| < draft-yizhou-trill-tc-awareness-02.txt | draft-yizhou-trill-tc-awareness-03.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRILL Working Group Yizhou Li | TRILL Working Group Yizhou Li | |||
| Internet Draft Weiguo Hao | Internet Draft Weiguo Hao | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies | Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies | |||
| Jon Hudson | Jon Hudson | |||
| Brocade | Brocade | |||
| Naveen Nimmu | Naveen Nimmu | |||
| Broadcom | Broadcom | |||
| Anoop Ghanwani | Anoop Ghanwani | |||
| DELL | DELL | |||
| Expires: January 2014 May 2, 2013 | Expires: May 25, 2014 November 21, 2013 | |||
| Aware Spanning Tree Topology Change on RBridges | Aware Spanning Tree Topology Change on RBridges | |||
| draft-yizhou-trill-tc-awareness-02.txt | draft-yizhou-trill-tc-awareness-03.txt | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- | |||
| Drafts. | Drafts. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2013. | This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2009. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect | carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with | |||
| to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must | respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this | |||
| include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of | document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in | |||
| the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as | Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| When a local LAN running spanning tree protocol connecting to TRILL | When a local LAN running spanning tree protocol connecting to TRILL | |||
| campus via more than one RBridge, there are several ways to perform | campus via more than one RBridge, there are several ways to perform | |||
| loop avoidance. One of them illustrated by RFC6325 [RFC6325] A.3 was | loop avoidance. One of them illustrated by RFC6325 [RFC6325] A.3 was | |||
| to make relevant ports on edge RBridges involving in spanning tree | to make relevant ports on edge RBridges involving in spanning tree | |||
| calculation. When edge RBridges are emulated as a single highest | calculation. When edge RBridges are emulated as a single highest | |||
| priority root, the local bridged LAN will be naturally partitioned | priority root, the local bridged LAN will be naturally partitioned | |||
| after running spanning tree protocol. This approach achieves better | after running spanning tree protocol. This approach achieves better | |||
| link utilization and intra-VLAN load balancing in some scenarios. | link utilization and intra-VLAN load balancing in some scenarios. | |||
| This document describes how the edge RBridges react to topology | This document describes how the edge RBridges react to topology | |||
| change occurring in bridged LAN in order to make the abovementioned | change occurring in bridged LAN in order to make the abovementioned | |||
| spanning tree approach function correct. | spanning tree approach function correct. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction ................................................ 3 | 1. Introduction ............................................. 3 | |||
| 1.1. Motivations ............................................ 5 | 1.1. Motivations ......................................... 5 | |||
| 2. Conventions used in this document............................ 6 | 2. Conventions used in this document ........................ 6 | |||
| 3. BPDU RBridge Channel and TLVs................................ 6 | 3. BPDU RBridge Channel and TLVs ............................ 6 | |||
| 3.1. BPDU TLV ............................................... 7 | 3.1. BPDU TLV ............................................ 7 | |||
| 3.2. Authentication Information TLV.......................... 7 | 3.2. Authentication Information TLV ...................... 7 | |||
| 4. Operations .................................................. 8 | 4. Operations ............................................... 8 | |||
| 4.1. Sending BPDU using RBridge channel ......................9 | 4.1. Sending BPDU using RBridge channel .................. 9 | |||
| 4.2. Receiving BPDU in RBridge channel...................... 10 | 4.2. Receiving BPDU in RBridge channel................... 10 | |||
| 4.3. Informing the remote site.............................. 11 | 4.3. Informing the remote site .......................... 11 | |||
| 5. Security Considerations..................................... 13 | 5. Security Considerations ................................. 13 | |||
| 6. IANA Considerations ........................................ 13 | 6. IANA Considerations ..................................... 13 | |||
