 bytes)
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+-+

   where each Tree-VLAN RECORD is of the form:
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          |            Nickname                   |         (2 bytes)
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+
          |            Start.FGL                          | (3 bytes)
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+
          |            End.FGL                            | (3 bytes)
          +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...-+

   o  Type: TRILL GENINFO APPsub-TLV type, set to tbd3 (TREE-FGLs).

   o  Length: 8*n bytes, where there are n Tree-FGL RECORDs. Thus the
   value of Length can be used to determine n. If Length is not a
   multiple of 8, the sub-TLV is corrupt and MUST be ignored.

   o  Nickname: The nickname identifying the distribution tree by its
   root.

   o  RESV: 4 bits that MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.

   o  Start.FGL, End.FGL: These fields are the FGL IDs of the allowed
   FGL range on the tree, inclusive.  To specify a single FGL, the FGL's



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   ID appears as both the start and end FGL. If End.FGL is less than
   Start.FGL the Tree-FGL RECORD MUST be ignored.

3.2.4. The Tree and FGLs Used APPsub-TLV

   This APPsub-TLV has the same structure as the Tree and FGLs APPsub-
   TLV (TREE-FGLs) specified in Section 3.2.3.  The only difference is
   that its APPsub-TLV type is set to tbd4 (TREE-FGL-USE), and the Tree-
   FGL RECORDs listed are those the originating RBridge allows.

3.3. Detailed Processing

   The highest priority tree root RBridge MUST include all the necessary
   tree related APPsub-TLVs defined in [RFC7176] as usual in its E-L1FS
   FS-LSP and MAY include the Tree and VLANs Sub-TLV (TREE-VLANs) and or
   Tree and FGLs Sub-TLV (TREE-FGLs) in its E-L1FS FS-LSP [rfc7180bis].
   In this way it MAY indicate that each VLAN and/or FGL is only allowed
   on one or some other number of trees less than the number of trees
   being calculated in the campus in order to save table space in the
   fast path forwarding hardware.

   An ingress RBridge that understands the TREE-VLANs APPsub-TLV SHOULD
   select the tree-VLAN correspondences it wishes to use and put them in
   TREE-VLAN-USE APPsub-TLVs. If there were multiple tree nicknames
   announced in TREE-VLANs Sub-TLV for a VLAN x, ingress RBridge must
   choose one of them if it supports this feature. For example, the
   ingress RBridge may choose the closest (minimum cost) root from them.
   How to make such choice is out of the scope of this document. It may
   be desirable to have some fixed algorithm to make sure all ingress
   RBs choose the same tree for VLAN x in this case. Any single Data
   Label that the ingress RBridge is interested in should be related to
   one and only one tree ID in TREE-VLAN-USE to minimize the multicast
   forwarding table size on other RBridges but as long as the Data Label
   is related to less than all the trees being calculated, it will
   reduce the burden on the forwarding table size.

   When an ingress RBridge tries to encapsulate a multi-destination
   frame for Data Label x, it SHOULD use the tree nickname that it
   selected previously in TREE-VLAN-USE or TREE-FGL-USE for Data Label
   x.

   If RBridge RBn does not perform pruning, it builds the multicast
   forwarding table exactly same as that in [RFC6325].

   If RBn prunes the distribution tree based on VLANs, RBn uses the
   information received in TREE-VLAN-USE APPsub-TLVs to mark the set of
   VLANs reachable downstream for each adjacency and for each related
   tree. If RBn prunes the distribution tree based on FGLs, RBn uses the



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 12]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   information received in TRILL-FGL-USE APPsub-TLVs to mark the set of
   FLGs reachable downstream for each adjacency and for each related
   tree.

   Logically, an ingress RBridge that does not support VLAN based tree
   selection is equivalent to the one that supports it and announces all
   the combination pair of tree-id-used and interested-vlan as TREE-
   VLAN-USE and correspondingly for FGL.

3.4. Failure Handling

   Failure of a tree root that is not the highest priority: It is the
   responsibility of the highest priority tree root to inform other
   RBridges of any change in the allowed tree-VLAN correspondence. When
   the highest priority tree root learns the root of tree t fails, it
   should re-assign the VLANs allowed on tree t to other trees or to a
   tree replacing the failed one.

