Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transparent Transport over MPLS
RFC 8385
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (June 2018; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohammed Umair , Kingston Smiler , Donald Eastlake , Lucy Yong | ||
| Last updated | 2018-06-11 | ||
| Replaces | draft-muks-trill-transport-over-mpls | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Susan Hares | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2018-02-19) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8385 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alia Atlas | ||
| Send notices to | "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Umair
Request for Comments: 8385 Cisco
Category: Informational S. Kingston Smiler
ISSN: 2070-1721 PALC Networks
D. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei
L. Yong
Independent
June 2018
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
Transparent Transport over MPLS
Abstract
This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple TRILL
(Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) sites with an
intervening MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS (Virtual
Private LAN Service) standards. This document addresses two
problems: 1) providing connection between more than two TRILL sites
that are separated by an MPLS provider network and 2) providing a
single logical virtualized TRILL network for different tenants that
are separated by an MPLS provider network.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8385.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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 ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
2. TRILL-over-MPLS Model ...........................................5
3. VPLS Model ......................................................5
3.1. Entities in the VPLS Model .................................6
3.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPLS Model .............................7
3.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPLS Model ..........................7
3.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS ................................7
3.5. Frame Processing ...........................................7
4. VPTS Model ......................................................7
4.1. Entities in the VPTS Model .................................9
4.1.1. TRILL Intermediate Router (TIR) ....................10
4.1.2. Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD) .........10
4.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPTS Model ............................10
4.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPTS Model .........................10
4.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS ...............................11
4.5. Frame Processing ..........................................11
4.5.1. Multi-destination Frame Processing .................11
4.5.2. Unicast Frame Processing ...........................11
5. VPTS Model versus VPLS Model ...................................11
6. Packet Processing between Pseudowires ..........................12
7. Efficiency Considerations ......................................12
8. Security Considerations ........................................12
9. IANA Considerations ............................................13
10. References ....................................................13
10.1. Normative References ....................................13
10.2. Informative References ..................................14
Acknowledgements ..................................................15
Authors' Addresses ................................................16
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
1. Introduction
The IETF Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7177] [RFC7780] provides transparent
forwarding in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology and link
technologies using a header with a hop count and link-state routing.
TRILL provides optimal pair-wise forwarding without configuration,
safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and support
for multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. Intermediate
Systems (ISs) implementing TRILL are called Routing Bridges
(RBridges) or TRILL switches.
This document, in conjunction with [RFC7173] on TRILL transport using
pseudowires, addresses two problems:
1) providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that belong
to a single TRILL network and are separated by an MPLS provider
network using [RFC7173]. (Herein, this is also called "problem
statement 1".)
2) providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different
tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network. In short,
this is for providing connection between TRILL sites belonging to
a tenant/tenants over a MPLS provider network. (Herein, this is
also called "problem statement 2".)
A tenant is the administrative entity on whose behalf their
associated services are managed. Here, "tenant" refers to a TRILL
campus that is segregated from other tenants for security reasons.
A key multi-tenancy requirement is traffic isolation so that one
tenant's traffic is not visible to any other tenant. This document
also addresses the problem of multi-tenancy by isolating one tenant's
traffic from the other.
[RFC7173] mentions how to interconnect a pair of TRILL switch ports
using pseudowires. This document explains how to connect multiple
TRILL sites (not limited to only two sites) using the mechanisms and
encapsulations defined in [RFC7173].
1.1. Terminology
Acronyms and terms used in this document include the following:
AC - Attachment Circuit [RFC4664]
Data Label - VLAN Label or Fine-Grained Label
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
database - IS-IS link state database
ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath
FGL - Fine-Grained Labeling [RFC7172]
IS-IS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS]
LAN - Local Area Network
MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching
PBB - Provider Backbone Bridging
PE - Provider Edge device
PSN - Packet Switched Network
PW - Pseudowire [RFC4664]
TIR - TRILL Intermediate Router (Device that has both IP/MPLS
and TRILL functionality)
TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links OR Tunneled
Routing in the Link Layer
TRILL site - A part of a TRILL campus that contains at least one
RBridge.
