doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 619 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7173.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7173.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..01627f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7173.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,619 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           L. Yong
+Request for Comments: 7173                               D. Eastlake 3rd
+Category: Standards Track                                      S. Aldrin
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
+                                                               J. Hudson
+                                                                 Brocade
+                                                                May 2014
+
+
+     Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transport
+                           Using Pseudowires
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document specifies how to interconnect a pair of Transparent
+   Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) switch ports using
+   pseudowires under existing TRILL and Pseudowire Emulation End-to-End
+   (PWE3) standards.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7173.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2014 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.
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction.....................................................2
+      1.1. Conventions Used in This Document...........................2
+   2. PWE3 Interconnection of TRILL Switches...........................3
+      2.1. PWE3 Type-Independent Details...............................3
+      2.2. PPP PWE3 Transport of TRILL.................................4
+   3. Security Considerations..........................................6
+   Appendix A. Use of Other Pseudowire Types ..........................7
+   Acknowledgements ...................................................8
+   Normative References ...............................................9
+   Informative References ............................................10
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) protocol
+   [RFC6325] provides optimal pair-wise data frame routing without
+   configuration in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology.  TRILL
+   supports multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic.  Devices
+   that implement TRILL are called TRILL switches or Routing Bridges
+   (RBridges).
+
+   Links between TRILL switches can be based on arbitrary link
+   protocols, for example, PPP [RFC6361], as well as Ethernet [RFC6325].
+   A set of connected TRILL switches together form a TRILL campus that
+   is bounded by end stations and Layer 3 routers.
+
+   This document specifies how to interconnect a pair of TRILL switch
+   ports using a pseudowire under existing TRILL and PWE3 (Pseudowire
+   Emulation End-to-End) standards.
+
+1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
+   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
+   [RFC2119].
+
+   Acronyms used in this document include the following:
+
+      IS-IS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS]
+
+      MPLS - Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+
+      PPP - Point-to-Point Protocol [RFC1661]
+
+      PW - Pseudowire [RFC3985]
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+      PWE3 - PW Emulation End-to-End
+
+      RBridge - Routing Bridge, an alternative name for a TRILL switch
+
+      TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links [RFC6325]
+
+      TRILL Switch - A device implementing the TRILL protocol
+
+2.  PWE3 Interconnection of TRILL Switches
+
+   When a pseudowire is used to interconnect a pair of TRILL switch
+   ports, a PPP [RFC4618] pseudowire is used as described below.  The
+   pseudowire between such ports can be signaled [RFC4447] or manually
+   configured.  In this context, the TRILL switch ports at the ends of
+   the pseudowire are acting as native service processing (NSP) elements
+   [RFC3985] and, assuming that the pseudowires are over MPLS or IP
+   [RFC4023] networks, as label switched or IP routers at the TRILL
+   switch ports.
+
+   Pseudowires provide transparent transport, and the two TRILL switch
+   ports appear directly interconnected with a transparent link.  With
+   such an interconnection, the TRILL adjacency over the link is
+   automatically discovered and established through TRILL IS-IS control
+   messages [RFC7177].
+
+   A pseudowire is carried over a packet switched network tunnel
+   [RFC3985], for example, an MPLS or MPLS-TP label switched path tunnel
+   in MPLS networks.  Either a signaling protocol or manual
+   configuration can be used to configure a label switched path tunnel
+   between two TRILL switch ports.  This application needs no additions
+   to the existing pseudowire standards.
+
+2.1.  PWE3 Type-Independent Details
+
+   The sending pseudowire TRILL switch port SHOULD map the inner
+   priority of the TRILL Data packets being sent to the Traffic Class
+   field of the pseudowire label [RFC5462] so as to minimize the
+   probability that higher priority TRILL Data packets will be discarded
+   due to excessive TRILL Data packets of lower priority.
+
+   TRILL IS-IS PDUs critical to establishing and maintaining adjacency
+   (Hello and MTU PDUs) SHOULD be sent with the MPLS Traffic Class that
+   calls for handling with the maximum priority.  Other TRILL IS-IS PDUs
+   SHOULD be sent with the MPLS Traffic Class denoting the highest
+   priority that is less than the maximum priority.  TRILL Data packets
+   SHOULD be sent with appropriate MPLS Traffic Classes, typically
+   mapped from the TRILL Data packet priority, such that TRILL Data
+   packet Traffic Classes denote priorities less than the priorities
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+   used for TRILL IS-IS PDUs.  This minimizes the probability of other
+   traffic interfering with these important control PDUs and causing
+   false loss of adjacency or other control problems.
