INTERNET-DRAFT Mingui Zhang Intended Status: Proposed Standard Huafeng Wen Expires: September 10, 2015 Huawei Jie Hu China Telecom March 9, 2015 STP Application of ICCP draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-03.txt Abstract Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) supports the inter- chassis redundancy mechanism which achieves high network availability. In this document, the PEs in a Redundant Group (RG) running ICCP are used to offer multi-homed connectivity to Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) networks. The ICCP TLVs for the STP application are defined, therefore PEs from the RG can make use of these TLVs to synchronize the state and configuration data of the STP network. The operation logic of the application and the usage of these ICCP TLVs are specified. 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 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 Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 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 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. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. The Use Case Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. STP as an Application of ICCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. The BPDU Tunneling Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Spanning Tree Protocol Application TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. STP Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. STP Disconnect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. STP Config TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.1. STP System Config . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3.2. STP Region Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.3. STP Revision Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3.4. STP Instance Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.5. STP Configuration Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4. STP State TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.1. STP Topology Changed Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.2. STP CIST Root Time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.3. STP MSTI Root Time Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.5. STP Synchronization Request TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1. Common AC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.1. Remote PE Node Failure or Isolation . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.1.2. Local PE Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2. STP Application Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.1. Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.2. Configuration Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.3. Status Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.2.4. Failure and Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 1. Introduction Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP [RFC7275]) specifies a multi-chassis redundant mechanism, which enables PEs located in multi-chassis to act as a single Redundant Group (RG). This document introduces Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) as a new application of ICCP. When a bridge network running STP is connected to an RG, the RG members pretend to be a single root bridge to participate the operations of the STP. STP relevant information need be exchanged and synchronized among the RG members. ICCP TLVs for the STP application are specified for this purpose. From the point of view of the customers, ISPs are still providing Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS). Familiarity with [RFC4762] is assumed in this document. 1.1. Conventions used in this document 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]. 1.2. Terminology ICCP: Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol VPLS: Virtual Private LAN Service STP: Spanning Tree Protocol MSTP: Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol DSLAM: Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer MST: Multiple Spanning Trees CIST: Common and Internal Spanning Tree ([802.1q] Section 3.4) MSTI: Multiple Spanning Tree Instance ([802.1q] Section 3.22) BPDU: Bridge Protocol Data Unit In this document, unless otherwise explicitly noted, when the term STP is used, it also covers MSTP. 2. The Use Case Scenario In customers' broadband networks, bridged DSLAMs are usually geographically dispersed. ISPs provides these customers with VPLS. It's common that one customer broadband network has multiple DSLAMs connected to a carrier's network at different locations for the sake of reliability. Requirements from customers for this use case are listed as follows. o These DSLAMs are running STP. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 o These DSLAMs are not geographically close to each other. Multiple DSLAMs are connected to the carrier network at different locations. o When one connection to the carrier network fails, customers wish a connection in another location can continue to work after the re- convergence of the STP rather than compromising the whole STP network. The failure of the connection may be due to the failure of the PE, the AC or even the CE (a DSLAM) itself. o Customers want to balance the load among those connections to the carrier's network, therefore all those connections need be active. In order to meet these requirements, the 'ICCP-STP' model is proposed in Section 2.1. It introduces STP as a new application of ICCP. In Section 2.2, a counter-part solution based on the BPDU tunneling technique is addressed as a contrast. Its issues are analyzed. 