VLAN - Virtual Local Area Network
VPLS - Virtual Private LAN Service
VPTS - Virtual Private TRILL Service
VSI - Virtual Service Instance [RFC4664]
VTSD - Virtual TRILL Switch Domain OR Virtual TRILL Service
Domain. A Virtual RBridge that segregates one tenant's
TRILL database as well as traffic from the other.
WAN - Wide Area Network
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
2. TRILL-over-MPLS Model
TRILL over MPLS can be achieved in two different ways:
a) the VPLS Model for TRILL b) the VPTS Model / TIR Model for
TRILL
Both these models can be used to solve problem statements 1 and 2.
Herein, the VPLS Model for TRILL is also called "Model 1" and the
VPTS Model / TIR Model is also called "Model 2".
3. VPLS Model
Figure 1 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using the
VPLS model. The PE routers in the below topology model should
support all the functional components mentioned in [RFC4664].
+-----+ +-----+
| RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb |
+-----+ | . . | +-----+
Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2
+----|PE1 | |PE2 |----+
+----+ MPLS Cloud +----+
. .
. +----+ .
..........|PE3 |...........
+----+ ^
| |
| +-- Emulated LAN
+-----+
| RBc |
+-----+
Site 3
Figure 1: Topological Model of TRILL over MPLS
Connecting 3 TRILL Sites
Figure 2 below shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS to
connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to a tenant. ("Tenant" here
is a TRILL campus, not a specific Data Label.) VSI1 and VSI2 are two
Virtual Service Instances that segregate Tenant1's traffic from other
tenant traffic. VSI1 will maintain its own database for Tenant1;
similarly, VSI2 will maintain its own database for Tenant2.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
+-----+ ............................ +-----+
|RBat1+---+ . ++++++++++++++++++++++++ . +---|RBbt1|
+-----+ | . + + . | +-----+
Tenant1 | +----+ +----+ | Tenant1
Site 1 +----|VSI1| |VSI1|----+ Site 2
+----|VSI2| MPLS Cloud |VSI2|----+
| +----+ +----+ |
+-----+ | . + + . | +-----+
|RBat2+---+ . +++++++++ +----+ ++++++++ . +---|RBbt2|
+-----+ ............|VSI1|........... +-----+
Tenant2 |VSI2| Tenant2
Site 1 +----+ Site 2
|
+-----+
|RBct2|
+-----+
Tenant2 Site 3
.... VSI1 Path
++++ VSI2 Path
Figure 2: Topological Model for VPLS Model
Connecting 2 Tenants with 3 Sites Each
In this model, TRILL sites are connected to VPLS-capable PE devices
that provide a logical interconnect, such that TRILL RBridges
belonging to a specific tenant are connected via a single bridged
Ethernet. These PE devices are the same as the PE devices specified
in [RFC4026]. The Attachment Circuit ports of PE routers are Layer 2
switch ports that are connected to the RBridges at a TRILL site.
Here, each VPLS instance looks like an emulated LAN. This model is
similar to connecting different RBridges by a Layer 2 bridge domain
(multi-access link) as specified in [RFC6325]. This model doesn't
requires any changes in PE routers to carry TRILL packets, as TRILL
packets will be transferred transparently.
3.1. Entities in the VPLS Model
The PE (VPLS-PE) and Customer Edge (CE) devices are defined in
[RFC4026].
The generic L2VPN transport functional components like Attachment
Circuits, pseudowires, VSI, etc., are defined in [RFC4664].
The RB (RBridge) and TRILL campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated
by [RFC7780].
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
3.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPLS Model
As specified in Section 3, the MPLS cloud looks like an emulated LAN
(also called multi-access link or broadcast link). This results in
RBridges at different sites looking like they are connected by a
multi-access link. With such interconnection, the TRILL adjacencies
over the link are automatically discovered and established through
TRILL IS-IS control messages [RFC7177]. These IS-IS control messages
are transparently forwarded by the VPLS domain, after doing MPLS
encapsulation as specified in Section 3.3.