| 7. References ................................................. 13 | 7. References .............................................. 13 | |||
| 7.1. Normative References................................... 13 | 7.1. Normative References ............................... 13 | |||
| 7.2. Informative References................................. 14 | 7.2. Informative References.............................. 14 | |||
| 8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 14 | 8. Acknowledgments ......................................... 14 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| The TRILL protocol [RFC6325] provides the appointed forwarder | The TRILL protocol [RFC6325] provides the appointed forwarder | |||
| mechanism [RFC6439] for loop avoidance where, for part of the loop, | mechanism [RFC6439] for loop avoidance where, for part of the loop, | |||
| the frame would be in TRILL encapsulated format, for example in the | the frame would be in TRILL encapsulated format, for example in the | |||
| scenario shown by Figure 1. Only one of the RBridges is responsible | scenario shown by Figure 1. Only one of the RBridges is responsible | |||
| for encapsulating/decapsulating a given VLAN's data frames on a link. | for encapsulating/decapsulating a given VLAN's data frames on a link. | |||
| Bridges in the local bridged LAN runs normal spanning tree protocol | Bridges in the local bridged LAN runs normal spanning tree protocol | |||
| for local loop avoidance. RBridges keeps track of the root bridge by | for local loop avoidance. RBridges keeps track of the root bridge by | |||
| listening to BPDUs received on the local port. This information is | listening to BPDUs received on the local port. This information is | |||
| reported per VLAN by the RBridge in its LSP and is used to detect a | reported per VLAN by the RBridge in its LSP and is used to detect a | |||
| root bridge change. Root bridge changes trigger the reset of the | root bridge change. Root bridge changes trigger the reset of the | |||
| inhibition timer of the appointed forwarder. When an RBridge ceases | inhibition timer of the appointed forwarder. When an RBridge ceases | |||
| to be appointed forwarder for a VLAN on a port, it sends topology | to be appointed forwarder for a VLAN on a port, it sends topology | |||
| change BPDUs to purge the MAC table on local bridged LAN switches. An | change BPDUs to purge the MAC table on local bridged LAN switches. | |||
| RBridge conformable to [RFC6325] never encapsulates or forwards any | An RBridge conformable to [RFC6325] never encapsulates or forwards | |||
| BPDU frame it receives. | any BPDU frame it receives. | |||
| ------------------ | ------------------ | |||
| / \ | / \ | |||
| | Trill Network | | | Trill Network | | |||
| \ / | \ / | |||
| ------------------ | ------------------ | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| DRB| | | DRB| | | |||
| +------+ +------+ | +------+ +------+ | |||
| AF --->| RB1 | | RB2 | | AF --->| RB1 | | RB2 | | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶ | |||
| end stations on local bridged LAN can be separated into multiple | end stations on local bridged LAN can be separated into multiple | |||
| VLANs | VLANs | |||
| 4. Configure the RBridges to be like one STP tree root in local | 4. Configure the RBridges to be like one STP tree root in local | |||
| bridged LAN. The RBridge ports that are connected to the bridged | bridged LAN. The RBridge ports that are connected to the bridged | |||
| LAN send spanning tree configuration BPDUs. Then the bridged LAN | LAN send spanning tree configuration BPDUs. Then the bridged LAN | |||
| is forced into partitions. Figure 2 shows its network topology. | is forced into partitions. Figure 2 shows its network topology. | |||
| Method 1 and 2 highly depends on the network topology and equipment | Method 1 and 2 highly depends on the network topology and equipment | |||
| types and therefore have very limited applicability. Method 3 and 4 | types and therefore have very limited applicability. Method 3 and 4 | |||
| have broader applicability. Method 4 is more applicable than method 3 | have broader applicability. Method 4 is more applicable than method | |||
| if all end stations in bridged LAN are on the same VLAN or intra VLAN | 3 if all end stations in bridged LAN are on the same VLAN or intra | |||
| load balancing is required to avoid per VLAN congestion and | VLAN load balancing is required to avoid per VLAN congestion and | |||
| suboptimal routing. The traffic discontinuity was caused by | suboptimal routing. The traffic discontinuity was caused by | |||
| inhibition timer setting in case of root change in method 3. Proper | inhibition timer setting in case of root change in method 3. Proper | |||