2.1. STP as an Application of ICCP +--------------+ +=============+ | | | | | | | | | +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | +---+CE1+<6>-------<5>+ PE1 || | | | <1> +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | +-+-+ | | || | | |CE3| | | ||ICCP |--> Towards Core | +-+-+ | | || | | <2> +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | +---+CE2+<3>-------<4>+ PE2 || | | | +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | | | | | Multi-homed | | Redundancy | | STP Network | | Group | +--------------+ +=============+ Figure 2.1: A STP network is multi-homed to an RG running ICCP. Figure 2.1 shows an example topology of this model. With ICCP, the whole RG will be virtualized to be a single bridge. Each RG member has its BridgeIdentifier (the MAC address). The least significant one is used as the BridgeIdentifier of the 'virtualized root bridge'. The RG pretends that the ports connected to the STP network (port <4>, <5>) are from the same root bridge. All these ports emit the configuration BPDU with the highest root priority to trigger the construction of the spanning tree. The link between the peering PEs Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 is not visible to the STP network. In this way, the STP will always break a loop within the multi-homed STP network. As if the whole network is broken into separate islands that each is attached to one PE. It forces all PEs in the RG to be active. This is different from a generic VPLS per [RFC4762] where the root bridge resides in the customer network and the multi-homed PEs usually act in the active- standby mode. Note that the specification of VPLS should remain unchanged other than this operation. For instance, a full-mesh of PWs is established between PEs, split-horizon is still used to perform the loop-free protection through the core, etc. 2.2. The BPDU Tunneling Model +--------------+ +=============+ | | | | | | | | | +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | +---+CE1+<6>-------<5>+ PE1 || | | | <1> +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | +-+-+ | | ||BUDU | | |CE3| | | PW||tunnel|--> Towards Core | +-+-+ | | || | | <2> +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | +---+CE2+<3>-------<4>+ PE2 || | | | +---+ | | +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->| | | | | | Multi-homed | | Redundancy | | STP Network | | Group | +--------------+ +=============+ Figure 2.2: The BPDU Tunneling Model Figure 2.2 shows an example network of the 'BPDU tunneling' model. Two PEs tunnel customer traffic and BPDUs of the STP network over a PW. The OAM designed in [RFC7023] can be adopted for the interworking between MPLS and Ethernet. In this model, the ports connected to the STP network at the PEs' side are non-bridge ports (e.g., port <4>, <5>). The tunnel between PE1 and PE2 is a transparent tunnel of BPDUs. For CE1 and CE2, they regard that there is a direct link between them. Issues of this model are listed as follows. o Assume port <1> was blocked according to the STP calculation. Now, suppose link CE3-CE2 fails, port <2> is blocked while port <1> is unblocked. Since the BPDUs is just tunneled, PE2 is unaware of this change. Consider the remote traffic from PEx to PE2 then to Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 CE3. PE2 continues to send traffic to CE3 via CE2 where a black- hole happens. In order to handle this issue, PEs need to snoop the Topology Change (TC) message of the STP network so the tunnel is not "transparent" to BPDUs anymore. When the TC event is sensed, these PEs should withdraw MAC addresses of those instances affected by the TC event across the carrier's network. o When port <4> fails, CE1 is unaware. Suppose CE2 is the root bridge, port <6> has to wait for 3 STP HELLO Intervals (3*2s) and 2 Forwarding Delays (2*15s). The STP network takes at least 36 seconds to complete the convergence. The convergence process of the STP network is greatly slowed down. This actually changes the behavior of customers' STP networks. In order to speed up the convergence, CE1 has to sense the state of the link between CE2 and PE2. The interworking PEs and CEs have to cope with various combinations of failures. There is no standard solution yet. Compared with this 'BPDU tunneling' model, the advantage point of the "ICCP-STP" model is that PEs "participate" in the STP calculation, therefore we need not design the complex interworking mechanism. 3. Spanning Tree Protocol Application TLVs This section specifies the ICCP TLVs for the STP application. 3.1. STP Connect TLV This TLV is included in the RG Connect message to signal the establishment of STP application connection. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD1 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol Version |A| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Optional Sub-TLVs | ~ ~ | | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD1 for "STP Connect TLV" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. - Protocol Version The version of this particular protocol for the purposes of ICCP. This is set to 0x0001. - A bit Acknowledgement Bit. Set to 1 if the sender has received a STP Connect TLV from the recipient. Otherwise, set to 0. - Reserved Reserved for future use. These MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. - Optional Sub-TLVs There are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this version of the protocol. 3.2. STP Disconnect TLV This TLV is used in an RG Disconnect Message to indicate that the connection for the STP application is to be terminated. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD2 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Optional Sub-TLVs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD2 for "STP Disconnect TLV" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. - Optional Sub-TLVs The only optional Sub-TLV defined for this version of the protocol is the "STP Disconnect Cause" TLV defined next: 3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD13 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Disconnect Cause String | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD13 for "STP Disconnect Cause TLV" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. - Disconnect Cause String Variable length string specifying the reason for the disconnect. Used for network management. 