3.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPLS Model
Use of VPLS [RFC4762] [RFC4761] to interconnect TRILL sites requires
no changes to a VPLS implementation -- in particular, the use of
Ethernet pseudowires between VPLS PEs. A VPLS PE receives normal
Ethernet frames from an RBridge (i.e., CE) and is not aware that the
CE is an RBridge device. As an example, an MPLS-encapsulated TRILL
packet within the MPLS network can use the format illustrated in
Appendix A of [RFC7173] for the non-PBB case. For the PBB case,
additional header fields illustrated in [RFC7041] can be added by the
entry PE and removed by the exit PE.
3.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS
No explicit handling is required to avoid a loop-free topology. The
"split horizon" technique specified in [RFC4664] will take care of
avoiding loops in the provider PSN network.
3.5. Frame Processing
The PE devices transparently process the TRILL control and data
frames. Procedures to forward the frames are defined in [RFC4664].
4. VPTS Model
The Virtual Private TRILL Service (VPTS) is a Layer 2 TRILL service
that emulates TRILL service across a Wide Area Network (WAN). VPTS
is similar to what VPLS does for a bridged core but provides a TRILL
core. VPLS provides "Virtual Private LAN Service" for different
customers. VPTS provides "Virtual Private TRILL Service" for
different TRILL tenants.
Figure 3 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using VPTS.
In this model, the PE routers are replaced with TRILL Intermediate
Routers (TIRs), and the VSIs are replaced with Virtual TRILL Switch
Domains (VTSDs). The TIR devices must be capable of supporting both
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
MPLS and TRILL as specified in Section 4.1.1. The TIR devices are
interconnected via PWs and appear as a unified emulated TRILL campus
with each VTSD inside a TIR equivalent to an RBridge.
Below are some of the reasons for interconnecting TRILL sites without
isolating the TRILL control plane of one TRILL site from other sites.
1) Nickname uniqueness: One of the basic requirements of TRILL is
that RBridge nicknames are unique within the campus [RFC6325]. If
we segregate the control plane of one TRILL site from other TRILL
sites and provide interconnection between these sites, it may
result in nickname collision.
2) Distribution trees and their pruning: When a TRILL Data packet
traverses a Distribution Tree, it will stay on it even in other
TRILL sites. If no end-station service is enabled for a
particular Data Label in a TRILL site, the distribution tree may
be pruned and TRILL data packets of that particular Data Label
might never get to another TRILL site where the packets had no
receivers. The TRILL Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check will
always be performed on the packets that are received by TIRs
through pseudowires.
3) Hop count values: When a TRILL data packet is received over a
pseudowire by a TIR, the TIR does the processing of Hop Count
defined in [RFC6325] and will not perform any resetting of Hop
Count.
+-----+ +-----+
| RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb |
+-----+ | . . | +-----+
Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2
+----|TIR1| |TIR2|----+
+----+ MPLS Cloud +----+
. .
. +----+ .
..........|TIR3|...........
+----+ ^
| |
| +-- Emulated TRILL
+-----+
| RBc |
+-----+
Site 3
Figure 3: Topological Model of VPTS/TIR Connecting 3 TRILL Sites
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
In Figure 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 (running the TRILL protocol)
are connected to TIR devices. These TIR devices, along with the MPLS
cloud, look like a unified emulated TRILL network. Only the PE
devices in the MPLS network should be replaced with TIRs so the
intermediate provider routers are agnostic to the TRILL protocol.
Figure 4 below extends the topological model of TRILL over MPLS to
connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to a tenant ("tenant" here is
a campus, not a Data Label) using the VPTS model. VTSD1 and VTSD2
are two Virtual TRILL Switch Domains (Virtual RBridges) that
segregate Tenant1's traffic from Tenant2's traffic. VTSD1 will
maintain its own TRILL database for Tenant1; similarly, VTSD2 will
maintain its own TRILL database for Tenant2.
