path: root/doc/rfc/rfc7379.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                             Y. Li
Request for Comments: 7379                                        W. Hao
Category: Informational                              Huawei Technologies
ISSN: 2070-1721                                               R. Perlman
                                                                     EMC
                                                               J. Hudson
                                                                 Brocade
                                                                 H. Zhai
                                                                     JIT
                                                            October 2014


    Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active Connection at the
       Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Edge

Abstract

   The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
   protocol provides support for flow-level multipathing with rapid
   failover for both unicast and multi-destination traffic in networks
   with arbitrary topology.  Active-active connection at the TRILL edge
   is the extension of these characteristics to end stations that are
   multiply connected to a TRILL campus.  This informational document
   discusses the high-level problems and goals when providing active-
   active connection at the TRILL edge.

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 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/rfc7379.










Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 1]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


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.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Terminology ................................................3
   2. Target Scenario .................................................4
      2.1. LAALP and Edge Group Characteristics .......................6
   3. Problems in Active-Active Connection at the TRILL Edge ..........7
      3.1. Frame Duplications .........................................7
      3.2. Loopback ...................................................8
      3.3. Address Flip-Flop ..........................................8
      3.4. Unsynchronized Information among Member RBridges ...........8
   4. High-Level Requirements and Goals for Solutions .................9
   5. Security Considerations ........................................10
   6. References .....................................................11
      6.1. Normative References ......................................11
      6.2. Informative References ....................................12
   Acknowledgments ...................................................12
   Authors' Addresses ................................................13


















Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 2]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


1.  Introduction

   The IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
   [RFC6325] protocol provides loop-free and per-hop-based multipath
   data forwarding with minimum configuration.  TRILL uses IS-IS [IS-IS]
   [RFC6165] [RFC7176] as its control-plane routing protocol and defines
   a TRILL-specific header for user data.  In a TRILL campus,
   communications between TRILL switches can:

   1) use multiple parallel links and/or paths,

   2) spread load over different links and/or paths at a fine-grained
      flow level through equal-cost multipathing of unicast traffic and
      multiple distribution trees for multi-destination traffic, and

   3) rapidly reconfigure to accommodate link or node failures or
      additions.

   To the degree practical, "active-active" is the extension of similar
   load spreading and robustness to the connections between end stations
   and the TRILL campus.  Such end stations may have multiple ports and
   will be connected, directly or via bridges, to multiple edge TRILL
   switches.  It must be possible, except in some failure conditions, to
   spread end-station traffic load at the granularity of flows across
   links to such multiple edge TRILL switches and rapidly reconfigure to
   accommodate topology changes.

1.1.  Terminology

   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].

   The acronyms and terminology in the RBridges base protocol [RFC6325]
   are used herein with the following additions:

   CE:            Customer Equipment (end station or bridge).

   Data Label:    VLAN or FGL (Fine-Grained Label [RFC7172]).

   LAALP:         Local Active-Active Link Protocol.  Any protocol
                  similar to MC-LAG that runs in a distributed fashion
                  on a CE, on the links from that CE to a set of edge
                  group RBridges, and on those RBridges.







Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 3]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


   MC-LAG:        Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation.  Proprietary
                  extensions to IEEE Std 802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] so that
                  the aggregated links can, at one end of the
                  aggregation, attach to different switches.

   Edge group:    a group of edge RBridges to which at least one CE is
                  multiply attached using an LAALP.  When multiple CEs
                  attach to the exact same set of edge RBridges, those
                  edge RBridges can be considered as a single edge
                  group.  An RBridge can be in more than one edge group.

   RBridge:       Routing Bridge.  An alternative name for a TRILL
                  switch.

   TRILL:         Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links.

   TRILL switch:  a device that implements the TRILL protocol; an
                  alternative term for an RBridge.

2.  Target Scenario

   This section presents a typical scenario of active-active connection
   to a TRILL campus via multiple edge RBridges where the current TRILL
   Appointed Forwarder mechanism does not work as expected.

