PPP Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol Control Protocol
RFC 6361
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (August 2011; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Donald Eastlake , James Carlson | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6361 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| IESG note | James Carlson (carlsonj@workingcode.com) is the document shepherd. | ||
| Send notices to | pppext-chairs@ietf.org | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Carlson
Request for Comments: 6361 WorkingCode
Category: Standards Track D. Eastlake 3rd
ISSN: 2070-1721 Huawei
August 2011
PPP Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol
Control Protocol
Abstract
The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) defines a Link Control Protocol
(LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of multiprotocol traffic
over point-to-point links. This document describes PPP support for
the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol,
allowing direct communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via
PPP links.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6361.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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.
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. PPP TRILL Negotiation ...........................................3
2.1. TNCP Packet Format .........................................3
2.2. TNP Packet Format ..........................................4
2.3. TLSP Packet Format .........................................5
3. TRILL PPP Behavior ..............................................5
4. Security Considerations .........................................6
5. IANA Considerations .............................................6
6. References ......................................................7
6.1. Normative References .......................................7
6.2. Informative References .....................................7
7. Acknowledgements ................................................8
1. Introduction
The TRILL Protocol [RFC6325] defines a set of mechanisms used to
communicate between RBridges. These devices can bridge together
large 802 networks using link-state protocols in place of the
traditional spanning tree mechanisms [RFC5556].
Over Ethernet, TRILL uses two separate Ethertypes to distinguish
between encapsulation headers, which carry user data, and link-state
messages, which compute network topology using a protocol based on
[IS-IS] [RFC6326]. These two protocols must be distinguished from
one another, and segregated from all other traffic.
In a network where PPP [RFC1661] is used to interconnect routers
(often over telecommunications links), it may be advantageous to be
able to bridge between Ethernet segments over those PPP links, and
thus integrate remote networks with an existing TRILL cloud. The
existing Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) [RFC3518] allows direct
bridging of Ethernet frames over PPP. However, this mechanism is
inefficient and inadequate for TRILL, which can be optimized for use
over PPP links.
To interconnect these devices over PPP links, three protocol numbers
are needed, and are reserved as follows:
Value (in hex) Protocol Name
-------------- -------------------------------------
005d TRILL Network Protocol (TNP)
405d TRILL Link State Protocol (TLSP)
805d TRILL Network Control Protocol (TNCP)
The usage of these three protocols is described in detail in the
following section.
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
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 [RFC2119].
2. PPP TRILL Negotiation
The TRILL Network Control Protocol (TNCP) is responsible for
negotiating the use of the TRILL Network Protocol (TNP) and TRILL
Link State Protocol (TLSP) on a PPP link. TNCP uses the same option
negotiation mechanism and state machine as described for LCP
(Section 4 of [RFC1661]).
TNCP packets MUST NOT be exchanged until PPP has reached the Network-
Layer Protocol phase. Any TNCP packets received when not in that
phase MUST be silently ignored.
The encapsulated network layer data, carried in TNP packets, and
topology information, carried in TLSP packets, MUST NOT be sent
unless TNCP is in the Opened state. If a TNP or TLSP packet is
received when TNCP is not in the Opened state and LCP is in the
Opened state, an implementation MUST silently discard the unexpected
TNP or TLSP packet.
2.1. TNCP Packet Format
Exactly one TNCP packet is carried in the PPP Information field, with
the PPP Protocol field set to hex 805d (TNCP). A summary of the TNCP
packet format is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left
to right.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Identifier | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+
Code
Only LCP Code values 1 through 7 (Configure-Request,
Configure-Ack, Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request,
Terminate-Ack, and Code-Reject) are used. All other codes SHOULD
result in a TNCP Code-Reject reply.
Identifier and Length
These are as documented for LCP.
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
Data
This field contains data formatted as described in Section 5 of
[RFC1661]. Codes 1-4 use Type-Length-Data sequences, Codes 5
and 6 use uninterpreted data, and Code 7 uses a Rejected-Packet,
all as described in [RFC1661].
Because no Configuration Options have been defined for TNCP,
negotiating the use of the TRILL Protocol with IS-IS for the link
state protocol is the default when no options are specified. A
future document may specify the use of Configuration Options to
enable different TRILL operating modes, such as the use of a
different link state protocol.
2.2. TNP Packet Format
When TNCP is in the Opened state, TNP packets are sent by setting the
PPP Protocol field to hex 005d (TNP) and placing TRILL-encapsulated
data representing exactly one encapsulated packet in the PPP
Information field.
A summary of this format is provided below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| V | R |M|Op-Length| Hop Count | Egress (RB2) Nickname |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ingress (RB1) Nickname | Inner Destination MAC ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
This is identical to the TRILL Ethernet format (Section 4.1 of
[RFC6325], "Ethernet Data Encapsulation"), except that the Outer MAC
(Media Access Control) header and Ethertype are replaced by the PPP
headers and Protocol Field, and the Ethernet Frame Check Sequence
(FCS) is not present. Both user data and End-Station Address
Distribution Information (ESADI) packets are encoded in this format.
The PPP FCS follows the encapsulated data on links where the PPP FCS
is in use.
Unlike the TRILL Ethernet encapsulation, PPP nodes do not have MAC
addresses, so no outer MAC is present. (High-Level Data Link Control
(HDLC) addresses MAY be present in some situations; such usage is
outside the scope of this document.)