+
+   If a pseudowire supports fragmentation and reassembly (a feature that
+   has received little or no deployment), then there is no reason to do
+   TRILL MTU testing on it, and the pseudowire will not be a constraint
+   on the TRILL campus-wide MTU size (Sz) (see Section 4.3.1 of
+   [RFC6325]).  If the pseudowire does not support fragmentation (the
+   more common case), then the available TRILL IS-IS packet payload size
+   over the pseudowire (taking into account MPLS encapsulation with a
+   control word) or some lower value, MUST be used in helping to
+   determine MTU size (Sz) (see Section 5 of [RFC7180]).
+
+   An intervening MPLS label switched router or similar packet switched
+   network device has no awareness of TRILL.  Such devices will not
+   change the TRILL Header hop count.
+
+2.2.  PPP PWE3 Transport of TRILL
+
+   For a PPP pseudowire (PW type = 0x0007), the two TRILL switch ports
+   being connected are configured to form a pseudowire with PPP
+   encapsulation [RFC4618].  After the pseudowire is established and
+   TRILL use is negotiated within PPP, the two TRILL switch ports appear
+   directly connected with a PPP link [RFC1661] [RFC6361].
+
+   If pseudowire interconnection of two TRILL switch ports is signaled
+   [RFC4447], the initiating TRILL switch port MUST attempt the
+   connection setup with pseudowire type PPP (0x0007).
+
+   Behavior for TRILL with a PPP pseudowire continues to follow that of
+   TRILL over PPP as specified in Section 3 of [RFC6361].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+   The following figures show what a TRILL Data packet and TRILL IS-IS
+   packet look like over such a pseudowire in the MPLS case, assuming no
+   TRILL Header extensions:
+
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |   Server MPLS Tunnel Label(s)  |  n*4 octets (4 octets per label)
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |           PW Label             |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |         Control Word           |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |      PPP Header 0x005d         |  2 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |         TRILL Header           |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |    Destination MAC Address     |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |      Source MAC Address        |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |          Data Label            |  4 or 8 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |         Payload Body           |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+
+                 Figure 1: TRILL Data Packet in Pseudowire
+
+   "Data Label" is the VLAN Label or Fine-Grained Label [RFC7172] of the
+   payload.
+
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |   Server MPLS Tunnel Label(s)  |  n*4 octets (4 octets per label)
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |           PW Label             |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |         Control Word           |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |      PPP Header 0x405d         |  2 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |     Common IS-IS Header        |  8 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   | IS-IS PDU Type Specific Header |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |          IS-IS TLVs            |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+
+                Figure 2: TRILL IS-IS Packet in Pseudowire
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+   The PPP Header fields (0x005d and 0x405d, respectively) for TRILL
+   Data and IS-IS packets shown above are specified in [RFC6361].
+
+3.  Security Considerations
+
+   TRILL-level security mechanisms, such as the ability to use
+   authentication with TRILL IS-IS PDUs [RFC6325], are not affected by
+   link technology, such as the use of pseudowire links as specified in
+   this document.
+
+   Link security may be useful in improving TRILL campus security.
+   TRILL is transported over pseudowires as TRILL over PPP over
+   pseudowires, pseudowires are over MPLS or IP, and MPLS and IP are
+   over some lower-level link technology.  Thus, link security below the
+   TRILL level for a pseudowire link could be provided by PPP security,
+   pseudowire security, MPLS or IP security, or security of the link
+   technology supporting MPLS or IP.
+
+   PPP TRILL security considerations are discussed in [RFC6361].  For
+   security considerations introduced by carrying PPP TRILL links over
+   pseudowires, see [RFC3985], which discusses the risks introduced by
+   sending protocols that previously assumed a point-to-point link on a
+   pseudowire built on a packet switched network (PSN).  However, the
+   PPP layer in TRILL transport by pseudowire is somewhat vestigial and
+   intended primarily as a convenient way to use existing PPP code
+   points to identify TRILL Data packets and TRILL IS-IS packets.
+   Furthermore, existing PPP security standards are arguably
+   questionable in terms of current security criteria.  For these
+   reasons, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use PPP security in the transport
+   of TRILL by pseudowires as specified in this document.
+
+   It is RECOMMENDED that link security be provided at the layers
+   supporting pseudowires transporting TRILL, that is, at the MPLS or IP
+   layer or the link layer transporting MPLS or IP.
+
+   For applications involving sensitive data, end-to-end security should
+   always be considered, in addition to link security, to provide
+   security in depth.  In this context, such end-to-end security should
+   be between the end stations involved so as to protect the entire path
+   to, through, and from the TRILL campus.
+
+   For general TRILL protocol security considerations, see [RFC6325].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+Appendix A.  Use of Other Pseudowire Types
+
+   This informational appendix briefly discusses the use of pseudowire
+   types other than PPP for the transport of TRILL.