| timeout value has to be carefully chosen for tradeoff between | timeout value has to be carefully chosen for tradeoff between | |||
| unnecessary traffic continuity and potential loop. Method 4 | unnecessary traffic continuity and potential loop. Method 4 | |||
| eliminates the requirement of setting inhibition timer in case of | eliminates the requirement of setting inhibition timer in case of | |||
| root change. Therefore method 4 is considered as a very common | root change. Therefore method 4 is considered as a very common | |||
| practice in real deployment. | practice in real deployment. | |||
| ------------------ | ------------------ | |||
| / \ | / \ | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶ | |||
| RB1 & RB2 use the same bridge ID to emit spanning tree BPDUs as the | RB1 & RB2 use the same bridge ID to emit spanning tree BPDUs as the | |||
| highest priority root Bx. All bridges in LAN see RB1 and RB2 as a | highest priority root Bx. All bridges in LAN see RB1 and RB2 as a | |||
| single tree root. Therefore B1-B2 and B2-B3 links are blocked for | single tree root. Therefore B1-B2 and B2-B3 links are blocked for | |||
| loop avoidance by the spanning tree protocol. RB1 and RB2 will not | loop avoidance by the spanning tree protocol. RB1 and RB2 will not | |||
| receive TRILL-Hello from each other. Bridged LAN is logically | receive TRILL-Hello from each other. Bridged LAN is logically | |||
| partitioned into two parts. RB1 is DRB and AF for all VLANs in left | partitioned into two parts. RB1 is DRB and AF for all VLANs in left | |||
| partition and RB2 is DRB and AF in right partition. | partition and RB2 is DRB and AF in right partition. | |||
| If B1-B3 link fails for some reason, alternate port p2 on B3 will | If B1-B3 link fails for some reason, alternate port p2 on B3 will | |||
| send topology change (TC) BPDU to B2 as RSTP specifies [802.1D]. B2- | send topology change (TC) BPDU to B2 as RSTP specifies [802.1D]. B2- | |||
| B3 link will start forwarding frames. TC BPDU is then sent from B2 to | B3 link will start forwarding frames. TC BPDU is then sent from B2 | |||
| RB2. As RB2 never forwards BPDU frame to TRILL campus, left partition | to RB2. As RB2 never forwards BPDU frame to TRILL campus, left | |||
| has no way to know the topology change. Therefore B4 will not able to | partition has no way to know the topology change. Therefore B4 will | |||
| correctly purge the MACs learnt from port p1 for end stations | not able to correctly purge the MACs learnt from port p1 for end | |||
| connected to B3. MAC table entry aging is the last resort in this | stations connected to B3. MAC table entry aging is the last resort | |||
| case. In addition, a remote end station may keep sending traffic to | in this case. In addition, a remote end station may keep sending | |||
| an end station connected to B3 via RB1-B1 which causes frame loss. | traffic to an end station connected to B3 via RB1-B1 which causes | |||
| Therefore some mechanism must be introduced to purge the MACs learned | frame loss. Therefore some mechanism must be introduced to purge the | |||
| both in the left partition of the bridged LAN and at the remote | MACs learned both in the left partition of the bridged LAN and at | |||
| Rbridges when topology changes. | the remote Rbridges when topology changes. | |||
| This draft proposes to use RBridge channel [TRILLChannel] to tunnel | This draft proposes to use RBridge channel [TRILLChannel] to tunnel | |||
| the TC BPDU to solve the issue. It complements Appendix A.3 of | the TC BPDU to solve the issue. It complements Appendix A.3 of | |||
| RFC6325 to improve correctness and efficiency. | RFC6325 to improve correctness and efficiency. | |||
| 2. Conventions used in this document | 2. Conventions used in this document | |||
| The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
| "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
| document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. | |||
| This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC6325] along with | This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC6325] along with | |||
| the following: | the following: | |||
| Root Bridge Group - A group of RBridges acting as an emulated single | Root Bridge Group - A group of RBridges acting as an emulated single | |||
| tree root in a spanning tree instance in local bridged LAN. The group | tree root in a spanning tree instance in local bridged LAN. The | |||
| has at least two RBridges. | group has at least two RBridges. | |||
| 3. BPDU RBridge Channel and TLVs | 3. BPDU RBridge Channel and TLVs | |||
| A new channel protocol is defined to carry BPDU. | A new channel protocol is defined to carry BPDU. | |||
| Channel protocol code: TBD (BPDU) | Channel protocol code: TBD (BPDU) | |||