   Failure of the highest priority tree root: It is RECOMMENDED that the
   second highest priority tree root be pre-configured with the proper
   knowledge of the tree-VLAN correspondence allowed when the highest
   priority tree root fails. The information announced by the second
   priority tree root would be stored by all RBridges but would not take
   effect unless the RBridge noticed the failure of the highest priority
   tree root. When the highest priority tree root fails, the former
   second priority tree root will become the highest priority tree root
   of the campus. When an RBridge notices the failure of the original
   highest priority tree root, it can immediately use the stored
   information announced by the original second priority tree root. It
   is recommended that the tree-VLAN correspondence information be pre-
   configured on the second highest priority tree root to be the same as
   that on the highest priority tree root for the trees other than the
   highest priority tree itself. This can minimize the change of
   multicast forwarding table in case of the highest priority tree root
   failure. For a large campus, it may make sense to pre-configure this
   information in a similar way on the third, fourth, or even lower
   priority tree root RBridges.

   In some transient conditions or in case of misbehavior by the highest
   priority tree root, an ingress RBridge may encounter the following
   scenarios:

   - No tree has been announced to allow VLAN x frames

   - An ingress RBridge is supposed to transmit VLAN x frames on tree t,
   but root of tree t is no longer reachable.

   For the second case, an ingress RBridge may choose another reachable



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 13]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   tree root which allows VLAN x according to the highest priority tree
   root announcement. If there is no such tree available, then it is
   same as the first case above. Then the ingress RBridge should be
   'downgraded' to a conventional BRridge with behavior as specified in
   [RFC6325]. A timer should be set to allow the temporary transient
   stage to complete before the change of responsive tree or 'downgrade'
   takes effect. The value of timer should at least be set to the LSP
   flooding time of the campus.

3.5. Multicast Extensions

   Data Label based tree selection is easily extended to (Data Label +
   Layer 2 or 3 multicast group) based tree selection. We can appoint
   multicast group 1 in VLAN 10 to tree1 and appoint group 2 in VLAN 10
   to tree2 for better load sharing. One additional APPsub-TLV is
   specified as follows:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Type = tbd5                 |  (2 byte)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Length                      |  (2 byte)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Tree Nickname           |  (2 bytes)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Group Sub-Sub-TLVs              (variable)
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+....


   o  Type: TRILL GENINFO APPsub-TLV type, set to tbd5 (TREE-GROUPs).

   o  Length: 2 + the length of the Group Sub-Sub TLVs included

   o  Nickname: The nickname identifying the distribution tree by its
   root.

   o  RESV: 4 bits that MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.

   o  Group Sub-Sub-TLVs: Zero or more of the TLV structure that are
   allowed as sub-TLVs of the GADDR TLV [RFC7176]. Each such TLV
   structure specifies a multicast group and either a VLAN or FGL.
   Although these TLV structure are considered sub-TLVs when they appear
   inside a GADDR TLV, they are technically sub-sub-TLVs when they
   appear inside the TREE-GROUPs APPsub-TLV.


4. Backward Compatibility

   RBridges MUST include the TREE-USE-IDs and INT-VLAN sub-TLVs in their



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 14]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   LSPs when required by [RFC6325] whether or not they supports the new
   TREE-VLAN-USE or TREE-FGL-USE sub-TLVs specified by this draft.

   RBridges that understand the new TREE-VLAN-USE sub-TLV sent from
   another RBridge RBn should use it to build the multicast forwarding
   table and ignore the TREE-USE-IDs and INT-VLAN sub-TLVs sent from the
   same RBridge. TREE-USE-IDs and INT-VLAN sub-TLVs are still useful for
   some purposes other than building multicast forwarding table, for
   example RPF table building, spanning tree root notification, etc. If
   the RBridge does not receive TREE-VLAN-USE sub-TLV from RBn, it uses
   the conventional way described in [RFC6325] to build the multicast
   forwarding table.