+-----+ ............................ +-----+
|RBat1+---+ . ######################## . +---|RBbt1|
+-----+ | . # # . | +-----+
Tenant1 | +-----+ +-----+ | Tenant1
Site 1 +----|VTSD1| |VTSD1|----+ Site 2
+----|VTSD2| MPLS Cloud |VTSD2|----+
| +-----+ +-----+ |
+-----+ | . # # . | +-----+
|RBat2+---+ . #########+-----+######### . +---|RBbt2|
+-----+ ...........|VTSD1|........... +-----+
Tenant2 |VTSD2| ^ Tenant2
Site 1 +-----+ | Site 2
| |
+-----+ +-----Emulated
|RBct2| TRILL
+-----+
Tenant2 Site 3
.... VTSD1 Connectivity
#### VTSD2 Connectivity
Figure 4: Topological Model of VPTS/TIR
Connecting 2 Tenants with 3 TRILL Sites
4.1. Entities in the VPTS Model
The CE devices are defined in [RFC4026].
The generic L2VPN transport functional components like Attachment
Circuits, pseudowires, etc., are defined in [RFC4664].
The RB (RBridge) and TRILL campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated
by [RFC7780].
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
This model introduces two new entities, TIR and VTSD, which are
described below.
4.1.1. TRILL Intermediate Router (TIR)
The TIRs must be capable of running both VPLS and TRILL protocols.
TIR devices are a superset of the VPLS-PE devices defined in
[RFC4026] with the additional functionality of TRILL. The VSI that
provides transparent bridging functionality in the PE device is
replaced with VTSD in a TIR.
4.1.2. Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD)
The VTSD is similar to the VSI (Layer 2 bridge) in the VPLS model,
but the VTSD acts as a TRILL RBridge. The VTSD is a superset of the
VSI and must support all the functionality provided by the VSI as
defined in [RFC4026]. Along with VSI functionality, the VTSD must be
capable of supporting TRILL protocols and forming TRILL adjacencies.
The VTSD must be capable of performing all the operations that a
standard TRILL switch can do.
One VTSD instance per tenant must be maintained when multiple tenants
are connected to a TIR. The VTSD must maintain all the information
kept by the RBridge on a per-tenant basis. The VTSD must also take
care of segregating one tenant's traffic from another's. Each VTSD
will have its own nickname for each tenant. If a TIR supports 10
TRILL tenants, it needs to be assigned with 10 TRILL nicknames, one
for the nickname space of each of its tenants, and run 10 copies of
TRILL protocols, one for each tenant. It is possible that it would
have the same nickname for two or more tenants, but, since the TRILL
data and control traffic are separated for the tenants, there is no
confusion.
4.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPTS Model
The VTSD must be capable of forming a TRILL adjacency with the
corresponding VTSDs present in its peer VPTS neighbor and also with
the neighboring RBridges of the TRILL sites. The procedure to form
TRILL adjacency is specified in [RFC7173] and [RFC7177].
4.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPTS Model
The VPTS model uses PPP or Ethernet pseudowires for MPLS
encapsulation as specified in [RFC7173] and requires no changes in
the packet format in that RFC. In accordance with [RFC7173], the PPP
encapsulation is the default.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
4.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS
This model isn't required to employ the "split horizon" mechanism in
the provider PSN network, as TRILL takes care of loop-free topology
using distribution trees. Any multi-destination packet will traverse
a distribution tree path. All distribution trees are calculated
based on the TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325] as updated by
[RFC7780].
4.5. Frame Processing
This section specifies multi-destination and unicast frame processing
in the VPTS/TIR model.
4.5.1. Multi-destination Frame Processing
Any multi-destination (unknown unicast, multicast, or broadcast, as
indicated by the multi-destination bit in the TRILL header) packets
inside a VTSD will be processed or forwarded through the distribution
tree for which they were encapsulated on TRILL ingress. If any
multi-destination packet is received from the wrong pseudowire at a
VTSD, the TRILL protocol running in the VTSD will perform an RPF
check as specified in [RFC7780] and drop the packet.
The pruning mechanism in distribution trees, as specified in
[RFC6325] and [RFC7780], can also be used to avoid forwarding of
multi-destination data packets on the branches where there are no
potential destinations.
4.5.2. Unicast Frame Processing
Unicast packets are forwarded in the same way they get forwarded in a
standard TRILL campus as specified in [RFC6325]. If multiple equal-
cost paths are available over pseudowires to reach the destination,
then VTSD should be capable of doing ECMP for those equal-cost paths.