| | 0| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|15| | | 0| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|15| | |||
| RBridge Channel Header: | RBridge Channel Header: | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| | RBridge Channel Ethertype | | | RBridge Channel Ethertype | | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 25 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 25 ¶ | |||
| | Domain ID | reserved | | | Domain ID | reserved | | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| . TLVs . | . TLVs . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| Figure 3 RBridge Channel Format for BPDU | Figure 3 RBridge Channel Format for BPDU | |||
| Domain ID: Unique ID to identify a single spanning tree domain. | Domain ID: Unique ID to identify a single spanning tree domain. | |||
| Reserved: 4 bits reserved field. | Reserved: 4 bits reserved field. | |||
| The fields of TRILL header and inner Ethernet header SHOULD be set as | The fields of TRILL header and inner Ethernet header SHOULD be set | |||
| per [TRILLChannel] unless specified in this draft. | as per [TRILLChannel] unless specified in this draft. | |||
| 3.1. BPDU TLV | 3.1. BPDU TLV | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Type= | (1 byte) | | Type= | (1 byte) | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | Length | (1 byte) | | Length | (1 byte) | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| | BPDU | (variable length) | | BPDU | (variable length) | |||
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 27 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 27 ¶ | |||
| Auth Value: Value used to authenticate the RBridge Channel BPDU | Auth Value: Value used to authenticate the RBridge Channel BPDU | |||
| Specific Information using the algorithm specified by Auth Mode | Specific Information using the algorithm specified by Auth Mode | |||
| This TLV is used for channel message authentication. When an RBridge | This TLV is used for channel message authentication. When an RBridge | |||
| receives a channel message with Authentication Information, it MUST | receives a channel message with Authentication Information, it MUST | |||
| discard it if the Authentication Value is incorrect. | discard it if the Authentication Value is incorrect. | |||
| 4. Operations | 4. Operations | |||
| Figure 4 shows TC BPDU tunneled from RB2 to RB1 using RBridge Channel. | Figure 4 shows TC BPDU tunneled from RB2 to RB1 using RBridge | |||
| Channel. | ||||
| ------------------------- | ------------------------- | |||
| / \ | / \ | |||
| / \ | / \ | |||
| | Trill Network | | | Trill Network | | |||
| | | | | | | |||
| | +---------------+ | | | +---------------+ | | |||
| | | 4.tunnel BPDU | | | | | 4.tunnel BPDU | | | |||
| | | in channel | | | | | in channel | | | |||
| \ | +-----------+ | / | \ | +-----------+ | / | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 7 ¶ | |||
| 4.1. Sending BPDU using RBridge channel | 4.1. Sending BPDU using RBridge channel | |||
| In figure 4, when B1-B3 link fails, alternate port p2 on B3 will | In figure 4, when B1-B3 link fails, alternate port p2 on B3 will | |||
| start to send TC BPDU and go to forwarding state. RB2 receives TC | start to send TC BPDU and go to forwarding state. RB2 receives TC | |||
| BPDU from B2 sequentially. RB2 encapsulates the TC BPDU in RBridge | BPDU from B2 sequentially. RB2 encapsulates the TC BPDU in RBridge | |||
| channel and sends it to RB1. | channel and sends it to RB1. | |||
| Interested VLANs and Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV [RFC6326] carries | Interested VLANs and Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV [RFC6326] carries | |||
| spanning tree root bridge IDs seen for all ports for which the | spanning tree root bridge IDs seen for all ports for which the | |||
| RBridge is the appointed forwarder for a VLAN. As RB1 and RB2 use the | RBridge is the appointed forwarder for a VLAN. As RB1 and RB2 use | |||
| same bridge ID and that bridge ID is the spanning tree root, RB1 and | the same bridge ID and that bridge ID is the spanning tree root, RB1 | |||
| RB2 are considered as in a root bridge group. Static configuration of | and RB2 are considered as in a root bridge group. Static | |||
| root bridge group is also allowed. | configuration of root bridge group is also allowed. | |||
| When RBridge receives TC BPDU from an access port, it tunnels the | When RBridge receives TC BPDU from an access port, it tunnels the | |||
| frame to all the other RBridges in the same root bridge group using | frame to all the other RBridges in the same root bridge group using | |||
| RBridge channel protocol specified in section 3. Normally the number | RBridge channel protocol specified in section 3. Normally the number | |||
