From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc8385.txt | 899 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 899 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc8385.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8385.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8385.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8385.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..14856b6 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8385.txt @@ -0,0 +1,899 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Umair +Request for Comments: 8385 Cisco +Category: Informational S. Kingston Smiler +ISSN: 2070-1721 PALC Networks + D. Eastlake 3rd + Huawei + L. Yong + Independent + June 2018 + + + Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) + Transparent Transport over MPLS + +Abstract + + This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple TRILL + (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) sites with an + intervening MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS (Virtual + Private LAN Service) standards. This document addresses two + problems: 1) providing connection between more than two TRILL sites + that are separated by an MPLS provider network and 2) providing a + single logical virtualized TRILL network for different tenants that + are separated by an MPLS provider network. + +Status of This Memo + + This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is + published for informational purposes. + + This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force + (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has + received public review and has been approved for publication by the + Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents + approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet + Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841. + + Information about the current status of this document, any errata, + and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at + https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8385. + + + + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................3 + 1.1. Terminology ................................................3 + 2. TRILL-over-MPLS Model ...........................................5 + 3. VPLS Model ......................................................5 + 3.1. Entities in the VPLS Model .................................6 + 3.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPLS Model .............................7 + 3.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPLS Model ..........................7 + 3.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS ................................7 + 3.5. Frame Processing ...........................................7 + 4. VPTS Model ......................................................7 + 4.1. Entities in the VPTS Model .................................9 + 4.1.1. TRILL Intermediate Router (TIR) ....................10 + 4.1.2. Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD) .........10 + 4.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPTS Model ............................10 + 4.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPTS Model .........................10 + 4.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS ...............................11 + 4.5. Frame Processing ..........................................11 + 4.5.1. Multi-destination Frame Processing .................11 + 4.5.2. Unicast Frame Processing ...........................11 + 5. VPTS Model versus VPLS Model ...................................11 + 6. Packet Processing between Pseudowires ..........................12 + 7. Efficiency Considerations ......................................12 + 8. Security Considerations ........................................12 + 9. IANA Considerations ............................................13 + 10. References ....................................................13 + 10.1. Normative References ....................................13 + 10.2. Informative References ..................................14 + Acknowledgements ..................................................15 + Authors' Addresses ................................................16 + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +1. Introduction + + The IETF Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) + protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7177] [RFC7780] provides transparent + forwarding in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology and link + technologies using a header with a hop count and link-state routing. + TRILL provides optimal pair-wise forwarding without configuration, + safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and support + for multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. Intermediate + Systems (ISs) implementing TRILL are called Routing Bridges + (RBridges) or TRILL switches. + + This document, in conjunction with [RFC7173] on TRILL transport using + pseudowires, addresses two problems: + + 1) providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that belong + to a single TRILL network and are separated by an MPLS provider + network using [RFC7173]. (Herein, this is also called "problem + statement 1".) + + 2) providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different + tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network. In short, + this is for providing connection between TRILL sites belonging to + a tenant/tenants over a MPLS provider network. (Herein, this is + also called "problem statement 2".) + + A tenant is the administrative entity on whose behalf their + associated services are managed. Here, "tenant" refers to a TRILL + campus that is segregated from other tenants for security reasons. + + A key multi-tenancy requirement is