Skip to main content

Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates
RFC 7180

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    trill mailing list <>,
    trill chair <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'TRILL: Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'TRILL: Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates'
  (draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

The IETF TRILL (TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol provides least cost pair-wise data forwarding without
configuration in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology, safe
forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and support for
multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. TRILL
accomplishes this by using IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate
System) link state routing and by encapsulating traffic using a
header that includes a hop count. Since the TRILL base protocol was
approved in March 2010, active development of TRILL has revealed a
few errata in the original RFC 6325 and some cases that could use
clarifications or updates.

RFC 6327 and RFC 6439 provide clarifications and updates with respect
to Adjacency and Appointed Forwarders. This document provide other
known clarifications, corrections, and updates to RFC 6325, RFC 6327,
and RFC 6439.

The clarifications, corrections, and updates cover many areas, but
the most
substantial ones are in the areas of:
- Overloaded and/or Unreachable RBridges
- Distribution Trees
- Nickname selection
- Maximum Transmission Unit

Note that one change in this document (section 3.4) is not backward
compatible with [RFC6325] but has nevertheless been adopted to reduce
distribution tree changes resulting from topology changes.

Working Group Summary

There was consensus in the working group in favor of the document.

Document Quality

The document has been carefully reviewed in the WG and by the document
The document was forwarded to the IS-IS WG mailing list, which
resulted in some additional improvements.


Who is the Document Shepherd?

Erik Nordmark

Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Ralph Droms

RFC Editor Note