   For example, there are two distribution trees, tree1 and tree2 in the
   campus. RB1 and RB2 are RBridges that use the new APPsub-TLVs
   described in this document. RB3 is an old RBridge that is compatible
   with [RFC6325]. Assume RB2 is interested in VLANs 10 and 11 and RB3
   is interested in VLANs 100 and 101. Hence RB1 receives ((tree1,
   VLAN10), (tree2, VLAN11)) as TREE-VLAN-USE sub-TLV and (tree1, tree2)
   as TREE-USE-IDs sub-TLV from RB2 on port x. And RB1 receives (tree1)
   as TREE-USE-IDs sub-TLV and no TREE-VLAN-USE sub-TLV from RB3 on port
   y. RB2 and RB3 announce their interested VLANs in INT-VLAN sub-TLV as
   usual. Then RB1 will build the entry of (tree1, VLAN10, port x) and
   (tree2, VLAN11, port x) based on RB2's LSP and mechanism specified in
   this document. RB1 also builds entry of (tree1, VLAN100, port y),
   (tree1, VLAN101, port y), (tree2, VLAN100, port y), (tree2, VLAN101,
   port y) based on RB3's LSP in conventional way. The multicast
   forwarding table on RB1 with merged entry would be like the
   following.

         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |tree nickname |VLAN |port list|
         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |   tree 1     |  10 | x       |
         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |   tree 1     | 100 | y       |
         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |   tree 1     | 101 | y       |
         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |   tree 2     |  11 | x       |
         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |   tree 2     | 100 | y       |
         +--------------+-----+---------+
         |   tree 2     | 101 | y       |
         +--------------+-----+---------+

   It is expected that the table is not as small as the one where every
   RBridge supports the new TREE-VLAN-USE sub-TLVs. The worst case in a



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 15]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   hybrid campus is the number of entries equal to the number in current
   practice which does not support VLAN based tree selection. Such an
   extreme case happens when the interested VLAN set from the new
   RBridges is a subset of the interested VLAN set from the old
   RBridges.

   VLAN based tree selection is compatible with the current practice.
   Its effectiveness increases with more RBridge supporting this feature
   in the TRILL campus.

5. Security Considerations

   This document does not change the general RBridge security
   considerations of the TRILL base protocol. The APPsub-TLVs specified
   can be secured using the IS-IS authentication feature [RFC5310]. See
   Section 6 of [RFC6325] for general TRILL security considerations.

6. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assigne five new TRILL APPsub-TLV type codes as
   specified in Section 3 and update the TRILL Parameters registry as
   shown below.

         Type   Name            Reference
         ----   ----            ---------

         tbd1   TREE-VLANs     [this document]
         tbd2   TREE-VLAN-USE  [this document]
         tbd3   TREE-FGLs      [this document]
         tbd4   TREE-FGL-USE   [this document]
         tbd5   TREE-GROUPs    [this document]


7. References

7.1  Normative References



   [RFC6325] Perlman, R., et.al. "RBridge: Base Protocol Specification",
              RFC 6325, July 2011.

   [RFC6439] Eastlake, D. et.al., "RBridge: Appointed Forwarder", RFC
              6439, November 2011.

   [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, May 2014,



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 16]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.

   [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, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.

   [rfc7180bis] Eastlake 3rd, D. et. Al. draft-eastlake-trill-
              rfc7180bis, work in progress.


7.2  Informative References

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

8. Acknowledgments

   Authors wish to thank David M. Bond, Liangliang Ma, Rakesh Kumar R
   for the valuable comments (names in alphabet order).


Authors' Addresses


   Yizhou Li
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56624629
   Email: liyizhou@huawei.com

   Donald Eastlake
   Huawei R&D USA
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757 USA

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

   Weiguo Hao
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012



Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 17]


INTERNET DRAFT      Data Label based Tree Selection           March 2015


   China

   Phone: +86-25-56623144
   Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com

   Hao Chen
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   Email: philips.chenhao@huawei.com

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

   Email: Radia@alum.mit.edu

   Naveen Nimmu
   Broadcom
   9th Floor, Building no 9, Raheja Mind space
   Hi-Tec City, Madhapur,
   Hyderabad - 500 081, INDIA

   Phone: +1-408-218-8893
   Email: naveen@broadcom.com

   Somnath Chatterjee
   Cisco Systems,
   SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park,
   Outer ring road,
   Bangalore - 560087
   India

   Email: somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com

   Sunny Rajagopalan
   IBM

   Email: sunny.rajagopalan@us.ibm.com








Yizhou, et al                                                  [Page 18]