+
+   The use of Ethernet pseudowires [RFC4448] was examined by the authors
+   and would be possible without change to such pseudowires; however,
+   this would require an additional 12 or 16 bytes per packet within the
+   payload being transmitted over the pseudowire for a TRILL Data packet
+   (Figure 3) and a TRILL IS-IS packet (Figure 4) over such an Ethernet
+   pseudowire in the MPLS case, assuming no TRILL Header extensions
+   (compare with Figures 1 and 2):
+
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |   Server MPLS Tunnel Label(s)  |  n*4 octets (4 octets per label)
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |          PW Label              |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |    Optional Control Word       |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |  TRILL Hop Dest. MAC Address   |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |  TRILL Hop Source MAC Address  |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |Optional VLAN and/or other tags |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |   TRILL Ethertype (0x22f3)     |  2 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |         TRILL Header           |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |    Destination MAC Address     |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |      Source MAC Address        |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |          Data Label            |  4 or 8 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |         Payload Body           |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+
+            Figure 3: TRILL Data Packet in Ethernet Pseudowire
+
+   "Data Label" is the VLAN Label or Fine-Grained Label [RFC7172] of the
+   payload.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |   Server MPLS Tunnel Label(s)  |  n*4 octets (4 octets per label)
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |          PW Label              |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |    Optional Control Word       |  4 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |  TRILL Hop Dest. MAC Address   |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |  TRILL Hop Source MAC Address  |  6 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |Optional VLAN and/or other tags |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+   | Layer 2 IS-IS Ethertype 0x22f4 |  2 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |       Common IS-IS Header      |  8 octets
+   +--------------------------------+
+   | IS-IS PDU Type Specific Header |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+   |          IS-IS TLVs            |  variable
+   +--------------------------------+
+
+            Figure 4: TRILL IS-IS Packet in Ethernet Pseudowire
+
+   It would also be possible to specify a new pseudowire type for TRILL
+   traffic, but the authors feel that any efficiency gain over PPP
+   pseudowires would be too small to be worth the complexity of adding
+   such a specification.  Furthermore, using PPP pseudowire encoding
+   means that any traffic dissector that understands TRILL PPP encoding
+   [RFC6361] and PPP pseudowires [RFC4618] will automatically be able to
+   recursively decode TRILL transported by pseudowire.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   Thanks for the valuable comments from the following, who are listed
+   in alphabetic order:
+
+      Stewart Bryant, Stephen Farrell, Brian Haberman, Christer
+      Holmberg, Joel Jaeggli, Barry Leiba, Erik Nordmark, Yaron Sheffer,
+      and Yaakov (J) Stein.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+Normative References
+
+   [RFC1661]  Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
+              STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [RFC4447]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
+              G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
+              Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
+
+   [RFC4618]  Martini, L., Rosen, E., Heron, G., and A. Malis,
+              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level
+              Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS Networks", RFC 4618,
+              September 2006.
+
+   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
+              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
+              Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.
+
+   [RFC6325]  Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
+              Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
+              Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
+
+   [RFC6361]  Carlson, J. and D. Eastlake 3rd, "PPP Transparent
+              Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol Control
+              Protocol", RFC 6361, August 2011.
+
+   [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, May 2014.
+
+   [RFC7180]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Ghanwani, A., Manral, V., and
+              A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
+              (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and Updates",
+              RFC 7180, May 2014.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+Informative References
+
+   [IS-IS]    ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, "Information
+              technology -- Telecommunications and information exchange
+              between systems -- Intermediate System to Intermediate
+              System intra-domain routeing information exchange protocol
+              for use in conjunction with the protocol for providing the
+              connectionless-mode network service (ISO 8473)", 2002.
+
+   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S., Ed., and P. Pate, Ed., "Pseudo Wire Emulation
+              Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
+
+   [RFC4023]  Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
+              "Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
+              (GRE)", RFC 4023, March 2005.
+
+   [RFC4448]  Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
+              "Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
+              Networks", RFC 4448, April 2006.
+
+   [RFC7177]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and
+              V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
+              (TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, May 2014.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 10]
+
+RFC 7173                  PWE3 TRILL Transport                  May 2014
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Lucy Yong
+   Huawei Technologies
+   5340 Legacy Drive
+   Plano, TX  75024
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1-469-227-5837
+   EMail: lucy.yong@huawei.com
+
+
+   Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
+   Huawei Technologies
+   155 Beaver Street
+   Milford, MA  01757
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1-508-333-2270
+   EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
+
+
+   Sam Aldrin
+   Huawei Technologies
+   2330 Central Expressway
+   Santa Clara, CA  95050
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1-408-330-4517
+   EMail: sam.aldrin@huawei.com
+
+
+   Jon Hudson
+   Brocade
+   130 Holger Way
+   San Jose, CA  95134
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1-408-333-4062
+   EMail: jon.hudson@gmail.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Yong, et al.                 Standards Track                   [Page 11]
+