traffic isolation so that one + tenant's traffic is not visible to any other tenant. This document + also addresses the problem of multi-tenancy by isolating one tenant's + traffic from the other. + + [RFC7173] mentions how to interconnect a pair of TRILL switch ports + using pseudowires. This document explains how to connect multiple + TRILL sites (not limited to only two sites) using the mechanisms and + encapsulations defined in [RFC7173]. + +1.1. Terminology + + Acronyms and terms used in this document include the following: + + AC - Attachment Circuit [RFC4664] + + Data Label - VLAN Label or Fine-Grained Label + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + database - IS-IS link state database + + ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath + + FGL - Fine-Grained Labeling [RFC7172] + + IS-IS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS] + + LAN - Local Area Network + + MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching + + PBB - Provider Backbone Bridging + + PE - Provider Edge device + + PSN - Packet Switched Network + + PW - Pseudowire [RFC4664] + + TIR - TRILL Intermediate Router (Device that has both IP/MPLS + and TRILL functionality) + + TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links OR Tunneled + Routing in the Link Layer + + TRILL site - A part of a TRILL campus that contains at least one + RBridge. + + VLAN - Virtual Local Area Network + + VPLS - Virtual Private LAN Service + + VPTS - Virtual Private TRILL Service + + VSI - Virtual Service Instance [RFC4664] + + VTSD - Virtual TRILL Switch Domain OR Virtual TRILL Service + Domain. A Virtual RBridge that segregates one tenant's + TRILL database as well as traffic from the other. + + WAN - Wide Area Network + + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +2. TRILL-over-MPLS Model + + TRILL over MPLS can be achieved in two different ways: + a) the VPLS Model for TRILL b) the VPTS Model / TIR Model for + TRILL + + Both these models can be used to solve problem statements 1 and 2. + Herein, the VPLS Model for TRILL is also called "Model 1" and the + VPTS Model / TIR Model is also called "Model 2". + +3. VPLS Model + + Figure 1 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using the + VPLS model. The PE routers in the below topology model should + support all the functional components mentioned in [RFC4664]. + + +-----+ +-----+ + | RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb | + +-----+ | . . | +-----+ + Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2 + +----|PE1 | |PE2 |----+ + +----+ MPLS Cloud +----+ + . . + . +----+ . + ..........|PE3 |........... + +----+ ^ + | | + | +-- Emulated LAN + +-----+ + | RBc | + +-----+ + Site 3 + + Figure 1: Topological Model of TRILL over MPLS + Connecting 3 TRILL Sites + + Figure 2 below shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS to + connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to a tenant. ("Tenant" here + is a TRILL campus, not a specific Data Label.) VSI1 and VSI2 are two + Virtual Service Instances that segregate Tenant1's traffic from other + tenant traffic. VSI1 will maintain its own database for Tenant1; + similarly, VSI2 will maintain its own database for Tenant2. + + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + +-----+ ............................ +-----+ + |RBat1+---+ . ++++++++++++++++++++++++ . +---|RBbt1| + +-----+ | . + + . | +-----+ + Tenant1 | +----+ +----+ | Tenant1 + Site 1 +----|VSI1| |VSI1|----+ Site 2 + +----|VSI2| MPLS Cloud |VSI2|----+ + | +----+ +----+ | + +-----+ | . + + . | +-----+ + |RBat2+---+ . +++++++++ +----+ ++++++++ . +---|RBbt2| + +-----+ ............|VSI1|........... +-----+ + Tenant2 |VSI2| Tenant2 + Site 1 +----+ Site 2 + | + +-----+ + |RBct2| + +-----+ + Tenant2 Site 3 + + .... VSI1 Path + ++++ VSI2 Path + + Figure 2: Topological Model for VPLS Model + Connecting 2 Tenants with 3 Sites Each + + In this model, TRILL sites are connected to VPLS-capable PE devices + that provide a logical interconnect, such that TRILL RBridges + belonging to a specific tenant are connected via a single bridged + Ethernet. These PE devices are the same as the PE devices specified + in [RFC4026]. The Attachment Circuit ports of PE routers are Layer 2 + switch ports that are connected to the RBridges at a TRILL site. + Here, each VPLS instance looks like an emulated LAN. This model is + similar to connecting different RBridges by a Layer 2 bridge domain + (multi-access link) as specified in [RFC6325]. This model doesn't + requires any changes in PE routers to carry TRILL packets, as TRILL + packets will be transferred transparently. + +3.1. Entities in the VPLS Model + + The PE (VPLS-PE) and Customer Edge (CE) devices are defined in + [RFC4026]. + + The generic L2VPN transport functional components like Attachment + Circuits, pseudowires, VSI, etc., are defined in [RFC4664]. + + The RB (RBridge) and TRILL campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated + by [RFC7780]. + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +3.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPLS Model + + As specified in Section 3, the MPLS cloud looks like an emulated LAN + (also called multi-access link or broadcast link). This results in + RBridges at different sites looking like they are connected by a + multi-access link. With such interconnection, the TRILL adjacencies + over the link are automatically discovered and established through + TRILL IS-IS control messages [RFC7177]. These IS-IS control messages + are transparently forwarded by the VPLS domain, after doing MPLS + encapsulation as specified in Section 3.3. + +3.