| of RBridges in a root bridge group is limited, say 2 or 3; such | of RBridges in a root bridge group is limited, say 2 or 3; such | |||
| tunneling is performed using TRILL unicast encapsulation. N members | tunneling is performed using TRILL unicast encapsulation. N members | |||
| in a root bridge group results in N-1 sequential unicast BPDU | in a root bridge group results in N-1 sequential unicast BPDU | |||
| tunneled. In figure 4, RB2 knows RB1 is in the same root bridge group | tunneled. In figure 4, RB2 knows RB1 is in the same root bridge | |||
| from LSP exchange; hence RB2 uses RB1's nickname as egress nickname | group from LSP exchange; hence RB2 uses RB1's nickname as egress | |||
| and encapsulates the TC BPDU in RBridge channel. M bit in TRILL | nickname and encapsulates the TC BPDU in RBridge channel. M bit in | |||
| header SHOULD be 0. | TRILL header SHOULD be 0. | |||
| If TRILL Campus was partitioned temporarily in some unusual cases, | If TRILL Campus was partitioned temporarily in some unusual cases, | |||
| RBridges in the same root bridge group may not reach each other. For | RBridges in the same root bridge group may not reach each other. For | |||
| instance, if RB2 was not able to reach RB1 through TRILL campus at | instance, if RB2 was not able to reach RB1 through TRILL campus at | |||
| some transition period due to network fault, RB1 would not receive | some transition period due to network fault, RB1 would not receive | |||
| the tunneled TC BPDU from RB2. Then the approach illustrated in this | the tunneled TC BPDU from RB2. Then the approach illustrated in this | |||
| document will take effect again only after RB1 and RB2 connectivity | document will take effect again only after RB1 and RB2 connectivity | |||
| via TRILL recovers from the network fault. | via TRILL recovers from the network fault. | |||
| It is possible to statically configure a root bridge group, especial | It is possible to statically configure a root bridge group, especial | |||
| when network is relatively small and stable. Therefore when an | when network is relatively small and stable. Therefore when an | |||
| RBridge tunnels the TC BPDU to other members in the same root bridge | RBridge tunnels the TC BPDU to other members in the same root bridge | |||
| group, it has to make sure the destination is reachable. | group, it has to make sure the destination is reachable. | |||
| If edges RBridges configured in the same root bridge group connect to | If edges RBridges configured in the same root bridge group connect | |||
| separate TRILL campus intentionally, it is not recommended to use | to separate TRILL campus intentionally, it is not recommended to use | |||
| spanning tree partition mechanism and such root bridge group | spanning tree partition mechanism and such root bridge group | |||
| provisioning is normally considered as mis-configuration. | provisioning is normally considered as mis-configuration. | |||
| 4.2. Receiving BPDU in RBridge channel | 4.2. Receiving BPDU in RBridge channel | |||
| When an RBridge receives a TC BPDU from RBridge channel, it | When an RBridge receives a TC BPDU from RBridge channel, it | |||
| determines the frame was sent from an RB in the same root bridge | determines the frame was sent from an RB in the same root bridge | |||
| group. Then RBridge decapsulates the frame and sends the original TC | group. Then RBridge decapsulates the frame and sends the original TC | |||
| BPDU to its local bridged LAN. TC BPDU will be flooded throughout the | BPDU to its local bridged LAN. TC BPDU will be flooded throughout | |||
| access ports configured as the same domain ID specified by BPDU | the access ports configured as the same domain ID specified by BPDU | |||
| RBridge channel in the left partition to purge MAC table of bridges. | RBridge channel in the left partition to purge MAC table of bridges. | |||
| 4.3. Informing the remote site | 4.3. Informing the remote site | |||
| When local topology changes, the correspondence of end station and | When local topology changes, the correspondence of end station and | |||
| its attaching RBridge cached by remote RB may become invalid. The | its attaching RBridge cached by remote RB may become invalid. The | |||
| RBridges who is the appointed forwarder for the specified VLAN in | RBridges who is the appointed forwarder for the specified VLAN in | |||
| remote sites should be informed to update the stale correspondence | remote sites should be informed to update the stale correspondence | |||
| table entry. | table entry. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 30 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 30 ¶ | |||
| remote to local, remote RBridge will not receive the data frame from | remote to local, remote RBridge will not receive the data frame from | |||