   The TRILL Appointed Forwarder mechanism [RFC6439] can handle failover
   (active-standby), provides loop avoidance, and, with administrative
   configuration, provides load spreading based on VLAN.  One and only
   one appointed RBridge can ingress/egress native frames into/from the
   TRILL campus for a given VLAN among all edge RBridges connecting a
   legacy network to the TRILL campus.  This is true whether the legacy
   network is a simple point-to-point link or a complex bridged LAN or
   anything in between.  By carefully selecting different RBridges as
   Appointed Forwarder for different sets of VLANs, load spreading over
   different edge RBridges across different Data Labels can be achieved.

   The Appointed Forwarder mechanism [RFC6439] requires all of the edge
   group RBridges to exchange TRILL IS-IS Hello packets through their
   access ports.  As Figure 1 shows, when multiple access links of
   multiple edge RBridges are connected to a CE by an LAALP, Hello
   messages sent by RB1 via access port to CE1 will not be forwarded to
   RB2 by CE1.  RB2 (and other members of LAALP1) will not see that
   Hello from RB1 via the LAALP1.  Every member RBridge of LAALP1 thinks
   of itself as Appointed Forwarder on an LAALP1 link for all VLANs and
   will ingress/egress frames.  Hence, the Appointed Forwarder mechanism
   cannot provide active-active or even active-standby service across
   the edge group in such a scenario.




Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 4]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


                   ----------------------
                  |                      |
                  |   TRILL Campus       |
                  |                      |
                   ----------------------
                       |       |    |
                  -----        |     --------
                 |             |             |
             +------+      +------+      +------+
             |      |      |      |      |      |
             |(RB1) |      |(RB2) |      | (RBk)|
             +------+      +------+      +------+
               |..|          |..|          |..|
               |  +----+     |  |          |  |
               |   +---|-----|--|----------+  |
               | +-|---|-----+  +-----------+ |
               | | |   +------------------+ | |
    LAALP1--->(| | |)                    (| | |) <---LAALPn
             +-------+    .  .  .       +-------+
             | CE1   |                  | CEn   |
             |       |                  |       |
             +-------+                  +-------+

       Figure 1:  Active-Active Connection to TRILL Edge RBridges

   Active-active connection is useful when we want to achieve the
   following two goals:

   -  Flow-based rather than VLAN-based load balancing is desired.

   -  More rapid failure recovery is desired.

   The current Appointed Forwarder mechanism relies on the TRILL Hello
   timer expiration to detect the unreachability of another edge RBridge
   connecting to the same local link.  Then, reappointing the forwarder
   for specific VLANs may be required.  Such procedures take time on the
   scale of seconds although this can be improved with TRILL use of
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC7175].  Active-active
   connection usually has a faster built-in mechanism for member node
   and/or link failure detection.  Faster detection of failures
   minimizes the frame loss and recovery time.

   Today, LAALP is usually a proprietary facility whose implementation
   varies by vendor.  So, to be sure the LAALP operates successfully
   across a group of edge RBridges, those edge RBridges will almost
   always have to be from the same vendor.  In the case where the LAALP
   is an MC-LAG, the CE normally implements the logic described in IEEE
   Std 802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX], so proprietary elements would only be at



Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 5]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


   the end of the edge group.  There is also a revision of IEEE Std
   802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] underway (802.1X-REV) to remove the
   restriction in IEEE Std 802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] that there be one box
   at each end of the aggregation.  So it is possible that, in the
   future, an LAALP could be implemented through such a revised IEEE Std
   802.1AX-2011 [802.1AX] with standards-conformant logic at the ends of
   both the CE and edge group.  In order to have a common understanding
   of active-active connection scenarios, the assumptions in Section 2.1
   are made about the characteristics of the LAALP and edge group of
   RBridges.

2.1.  LAALP and Edge Group Characteristics

   For a CE connecting to multiple edge RBridges via an LAALP (active-
   active connection), the following characteristics apply:

   a) The LAALP will deliver a frame from an end node to TRILL at
      exactly one edge group RBridge.

   b) The LAALP will never forward frames it receives from one uplink to
      another.

   c) The LAALP will attempt to send all frames for a given flow on the
      same uplink.  To do this, it has some unknown rule for which
      frames get sent to which uplinks (typically based on a simple hash
      function of Layer 2 through 4 header fields).

   d) Frames are accepted from any of the uplinks and passed down to end
      nodes (if any exist).

   e) The LAALP cannot be assumed to send useful control information to
      the uplink such as "this is the set of other RBridges to which
      this CE is attached" or "these are all the MAC addresses
      attached".