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPLS Model + + Use of VPLS [RFC4762] [RFC4761] to interconnect TRILL sites requires + no changes to a VPLS implementation -- in particular, the use of + Ethernet pseudowires between VPLS PEs. A VPLS PE receives normal + Ethernet frames from an RBridge (i.e., CE) and is not aware that the + CE is an RBridge device. As an example, an MPLS-encapsulated TRILL + packet within the MPLS network can use the format illustrated in + Appendix A of [RFC7173] for the non-PBB case. For the PBB case, + additional header fields illustrated in [RFC7041] can be added by the + entry PE and removed by the exit PE. + +3.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS + + No explicit handling is required to avoid a loop-free topology. The + "split horizon" technique specified in [RFC4664] will take care of + avoiding loops in the provider PSN network. + +3.5. Frame Processing + + The PE devices transparently process the TRILL control and data + frames. Procedures to forward the frames are defined in [RFC4664]. + +4. VPTS Model + + The Virtual Private TRILL Service (VPTS) is a Layer 2 TRILL service + that emulates TRILL service across a Wide Area Network (WAN). VPTS + is similar to what VPLS does for a bridged core but provides a TRILL + core. VPLS provides "Virtual Private LAN Service" for different + customers. VPTS provides "Virtual Private TRILL Service" for + different TRILL tenants. + + Figure 3 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using VPTS. + In this model, the PE routers are replaced with TRILL Intermediate + Routers (TIRs), and the VSIs are replaced with Virtual TRILL Switch + Domains (VTSDs). The TIR devices must be capable of supporting both + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + MPLS and TRILL as specified in Section 4.1.1. The TIR devices are + interconnected via PWs and appear as a unified emulated TRILL campus + with each VTSD inside a TIR equivalent to an RBridge. + + Below are some of the reasons for interconnecting TRILL sites without + isolating the TRILL control plane of one TRILL site from other sites. + + 1) Nickname uniqueness: One of the basic requirements of TRILL is + that RBridge nicknames are unique within the campus [RFC6325]. If + we segregate the control plane of one TRILL site from other TRILL + sites and provide interconnection between these sites, it may + result in nickname collision. + + 2) Distribution trees and their pruning: When a TRILL Data packet + traverses a Distribution Tree, it will stay on it even in other + TRILL sites. If no end-station service is enabled for a + particular Data Label in a TRILL site, the distribution tree may + be pruned and TRILL data packets of that particular Data Label + might never get to another TRILL site where the packets had no + receivers. The TRILL Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check will + always be performed on the packets that are received by TIRs + through pseudowires. + + 3) Hop count values: When a TRILL data packet is received over a + pseudowire by a TIR, the TIR does the processing of Hop Count + defined in [RFC6325] and will not perform any resetting of Hop + Count. + + +-----+ +-----+ + | RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb | + +-----+ | . . | +-----+ + Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2 + +----|TIR1| |TIR2|----+ + +----+ MPLS Cloud +----+ + . . + . +----+ . + ..........|TIR3|........... + +----+ ^ + | | + | +-- Emulated TRILL + +-----+ + | RBc | + +-----+ + Site 3 + + Figure 3: Topological Model of VPTS/TIR Connecting 3 TRILL Sites + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + In Figure 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 (running the TRILL protocol) + are connected to TIR devices. These TIR devices, along with the MPLS + cloud, look like a unified emulated TRILL network. Only the PE + devices in the MPLS network should be replaced with TIRs so the + intermediate provider routers are agnostic to the TRILL protocol. + + Figure 4 below extends the topological model of TRILL over MPLS to + connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to a tenant ("tenant" here is + a campus, not a Data Label) using the VPTS model. VTSD1 and VTSD2 + are two Virtual TRILL Switch Domains (Virtual RBridges) that + segregate Tenant1's traffic from Tenant2's traffic. VTSD1 will + maintain its own TRILL database for Tenant1; similarly, VTSD2 will + maintain its own TRILL database for Tenant2. + + +-----+ ............................ +-----+ + |RBat1+---+ . ######################## . +---|RBbt1| + +-----+ | . # # . | +-----+ + Tenant1 | +-----+ +-----+ | Tenant1 + Site 1 +----|VTSD1| |VTSD1|----+ Site 2 + +----|VTSD2| MPLS Cloud |VTSD2|----+ + | +-----+ +-----+ | + +-----+ | . # # . | +-----+ + |RBat2+---+ . #########+-----+######### . +---|RBbt2| + +-----+ ...........|VTSD1|........... +-----+ + Tenant2 |VTSD2| ^ Tenant2 + Site 1 +-----+ | Site 2 + | | + +-----+ +-----Emulated + |RBct2| TRILL + +-----+ + Tenant2 Site 3 + + .... VTSD1 Connectivity + #### VTSD2 Connectivity + + Figure 4: Topological Model of VPTS/TIR + Connecting 2 Tenants with 3 TRILL Sites + +4.1. Entities in the VPTS Model + + The CE devices are defined in [RFC4026]. + + The generic L2VPN transport functional components like Attachment + Circuits, pseudowires, etc., are defined in [RFC4664]. + + The RB (RBridge) and TRILL campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated + by [RFC7780]. + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 9] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + This model introduces two new entities, TIR and VTSD, which are + described below. + +4.1.1. TRILL Intermediate Router (TIR) + + The TIRs must be capable of running both VPLS and TRILL protocols. + TIR devices are a superset of the VPLS-PE devices defined in + [RFC4026] with the additional functionality of TRILL. The VSI that + provides transparent bridging functionality in the PE device is + replaced with VTSD in a TIR. + +4.1.2. Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD) + + The VTSD is similar to the VSI (Layer 2 bridge) in the VPLS model, + but the VTSD acts as a TRILL RBridge. The VTSD is a superset of the + VSI and must support all the functionality provided by the VSI as + defined in [RFC4026]. Along with VSI functionality, the VTSD must be + capable of supporting TRILL protocols and forming TRILL adjacencies. + The VTSD must be capable of performing all the operations that a + standard TRILL switch can do. + + One VTSD instance per tenant must be maintained when multiple tenants + are connected to a TIR. The VTSD must maintain all the information + kept by the RBridge on a per-tenant basis. The VTSD must also take + care of segregating one tenant's traffic from another's. Each VTSD + will have its own nickname for each tenant. If a TIR supports 10 + TRILL tenants, it needs to be assigned with 10 TRILL nicknames, one + for the nickname space of each of its tenants, and run 10 copies of + TRILL protocols, one for each tenant. It is possible that it would + have the same nickname for two or more tenants, but, since the TRILL + data and control traffic are separated for the tenants, there is no + confusion. + +4.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPTS Model + + The VTSD must be capable of forming a TRILL adjacency with the + corresponding VTSDs present in its peer VPTS neighbor and also with + the neighboring RBridges of the TRILL sites. The procedure to form + TRILL adjacency is specified in [RFC7173] and [RFC7177]. + +4.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPTS Model + + The VPTS model uses PPP or Ethernet pseudowires for MPLS + encapsulation as specified in [RFC7173] and requires no changes in + the packet format in that RFC. In accordance with [RFC7173], the PPP + encapsulation is the default. + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 10] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +4.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS + + This model isn't required to employ the "split horizon" mechanism in + the provider PSN network, as TRILL takes care of loop-free topology + using distribution trees. Any multi-destination packet will traverse + a distribution tree path. All distribution trees are calculated + based on the TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325] as updated by + [RFC7780]. + +4.5. Frame Processing + + This section specifies multi-destination and unicast frame processing + in the VPTS/TIR model. + +4.5.1. Multi-destination Frame Processing + + Any multi-destination (unknown unicast, multicast, or broadcast, as + indicated by the multi-destination bit in the TRILL header) packets + inside a VTSD will be processed or forwarded through the distribution + tree for which they were encapsulated on TRILL ingress. If any + multi-destination packet is received from the wrong pseudowire at a + VTSD, the TRILL protocol running in the VTSD will perform an RPF + check as specified in [RFC7780] and drop the packet. + + The pruning mechanism in distribution trees, as specified in + [RFC6325] and [RFC7780], can also be used to avoid forwarding of + multi-destination data packets on the branches where there are no + potential destinations. + +4.5.2. Unicast Frame Processing + + Unicast packets are forwarded in the same way they get forwarded in a + standard TRILL campus as specified in [RFC6325]. If multiple equal- + cost paths are available over pseudowires to reach the destination, + then VTSD should be capable of doing ECMP for those equal-cost paths. + +5. VPTS Model versus VPLS Model + + The VPLS model uses a simpler loop-breaking rule: the "split horizon" + rule, where a PE must not forward traffic from one PW to another in + the same VPLS mesh. In contrast, the VPTS model uses distribution + trees for loop-free topology. As this is an emulated TRILL service, + for interoperability purposes, the VPTS model is the default. + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 11] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +6. Packet Processing between Pseudowires + + Whenever a packet gets received over a pseudowire, a VTSD will + decapsulate the MPLS headers then check the TRILL header. If the + egress nickname in the TRILL header is for a TRILL site located + beyond another pseudowire, then the VTSD will encapsulate the packet + with new MPLS headers and send it across the proper pseudowire. + + For example, in Figure 3, consider that the pseudowire between TIR1 + and TIR2 fails. Then, TIR1 will communicate with TIR2 via TIR3. + Whenever packets that are destined to TIR3 are received from the + pseudowire between TIR1 and TIR3, the VTSD inside TIR3 will + decapsulate the MPLS headers, then check the TRILL header's egress + nickname field. If the egress nickname indicates it is destined for + the RBridge in Site 3, then the packet will be sent to RBc; if the + egress nickname is located at Site 2, VTSD will add MPLS headers for + the pseudowire between TIR3 and TIR2 and forward the packet on that + pseudowire. + +7. Efficiency Considerations + + Since the VPTS model uses distribution trees for processing of multi- + destination data packets, it is always advisable to have at least one + distribution tree root located in every TRILL site. This will + prevent data packets from being received at TRILL sites where end- + station service is not enabled for that data packet. + +8. Security Considerations + + This document specifies methods using existing standards and + facilities in ways that do not create new security problems. + + For general VPLS security considerations, including discussion of + isolating customers from each other, see [RFC4761] and [RFC4762]. + + For security considerations for transport of TRILL by pseudowires, + see [RFC7173]. In particular, since pseudowires are supported by + MPLS or IP, which are