| local RBridge to refresh its table. Then traffic discontinuity may | local RBridge to refresh its table. Then traffic discontinuity may | |||
| last for some time until the table entry is aged out at the remote | last for some time until the table entry is aged out at the remote | |||
| RBridge. | RBridge. | |||
| A lightweight method is to use RBridge channel to carry MAC purge | A lightweight method is to use RBridge channel to carry MAC purge | |||
| information. In Figure 4, When RB2 receives TC BPDU from B2, it | information. In Figure 4, When RB2 receives TC BPDU from B2, it | |||
| derives the corresponding VLAN list. For example, if MSTP is used, | derives the corresponding VLAN list. For example, if MSTP is used, | |||
| RB2 will get the VLAN IDs in the same MSTP instance as TC BPDU. RB2 | RB2 will get the VLAN IDs in the same MSTP instance as TC BPDU. RB2 | |||
| sends out MAC purge information using RBridge channel with VLAN | sends out MAC purge information using RBridge channel with VLAN | |||
| information and RBidges' nicknames in the same root bridge group. All | information and RBidges' nicknames in the same root bridge group. | |||
| remote RBridges received MAC purge should clear its MAC-to-nickname | All remote RBridges received MAC purge should clear its MAC-to- | |||
| correspondence table for entries with the specified nicknames and | nickname correspondence table for entries with the specified | |||
| VLAN IDs. If no VLAN list is specified, the remote RBridges should | nicknames and VLAN IDs. If no VLAN list is specified, the remote | |||
| clear the correspondence in all VLANs relevant to the given nicknames. | RBridges should clear the correspondence in all VLANs relevant to | |||
| The MAC purge is recommended to send on the management VLAN in which | the given nicknames. The MAC purge is recommended to send on the | |||
| all RBridges joins. | management VLAN in which all RBridges joins. | |||
| A new channel protocol code for MAC purge should be defined as | A new channel protocol code for MAC purge should be defined as | |||
| follows. | follows. | |||
| | 0| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|15| | | 0| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|15| | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| | RBridge Channel | | | RBridge Channel | | |||
| | Header | | | Header | | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| | Number of nicknames | nickname 1 | | | Number of nicknames | nickname 1 | | |||
| skipping to change at page 12, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 12, line 32 ¶ | |||
| | End.VLAN | | | | End.VLAN | | | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| | Other Start/End VLAN list ... | | | Other Start/End VLAN list ... | | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| . TLVs . | . TLVs . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | |||
| Figure 5 RBridge Channel Format for MAC Purge | Figure 5 RBridge Channel Format for MAC Purge | |||
| Number of nicknames: number of the following nicknames, which will be | Number of nicknames: number of the following nicknames, which will | |||
| used by the receivers to purge their relevant MAC-to-nickname | be used by the receivers to purge their relevant MAC-to-nickname | |||
| correspondence table entries. | correspondence table entries. | |||
| Num of VLAN blocks: number of the following VLAN block. A VLAN block | Num of VLAN blocks: number of the following VLAN block. A VLAN block | |||
| is specified by a start and an end VLAN IDs. When start and end VLAN | is specified by a start and an end VLAN IDs. When start and end VLAN | |||
| IDs are the same, it implies only one VLAN ID is in the block. When | IDs are the same, it implies only one VLAN ID is in the block. When | |||
| number of VLAN block is 0, it implies no VLAN ID is specified. | number of VLAN block is 0, it implies no VLAN ID is specified. | |||
| For any nickname x specified and any VLAN y specified in this TLV, | For any nickname x specified and any VLAN y specified in this TLV, | |||
| the receivers should purge MAC-to-nickname correspondence table | the receivers should purge MAC-to-nickname correspondence table | |||
| entries with (any-MAC, VLAN-y, nickname-x). When number of VLAN block | entries with (any-MAC, VLAN-y, nickname-x). When number of VLAN | |||
| is 0, the receivers should purge entries with (any-MAC, any-VLAN, | block is 0, the receivers should purge entries with (any-MAC, any- | |||
| nickname-x). | VLAN, nickname-x). | |||
| Authentication Information TLV specified by section 3.2 can be used | Authentication Information TLV specified by section 3.2 can be used | |||
| in MAC Purge channel message. | in MAC Purge channel message. | |||