3.3. STP Config TLVs The STP Config TLVs are sent in the RG Application Data message. When Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 9] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 a STP Config TLV is received by a peering RG member, it MUST synchronize the configuration information contained in the TLV. TLVs specified from Section 3.3.1 through Section 3.3.5 contains such kind of configuration information. 3.3.1. STP System Config This TLV announces the local node's STP System Parameters to the RG peers. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD3 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | ROID | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD3 for "STP System Config" - Length Length of the ROID plus the MAC address in octets. Set to 14. -ROID As defined in Section 6.1.3 of [RFC7275]. - MAC Address The MAC address of the sender. This MAC address is set to the BridgeIdentifier of the sender, as defined in [802.1q] Section 13.23.2. The the least significant unsigned BridgeIdentifier is used as the MAC address of the Virtual Root Bridge mentioned in Section 2.1. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 10] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 3.3.2. STP Region Name This TLV is used to report the Value of Region Name to other members in the RG. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD4 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Region Name | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD4 for "STP Region Name" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. - Region Name The Name of the MST Region as specified in [802.1q] Section 3.18. 3.3.3. STP Revision Level This TLV is used to report the Value of Revision Level to other members in the RG. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD5 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Revision Level | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 - Type Set to TBD5 for "STP Revision Level". - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. Set to 2. - Revision Level The Revision Level as specified in [802.1q] Section 13.7 bullet 3); 3.3.4. STP Instance Priority This TLV is used to report the Value of Instance Priority to other members in the RG. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD6 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Pri | InstanceID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD6 for "STP Instance Priority" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. - Pri The Instance Priority. It is interpreted as an unsigned integer and higher value indicates a higher priority. - InstanceID The 12 bits Instance IDentifier of the CIST or MSTI. This Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 12] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 parameter takes a value in the range 1 through 4094 for MSTI as defined in [802.1q] Section 12.8.1.2.2 and takes value of 0 for CIST. 3.3.5. STP Configuration Digest This TLV is used to report the Value of STP VLAN Instance Mapping to other members in the RG. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD7 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Configuration Digest | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD7 for "STP Configuration Digest" - Length Length of the STP Configuration Digest which is 16 octets. - Configuration Digest As specified in [802.1q] Section 13.7 bullet 4). 3.4. STP State TLVs The STP State TLVs are sent in the RG Application Data message. They are used by a PE to report its STP status to other members in the RG. Such TLVs are specified in the following subsections. 3.4.1. STP Topology Changed Instances This TLV is used to report the Topology Changed Instances to other members in the RG. The sender monitors TCN messages and generates this list. The receiver RG member SHOULD enforce the Topology Change event, including sending a BPDU with the Topology Change flag set to 1 out of the designated port(s) connected to the STP network, the flushing out of MAC addresses relevant to the instances listed in Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 13] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 this TLV, etc. If the PE supports the MAC Address Withdrawal (see Section 6.2 of [RFC4762]), it SHOULD send an LDP Address Withdraw Message with the list of MAC addresses to be removed to all remote peering PEs over the corresponding LDP sessions. It's unnecessary to send such a message to PEs in the same RG since the flushing of their MAC address tables should have been performed upon the STP Topology Changed Instances TLV is received. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD8 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | InstanceID List | ~ ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD8 for "STP Topology Changed Instances" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. - InstanceID List The list of the InstanceIDs of CIST or MSTIs whose topologies are changed as indicated by the Topology Change Notification (TCN) Messages as specified in [802.1q] Section 13.14. The list is formatted as follows, where the bits in the "rsvd" fields MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | rsvd | InstanceID#1 | rsvd | InstanceID#2 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~ ... ... ~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 3.4.2. STP CIST Root Time Parameters Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 14] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 This TLV is used to report the Value of CIST Root Time Parameters ([802.1q] Section 13.23.7) to other members in the RG. All these time parameter values are in seconds with a granularity of 1. For ranges and default values of these parameter values, refer [802.1d1998] Section 8.10.2 Table 8-3, [802.1d2004] Section 17.14 Table 17-1 and [802.1q] Section 13.23.7. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD9 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MaxAge | MessageAge | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | FwdDelay | HelloTime | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | RemainingHops | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD9 for "STP CIST Root Time" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. Set to 9. - MaxAge The Max Age of the CIST. It is the maximum age of the information transmitted by the Bridge when it is the Root Bridge ([802.1d2004] Section 17.13.8). - MessageAge The Message Age of the CIST ([802.1q] Section 13.23.7) . - FwdDelay The Forward Delay of the CIST. It is the delay used by STP Bridges to transition Root and Designated Ports to Forwarding ([802.1d2004] Section 17.13.5). Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 15] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 - HelloTime The Hello Time of the CIST. It is the interval between periodic transmissions of Configuration Messages by Designated Ports ([802.1d2004] Section 17.13.6). - RemainingHops The remainingHops of the CIST ([802.1q] Section 13.23.7) . 3.4.3. STP MSTI Root Time Parameter This TLV is used to report the parameter value of MSTI Root Time to other members in the RG. As defined in [802.1q] Section 13.23.7, it is the value of remainingHops for the given MSTI. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD10 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Pri | InstanceID | RemainingHops | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD10 for "STP MSTI Root Time" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. Set to 3. - Pri The Instance Priority. It is interpreted as an unsigned integer and higher value indicates a higher priority. - InstanceID The 12 bits Instance IDentifier of the Multiple Spanning Tree Instance (MSTID). As defined in [802.1q] Section 12.8.1.2.2, this parameter takes a value in the range 1 through 4094. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 16] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 - RemainingHops The remainingHops of the MSTI. It is encoded in the same way as in [802.1q] Section 14.6.1 bullet f). 3.5. STP Synchronization Request TLV The STP Synchronization Request TLV is used in the RG Application Data message. This TLV is used by a device to request from its peer to re-transmit configuration or operational state. The following information can be requested: - system configuration and/or state - configuration and/or state for a specific port The format of the TLV 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD11 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Request Number |C|S| Request Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD11 for "STP Synchronization Request TLV" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. Set to 4. - Request Number 2 octets. Unsigned integer uniquely identifying the request. Used to match the request with a response. The value of 0 is reserved for unsolicited synchronization, and MUST NOT be used in the STP Synchronization Request TLV. - C-bit Set to 1 if the request is for configuration data. Otherwise, set to 0. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 17] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 - S-bit Set to 1 if the request is for running state data. Otherwise, set to 0. - Request Type 14-bits specifying the request type, encoded as follows: 0x00 Request Configuration Data 0x01 Request State Data 0x3FFF Request All Data 3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV The STP Synchronization Data TLV is used in the RG Application Data message. A pair of these TLVs is used by a device to delimit a set of TLVs that are being transmitted in response to an STP Synchronization Request TLV. The delimiting TLVs signal the start and end of the synchronization data, and associate the response with its corresponding request via the 'Request Number' field. The STP Synchronization Data TLVs are also used for unsolicited advertisements of complete STP configuration and operational state data. The 'Request Number' field MUST be set to 0 in this case. This TLV has the following format: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |U|F| Type=TBD12 | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Request Number | Reserved |S| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - U and F Bits Both are set to 0. - Type set to TBD12 for "STP Synchronization Data TLV" - Length Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type, and Length fields. Set to 4. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 18] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 - Request Number 2 octets. Unsigned integer identifying the Request Number from the "STP Synchronization Request TLV" which solicited this synchronization data response. - Reserved Reserved bits for future use. These MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. -S S = 0: Synchronization Data Start S = 1: Synchronization Data End 4. Operations Operation procedures for AC redundancy applications have been specified in Section 9.2 of [RFC7275]. As an AC redundancy application, the operation procedures of the STP application should follow most of these procedures except the changes presented in this section. 4.1. Common AC Procedures For the generic procedures of AC redundancy applications defined in Section 9.2.1 of [RFC7275], the following changes are introduced. 4.1.1. Remote PE Node Failure or Isolation When a PE node detects that a remote PE that is a member of the same RG is no longer reachable (using the mechanisms described in Section 5 of [RFC7275]), the local PE determines if it has redundant ACs for the affected services. If the local PE has the highest priority (after the failed PE), then it becomes the virtual root bridge. 