   For an edge group of RBridges to which a CE is multiply attached with
   an LAALP:

   a) Any two RBridges in the edge group are reachable from each other
      via the TRILL campus.

   b) Each RBridge in the edge group knows an ID for each LAALP instance
      multiply attached to that group.  The ID will be consistent across
      the edge group and globally unique across the TRILL campus.  For
      example, if CE1 attaches to RB1, RB2, ... RBn using an LAALP, then
      each of the RBs will know, for the port to CE1, that it has a
      label such as "LAALP1".




Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 6]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


   c) Each RB in the edge group can be configured with the set of
      acceptable VLANs for the ports to any CE.  The acceptable VLANs
      configured for those ports should include all the VLANs the CE has
      joined and be consistent for all the member RBridges of the edge
      group.

   d) When an RBridge fails, all the other RBridges that have formed an
      LAALP instance with it learn of the failure in a timely fashion.

   e) When a downlink of an edge group RBridge to an LAALP instance
      fails, that RBridge and all the other RBridges participating in
      the LAALP instance, including that downlink, learn of the failure
      in a timely fashion.

   f) The RBridges in the edge group have a mechanism to exchange
      information with each other, information such as the set of CEs
      they are connecting to or the IDs of the LAALP instances their
      downlinks are part of.

   Other than the applicable characteristics above, the internals of an
   LAALP are out of the scope of TRILL.

3.  Problems in Active-Active Connection at the TRILL Edge

   This section presents the problems that need to be addressed in
   active-active connection scenarios.  The topology in Figure 1 is used
   in the following sub-sections as the example scenario for
   illustration purposes.

3.1.  Frame Duplications

   When a remote RBridge ingresses a multi-destination TRILL data packet
   in VLAN x, all edge group RBridges of LAALP1 will receive the frame
   if any local CE1 joins VLAN x.  As each of them thinks it is the
   Appointed Forwarder for VLAN x, without changes made for active-
   active connection support, they would all forward the frame to CE1.
   The bad consequence is that CE1 receives multiple copies of that
   multi-destination frame from the remote end-host source.

   Frame duplication may also occur when an ingress RBridge is non-
   remote -- say, ingress and egress are two RBridges belonging to the
   same edge group.  Assume LAALP m connects to an edge group g, and the
   edge group g consists of RB1, RB2, and RB3.  The multi-destination
   frames ingressed from a port not connected to LAALP m by RB1 can be
   locally replicated to other ports on RB1 and also TRILL encapsulated
   and forwarded to RB2 and RB3.  CE1 will receive duplicate copies from
   RB1, RB2, and RB3.




Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 7]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


   Note that frame duplication is only a problem in multi-destination
   frame forwarding.  Unicast forwarding does not have this issue as
   there is only ever one copy of the packet.

3.2.  Loopback

   As shown in Figure 1, CE1 may send a native multi-destination frame
   to the TRILL campus via a member of the LAALP1 edge group (say RB1).
   This frame will be TRILL encapsulated and then forwarded through the
   campus to the multi-destination receivers.  Other members (say RB2)
   of the same LAALP edge group will receive this multicast packet as
   well.  In this case, without changes made for active-active
   connection support, RB2 will decapsulate the frame and egress it.
   The frame loops back to CE1.

3.3.  Address Flip-Flop

   Consider RB1 and RB2 using their own nickname as ingress nickname for
   data into a TRILL campus.  As shown in Figure 1, CE1 may send a data
   frame with the same VLAN and source Media Access Control (MAC)
   address to any member of the edge group LAALP1.  If an egress RBridge
   receives TRILL data packets from different ingress RBridges but with
   the same source Data Label and MAC address, it learns different
   correspondences between a {Data Label and MAC address} and nickname
   when decapsulating the data frames.  Address correspondence may keep
   flip-flopping among nicknames of the member RBridges of the LAALP for
   the same Data Label and MAC address.  Existing hardware does not
   support data-plane learning of multiple nicknames for the same MAC
   address and Data Label -- when data-plane learning indicates
   attachment of the MAC address to a new nickname, it overwrites the
   old attachment nickname.