5. VPTS Model versus VPLS Model
The VPLS model uses a simpler loop-breaking rule: the "split horizon"
rule, where a PE must not forward traffic from one PW to another in
the same VPLS mesh. In contrast, the VPTS model uses distribution
trees for loop-free topology. As this is an emulated TRILL service,
for interoperability purposes, the VPTS model is the default.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
6. Packet Processing between Pseudowires
Whenever a packet gets received over a pseudowire, a VTSD will
decapsulate the MPLS headers then check the TRILL header. If the
egress nickname in the TRILL header is for a TRILL site located
beyond another pseudowire, then the VTSD will encapsulate the packet
with new MPLS headers and send it across the proper pseudowire.
For example, in Figure 3, consider that the pseudowire between TIR1
and TIR2 fails. Then, TIR1 will communicate with TIR2 via TIR3.
Whenever packets that are destined to TIR3 are received from the
pseudowire between TIR1 and TIR3, the VTSD inside TIR3 will
decapsulate the MPLS headers, then check the TRILL header's egress
nickname field. If the egress nickname indicates it is destined for
the RBridge in Site 3, then the packet will be sent to RBc; if the
egress nickname is located at Site 2, VTSD will add MPLS headers for
the pseudowire between TIR3 and TIR2 and forward the packet on that
pseudowire.
7. Efficiency Considerations
Since the VPTS model uses distribution trees for processing of multi-
destination data packets, it is always advisable to have at least one
distribution tree root located in every TRILL site. This will
prevent data packets from being received at TRILL sites where end-
station service is not enabled for that data packet.
8. Security Considerations
This document specifies methods using existing standards and
facilities in ways that do not create new security problems.
For general VPLS security considerations, including discussion of
isolating customers from each other, see [RFC4761] and [RFC4762].
For security considerations for transport of TRILL by pseudowires,
see [RFC7173]. In particular, since pseudowires are supported by
MPLS or IP, which are in turn supported by a link layer, that
document recommends using IP security, such as IPsec [RFC4301] or
DTLS [RFC6347], or the lower link-layer security, such as MACSEC
[802.1AE] for Ethernet links.
Transmission outside the customer environment through the provider
environment, as described in this document, increases risk of
compromise or injection of false data through failure of tenant
isolation or by the provider. In the VPLS model (Section 3), the use
of link encryption and authentication between the CEs of a tenant
that is being connected through provider facilities should be a good
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
defense. In the VPTS model (Section 4), it is assumed that the CEs
will peer with virtual TRILL switches of the provider network, and
thus link security between TRILL switch ports is inadequate as it
will terminate at the edge PE. Thus, encryption and authentication
from end station to end station and authentication are more
appropriate for the VPTS model.
For added security against the compromise of data, end-to-end
encryption and authentication should be considered; that is,
encryption and authentication from source end station to destination
end station. This would typically be provided by IPsec [RFC4301] or
DTLS [RFC6347] or other protocols convenient to protect the
information of concern.
For general TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325].
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[IS-IS] ISO, "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.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7173>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.
[RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection
of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and
Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.
10.2. Informative References
[802.1AE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std
802.1AE, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2006.245590.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7041] Balus, F., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., and N. Bitar, Ed.,
"Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging",
RFC 7041, DOI 10.17487/RFC7041, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7041>.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.
Acknowledgements
The contributions of Andrew G. Malis are gratefully acknowledged in
improving the quality of this document.
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018
Authors' Addresses
Mohammed Umair
Cisco Systems
SEZ, Cessna Business Park
Sarjapur - Marathahalli Outer Ring road
Bengaluru - 560103
India
Email: mohammed.umair2@gmail.com
S. Kingston Smiler
PALC NETWORKS PVT LTD
Envision Technology Center
#119, 1st Floor, Road No.3
EPIP Area Phase 1, Whitefield
Near Vydehi Hospital
Bengaluru - 560066, Karnataka
India
Email: kingstonsmiler@gmail.com
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
United States of America
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Lucy Yong
Independent
Phone: +1-469-227-5837
Email: lucyyong@gmail.com
Umair, et al. Informational [Page 16]