| 5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| This document does not change the general RBridge security | This document does not change the general RBridge security | |||
| considerations of the TRILL base protocol and TRILL RBridge Channel. | considerations of the TRILL base protocol and TRILL RBridge Channel. | |||
| See Section 6 of [RFC6325] and section 7 of [TRILLChannel]. | See Section 6 of [RFC6325] and section 7 of [TRILLChannel]. | |||
| Massive TC BPDU may trigger RBridges continuously sending tunneled | Massive TC BPDU may trigger RBridges continuously sending tunneled | |||
| BPDU and MAC purges. It may cause denial-of-service in TRILL campus. | BPDU and MAC purges. It may cause denial-of-service in TRILL campus. | |||
| Similar as the traditional bridged LAN running spanning tree, it is | Similar as the traditional bridged LAN running spanning tree, it is | |||
| suggested to monitor the receiving rate of TC BPDU on bridged LAN | suggested to monitor the receiving rate of TC BPDU on bridged LAN | |||
| facing port of RBridges. If the receiving rate is beyond the | facing port of RBridges. If the receiving rate is beyond the | |||
| threshold, RBridge should only process and tunnel the TC BPDU in the | threshold, RBridge should only process and tunnel the TC BPDU in the | |||
| configured rate. | configured rate. | |||
| Authentication TLV should be included if risk of injecting forged | Authentication TLV should be included if risk of injecting forged | |||
| information is a concern. However keeping channel information in this | information is a concern. However keeping channel information in | |||
| document secret and private is not necessary and is not a requirement. | this document secret and private is not necessary and is not a | |||
| requirement. | ||||
| 6. IANA Considerations | 6. IANA Considerations | |||
| IANA is requested to allocate the new channel protocol codes as | IANA is requested to allocate the new channel protocol codes as | |||
| following. | following. | |||
| Channel protocol code X1: BPDU | Channel protocol code X1: BPDU | |||
| Channel protocol code X2: MAC purge | Channel protocol code X2: MAC purge | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 10 ¶ | |||
| rfc6326bis-07.txt, Work in Progress, December 2011. | rfc6326bis-07.txt, Work in Progress, December 2011. | |||
| [RFC6439] Eastlake, D. et.al., ''RBridge: Appointed Forwarder'', RFC | [RFC6439] Eastlake, D. et.al., ''RBridge: Appointed Forwarder'', RFC | |||
| 6439, November 2011. | 6439, November 2011. | |||
| [TRILLChannel] - Eastlake, D., V. Manral, Y. Li, S. Aldrin, D. Ward, | [TRILLChannel] - Eastlake, D., V. Manral, Y. Li, S. Aldrin, D. Ward, | |||
| "RBridges: RBridge Channel Support in TRILL", draft-ietf- | "RBridges: RBridge Channel Support in TRILL", draft-ietf- | |||
| trill-rbridge-channel, work in progress. | trill-rbridge-channel, work in progress. | |||
| [RFC6327] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D., | [RFC6327] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D., | |||
| and V. Manral, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Adjacency", RFC | and V. Manral, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Adjacency", | |||
| 6327, July 2011 | RFC 6327, July 2011 | |||
| [802.1D] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks | [802.1D] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks | |||
| /Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", 802.1D-2004, 9 June | /Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges", 802.1D-2004, 9 June | |||
| 2004. | 2004. | |||
| 7.2. Informative References | 7.2. Informative References | |||
| [RFC6165] Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 | [RFC6165] Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2 | |||
| Systems", RFC 6165, April 2011. | Systems", RFC 6165, April 2011. | |||
| [802.1Q-2011] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks | [802.1Q-2011] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area | |||
| /Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", 802.1Q-2011, 31 Aug | networks /Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", 802.1Q- | |||
| 2011. | 2011, 31 Aug 2011. | |||
| 8. Acknowledgments | 8. Acknowledgments | |||
| This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. | This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. | |||
| Appendix: Change History | Appendix: Change History | |||
| Changes from -01 to -02 | Changes from -01 to -02 | |||
| 1. Add domain ID field to BPDU channel message. | 1. Add domain ID field to BPDU channel message. | |||
| End of changes. 23 change blocks. | ||||
| 82 lines changed or deleted | 84 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||