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
2.3. TLSP Packet Format
When TNCP is in the Opened state, TLSP packets are sent by setting
the PPP Protocol field to hex 405d (TLSP) and placing exactly one
IS-IS Payload (Section 4.2.3 of [RFC6325], "TRILL IS-IS Frames") in
the PPP Information field.
Note that point-to-point IS-IS links have only an arbitrary circuit
ID, and do not use MAC addresses for identification.
3. TRILL PPP Behavior
1. On a PPP link, TRILL always uses point-to-point (P2P) Hellos.
There is no need for TRILL-Hello frames, nor is per-port
configuration necessary. P2P Hello messages, per "Point-to-Point
IS to IS hello PDU" (Section 9.7 of [IS-IS]), do not use Neighbor
IDs in the same manner as on Ethernet. However, per
Section 4.2.4.1 of [RFC6325], the three-way IS-IS handshake using
extended circuit IDs is required on point-to-point links, such
as PPP.
2. RBridges are never appointed forwarders on PPP links. If an
implementation includes BCP [RFC3518], then it MUST ensure that
only one of BCP or TNCP is negotiated on a link, and not both. If
the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to pass
unencapsulated frames, as the link can have no TRILL-ignorant peer
to be concerned about. If the peer is not an RBridge, then TNCP
negotiation fails and TRILL is not used on the link.
3. An implementation that has only PPP links might have no
Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) that can form an IS-IS
System ID. Resolving that issue is outside the scope of this
document; however, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that all TRILL
implementations have at least one zero-configuration mechanism to
obtain a valid System ID. Refer to ISO/IEC 10589 [IS-IS]
regarding System ID uniqueness requirements.
4. TRILL MTU-probe and TRILL MTU-ack messages (Section 4.3.2 of
[RFC6325]) are not needed on a PPP link. Implementations MUST NOT
send MTU-probe messages and SHOULD NOT reply to these messages.
The MTU computed by LCP SHOULD be used instead. Negotiating an
LCP MTU of at least 1524, to allow for an inner Ethernet payload
of 1500 octets, is RECOMMENDED.
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
4. Security Considerations
Existing PPP and IS-IS security mechanisms may play important roles
in a network of RBridges interconnected by PPP links. At the TRILL
IS-IS layer, the IS-IS authentication mechanism [RFC5304] [RFC5310]
prevents fabrication of link-state control messages.
Not all implementations need to include specific security mechanisms
at the PPP layer, for example if they are designed to be deployed
only in cases where the networking environment is trusted or where
other layers provide adequate security. A complete enumeration of
possible deployment scenarios and associated threats and options is
not possible and is outside the scope of this document. For
applications involving sensitive data, end-to-end security should
always be considered in addition to link security to provide security
in depth.
However, in case a PPP layer authentication mechanism is needed to
protect the establishment of a link and identify a link with a known
peer, implementation of the PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
Protocol (CHAP) [RFC1994] is RECOMMENDED. Should greater flexibility
than that provided by CHAP be required, the Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] is a good alternative.
If TRILL-over-PPP packets also require confidentiality, the PPP
Encryption Control Protocol (ECP) link encryption mechanisms
[RFC1968] can protect the confidentiality and integrity of all
packets on the PPP link.
And when PPP is run over tunneling mechanisms, such as the Layer Two
Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) [RFC3931], tunnel security protocols may be
available.
For general TRILL protocol security considerations, see [RFC6325].
5. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned three PPP Protocol field values, 005d, 405d, and
805d, as described in Section 1 of this document.
IANA has created a new "PPP TNCP Configuration Option Types" registry
in the PPP-Numbers registry, using the same format as the existing
"PPP LCP Configuration Option Types" registry.
All TNCP Configuration Option Types except 0 are "Unassigned" and
available for future use, based on "IETF Review", as described in
BCP 26 [RFC5226]. Option 0 is allocated for use with Vendor-Specific
Options, as described in [RFC2153].
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
6.2. Informative References
[IS-IS] International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routeing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC
10589:2002, Second Edition, November 2002.
[RFC1968] Meyer, G., "The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)",
RFC 1968, June 1996.
[RFC1994] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.
[RFC2153] Simpson, W., "PPP Vendor Extensions", RFC 2153, May 1997.
[RFC3518] Higashiyama, M., Baker, F., and T. Liao, "Point-to-Point
Protocol (PPP) Bridging Control Protocol (BCP)",
RFC 3518, April 2003.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
RFC 3931, March 2005.
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6361 TRILL over PPP August 2011
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, October 2008.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, February 2009.
[RFC5556] Touch, J. and R. Perlman, "Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability
Statement", RFC 5556, May 2009.
[RFC6326] Eastlake, D., Banerjee, A., Dutt, D., Perlman, R., and A.
Ghanwani, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 6326, July 2011.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Jari Arkko, Stewart Bryant, Ralph Droms, Linda
Dunbar, Adrian Farrel, Stephen Farrell, Radia Perlman, Mike Shand,
and William A. Simpson for their comments and help.
Authors' Addresses
James Carlson
WorkingCode
25 Essex Street
North Andover, MA 01845 USA
Phone: +1-781-301-2471
EMail: carlsonj@workingcode.com
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Carlson & Eastlake Standards Track [Page 8]