4.1.2. Local PE Isolation When a PE node detects that it has been isolated from the core network (i.e., all core-facing interfaces/links are not operational), then it should ensure that its AC redundancy mechanism will change the status of any active ACs to standby. The AC redundancy application SHOULD then send ICCP "Application Data" messages in order to trigger failover to another active PE in the RG. Note that this works only in the case of dedicated interconnect (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3), since ICCP will still have a path to the peer, even though the PE is isolated from the MPLS core network. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 19] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 4.2. STP Application Procedures This section defines the procedures that are specific to the STP application, which is applicable for Ethernet ACs. 4.2.1. Initial Setup When an RG is configured on a system to support the STP application, the system MUST send an "RG Connect" message with "STP Connect TLV" to each PE that is member of the same RG. The sending PE MUST set the A bit to 1 in the said TLV if it has received a corresponding "STP Connect TLV" from its peer PE; otherwise, the sending PE MUST set the A bit to 0. If a PE receives an "STP Connect TLV" from its peer after sending the said TLV with the A bit set to 0, it MUST resend the TLV with the A bit set to 1. A system considers the STP application connection to be operational when it has sent and received "STP Connect TLVs" with the A bit set to 1. When the STP application connection between a pair of PEs is operational, the two devices can start exchanging "RG Application Data" messages for the STP application. This involves having each PE advertise its STP configuration and operational state in an unsolicited manner. A PE SHOULD subscribe to the following order when advertising its STP state upon initial application connection setup: - Advertise system configuration TLV - Advertise remaining configuration TLVs - Advertise state TLVs A PE MUST use a pair of "STP Synchronization Data TLVs" to delimit the entire set of TLVs that are being sent as part of this unsolicited advertisement. If a system receives an "RG Connect" message with "STP Connect TLV" that has a differing Protocol Version, it MUST follow the procedures outlined in the "Application Versioning" Section of [RFC7275]. After the STP application connection has been established, every PE MUST communicate its system level configuration to its peers via the use of "STP System Config TLV". When the STP application is disabled on the device, or is unconfigured for the RG in question, the system MUST send an "RG Disconnect" message with "STP Disconnect TLV". 4.2.2. Configuration Synchronization A system that support the STP application MUST synchronize the configuration with other RG members. This is achieved via the use of Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 20] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 "STP Config TLVs". The PEs in an RG MUST all agree on the MAC address to be associated with the virtual root bridge. It is possible to achieve this via consistent configuration on member PEs. However, in order to protect against possible misconfiguration, a system MUST use, for the virtual root bridge, the MAC address supplied by the PE with the numerically least significant BridgeIdentifier (i.e., the MAC address of the bridge) in the RG. Furthermore, for a given STP application, an implementation MUST advertise the configuration prior to advertising its state. If a PE receives any STP State TLV that it had not learned of before via an appropriate STP Config TLV, then the PE MUST request synchronization of the configuration and state from its respective peer. If during a synchronization, a PE receives a State TLV that it has not learned of before, then the PE MUST send a NAK TLV for the offending TLV. The PE MUST NOT request re-synchronization in this case. 4.2.3. Status Synchronization PEs within an RG need to synchronize their state-machines for proper STP operation. This is achieved by having each system advertise its running state in STP State TLVs. Whenever any STP parameter, whether on the CE or PE side, is changed a system MUST transmit an updated TLV. Moreover, when the administrative or operational state changes, the system MUST transmit an updated state TLV to its peers. A PE MAY request that its peer retransmit previously advertised state. This is useful for example when the PE is recovering from a soft failure and attempting to relearn state. To request such retransmissions, a PE MUST send a set of one or more "STP Synchronization Request TLVs". A PE MUST respond to a "STP Synchronization Request TLV" by sending the requested data in a set of one or more STP configuration or state TLVs delimited by a pair of "STP Synchronization Data TLVs". The TLVs comprising the response MUST be ordered in the RG Application Data message(s) such that the Synchronization Response TLV with the "Synchronization Data Start" flag precedes the various other STP configuration of state TLVs encoding the requested data. These, in turn, MUST precede the Synchronization Data TLV with the "Synchronization Data End" flag. Note that the response may span across multiple RG Application Data messages, for example when MTU limits are exceeded; however, the above ordering MUST be retained across messages, and only a single pair of Synchronization Data TLVs MUST be used to delimit the response across all Application Data Messages. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 21] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 A PE device MAY re-advertise its STP state in an unsolicited manner. This is done by sending the appropriate Config and State TLVs delimited by a pair of "STP Synchronization Data TLVs" and using a 'Request Number' of 0. While a PE has a pending synchronization request for a system, it SHOULD silently ignore all TLVs for said system, that are received prior to the synchronization response and which carry the same type of information being requested. This saves the system from the burden of updating state that will ultimately be overwritten by the synchronization response. Note that TLVs pertaining to other systems, are to continue to be processed per normal in this case. If a PE receives a synchronization request that doesn't exist or is not known to the PE, then it MUST trigger an unsolicited synchronization of all system information (i.e. replay the initialization sequence). If a PE learns, as part of a synchronization operation from its peer, that the latter is advertising a Node ID value which is different from the value previously advertised, then the PE MUST purge all state data previously learnt from that peer prior to the last synchronization. 4.2.4. Failure and Recovery When a PE that is active for a STP application encounters a core isolation fault [RFC7275], it SHOULD attempt to fail-over to a peer PE which hosts the same RO. The default fail-over procedure is to have the failed PE bring down the link(s) towards the multi-homed STP network (e.g. by bringing down the line-protocol). This will cause the STP network reconverges and uses the other links that are connected to the other PE(s) in the RG. Other procedures for triggering fail-over are possible, and are outside the scope of this document. If the isolated PE is the one that has the lowest BridgeIdentifier, PEs in the RG MUST synchronize STP configuration and state TLVs and determine a new virtual root bridge as specified in Section 4.2.2 (i.e., the PE with the least significant BridgeIdentifier will become the virtual root bridge.). Upon recovery from a previous fault, a PE MAY reclaim the role of the virtual root for the STP network if it has the lowest BridgeIdentifier among the RG. PEs in the RG MUST synchronize the STP configuration and state TLVs. Whenever the virtual root bridge changes, the STP Topology Changed Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 22] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 Instances TLV lists the instances that are affected by the change. These instances MUST undergo a STP reconvergence procedure when this TLV is received as defined in Section 3.4.1. 5. Security Considerations This document specifies an application running on the channel provided by ICCP [RFC7275]. The security considerations on ICCP apply in this document as well. For example, the application SHOULD only be used in well-managed and highly monitored networks. It ought not be deployed on or over the public Internet. For the STP application of ICCP, an attack on channel (running in the provider's network) can break not only the ability to deliver traffic across the provider's network, but the ability to route traffic within the customer's network. That is, careful attack on channel (such as the DOS attacks as described in [RFC7275]) can break STP within the customer network. Implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms mitigate these types of attacks. For example, the port between the PE and CE may be blocked when an attack is detect from this port. 6. IANA Considerations The IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)". It has a sub-registry called "ICC RG Parameter Types". IANA is requested to make 13 allocations from this registry as shown below. IANA is requested to allocate the codepoints in a sequential block starting from the next available value in the range marked for assignment by IETF review 0x2000-0x2FFF). All assignments should reference this document. Parameter Type Description -------------- --------------------------------- TBD1 STP Connect TLV TBD2 STP Disconnect TLV TBD3 STP System Config TLV TBD4 STP Region Name TLV TBD5 STP Revision Level TLV TBD6 STP Instance Priority TLV TBD7 STP Configuration Digest TLV TBD8 STP Topology Changed Instances TLV TBD9 STP STP CIST Root Time TLV TBD10 STP MSTI Root Time TLV TBD11 STP Synchronization Request TLV TBD12 STP Synchronization Data TLV Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 23] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 TBD13 STP Disconnect Cause TLV Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Adrian Farrel, Gregory Mirsky and Alexander Vainshtein. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", RFC 4762, January 2007. [RFC7275] Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M., Matsushima, S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE) Redundancy", RFC 7275, June 2014. [802.1q] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--- Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks.". IEEE Std 802.1 Q-2005, May 19, 2006. [802.1d1998] "Information technology---Telecommunications and information exchange between systems---Local and metropolitan area networks---Common specifications--Part 3: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges". ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1998 Edition. [802.1d2004] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks- -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges". IEEE Std 802.1 D-2004. 7.2. Informative References [RFC7023] D. Mohan, Ed., N. Bitar, Ed., A. Sajassi, Ed., S. DeLord, P. Niger, R. Qiu., "MPLS and Ethernet Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Interworking", RFC 7023, October 2013. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 24] INTERNET-DRAFT STP Application of ICCP March 9, 2015 Author's Addresses Mingui Zhang Huawei Technologies No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District, Beijing 100095 P.R. China EMail: zhangmingui@huawei.com Huafeng Wen Huawei Technologies 101 Software Avenue, Nanjing 210012 P.R. China EMail: wenhuafeng@huawei.com Jie Hu China Telecom EMail: hujie@ctbri.com.cn Mingui Zhang Expires September 10, 2015 [Page 25]