in turn supported by a link layer, that + document recommends using IP security, such as IPsec [RFC4301] or + DTLS [RFC6347], or the lower link-layer security, such as MACSEC + [802.1AE] for Ethernet links. + + Transmission outside the customer environment through the provider + environment, as described in this document, increases risk of + compromise or injection of false data through failure of tenant + isolation or by the provider. In the VPLS model (Section 3), the use + of link encryption and authentication between the CEs of a tenant + that is being connected through provider facilities should be a good + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 12] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + defense. In the VPTS model (Section 4), it is assumed that the CEs + will peer with virtual TRILL switches of the provider network, and + thus link security between TRILL switch ports is inadequate as it + will terminate at the edge PE. Thus, encryption and authentication + from end station to end station and authentication are more + appropriate for the VPTS model. + + For added security against the compromise of data, end-to-end + encryption and authentication should be considered; that is, + encryption and authentication from source end station to destination + end station. This would typically be provided by IPsec [RFC4301] or + DTLS [RFC6347] or other protocols convenient to protect the + information of concern. + + For general TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325]. + +9. IANA Considerations + + This document has no IANA actions. + +10. References + +10.1. Normative References + + [IS-IS] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing + information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with + the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network + Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 2002. + + [RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private + LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and + Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, + . + + [RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private + LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) + Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007, + . + + [RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A. + Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol + Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011, + . + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 13] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + [RFC7173] Yong, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Aldrin, S., and J. Hudson, + "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) + Transport Using Pseudowires", RFC 7173, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7173, May 2014, + . + + [RFC7177] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and + V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links + (TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177, May + 2014, . + + [RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A., + Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection + of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and + Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016, + . + +10.2. Informative References + + [802.1AE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area + Networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std + 802.1AE, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2006.245590. + + [RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual + Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, + . + + [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the + Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, + December 2005, . + + [RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for + Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, + DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006, + . + + [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer + Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, + January 2012, . + + [RFC7041] Balus, F., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., and N. Bitar, Ed., + "Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) + Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging", + RFC 7041, DOI 10.17487/RFC7041, November 2013, + . + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 14] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + + [RFC7172] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Agarwal, P., Perlman, R., and + D. Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links + (TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC 7172, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7172, May 2014, + . + +Acknowledgements + + The contributions of Andrew G. Malis are gratefully acknowledged in + improving the quality of this document. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 15] + +RFC 8385 TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS June 2018 + + +Authors' Addresses + + Mohammed Umair + Cisco Systems + SEZ, Cessna Business Park + Sarjapur - Marathahalli Outer Ring road + Bengaluru - 560103 + India + + Email: mohammed.umair2@gmail.com + + + S. Kingston Smiler + PALC NETWORKS PVT LTD + Envision Technology Center + #119, 1st Floor, Road No.3 + EPIP Area Phase 1, Whitefield + Near Vydehi Hospital + Bengaluru - 560066, Karnataka + India + + Email: kingstonsmiler@gmail.com + + + Donald Eastlake 3rd + Huawei Technologies + 155 Beaver Street + Milford, MA 01757 + United States of America + + Phone: +1-508-333-2270 + Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com + + + Lucy Yong + Independent + + Phone: +1-469-227-5837 + Email: lucyyong@gmail.com + + + + + + + + + + + + +Umair, et al. Informational [Page 16] + -- cgit v1.2.3