   Implementers have stated that most current TRILL switch hardware,
   when doing data-plane learning, behaves badly under these
   circumstances and, for example, interprets address flip-flopping as a
   severe network problem.  It may also cause the returning traffic to
   go through different paths to reach the destination, resulting in
   persistent reordering of the frames.

3.4.  Unsynchronized Information among Member RBridges

   A local RBridge, say RB1 connected to LAALP1, may have learned a
   correspondence between a {Data Label and MAC address} and nickname
   for a remote host h1 when h1 sends a packet to CE1.  The returning
   traffic from CE1 may go to any other member RBridge of LAALP1, for
   example, RB2.  RB2 may not have h1's correspondence between a {Data
   Label and MAC address} and nickname stored.  Therefore, it has to do
   the flooding for unknown unicast addresses [RFC6325].  Such flooding



Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 8]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


   is unnecessary since the returning traffic is almost always expected
   and RB1 had learned the address correspondence.  It is desirable to
   avoid flooding; it imposes a greater burden on the network than known
   destination unicast traffic because the flooded traffic is sent over
   more links.

   Synchronization of the correspondence between a {Data Label and MAC
   address} and nickname information among member RBridges will reduce
   such unnecessary flooding.

4.  High-Level Requirements and Goals for Solutions

   The problems identified in Section 3 should be solved in any solution
   for active-active connection to edge RBridges.  The following high-
   level requirements and goals should be met.

   Data plane:

   1) All uplinks of a CE MUST be active: the LAALP is free to choose
      any uplink on which to send packets, and the CE is able to receive
      packets from any uplink of an edge group.

   2) Loopback and frame duplication MUST be prevented.

   3) Learning of correspondence between a {Data Label and MAC address}
      and nickname by a remote RBridge MUST NOT flip-flop between the
      local multiply attached edge RBridges.

   4) Packets for a flow SHOULD stay in order.

   5) The Reverse Path Forwarding Check MUST work properly as per the
      RBridges base protocol [RFC6325].

   6) Single uplink failure on a CE to an edge group MUST NOT cause
      persistent packet delivery failure between a TRILL campus and CE.

   Control plane:

   1) No requirement for new information to be passed between edge
      RBridges and CEs or between edge RBridges and end nodes exists.

   2) If there is any TRILL-specific information required to be
      exchanged between RBridges in an edge group, for example, Data
      Labels and MAC addresses binding to nicknames, a solution MUST
      specify the mechanism to perform such exchange unless this is
      handled internal to the LAALP.





Li, et al.                    Informational                     [Page 9]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


   3) RBridges SHOULD be able to discover other members in the same edge
      group by exchanging their LAALP attachment information.

   Configuration, incremental deployment, and others:

   1) Solution SHOULD require minimal configuration.

   2) Solution SHOULD automatically detect misconfiguration of edge
      RBridge group.

   3) Solution SHOULD support incremental deployment, that is, not
      require campus-wide upgrading for all RBridges, only changes to
      the edge group RBridges.

   4) Solution SHOULD be able to support from two up to at least four
      active-active uplinks on a multiply attached CE.

   5) Solution SHOULD NOT assume there is a dedicated physical link
      between any two edge RBridges in an edge group.

5.  Security Considerations

   As an informational overview, this document does not introduce any
   extra security risks.  Security risks introduced by a particular
   LAALP or other elements of solutions to the problems presented here
   will be discussed in the separate document(s) describing such LAALP
   or solutions.

   End-station links in TRILL are Ethernet links, and consideration
   should be given to securing them with link security as described in
   IEEE Std 802.1AE-2006 [802.1AE] for the protection of end-station
   data and link-level control messages, including any LAALP control
   messages.

   For general TRILL Security Considerations, see the RBridges base
   protocol [RFC6325].















Li, et al.                    Informational                    [Page 10]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [IS-IS]    ISO/IEC, "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)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition,
              2002.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6165]  Banerjee, A. and D. Ward, "Extensions to IS-IS for Layer-2
              Systems", RFC 6165, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6165>.

   [RFC6325]  Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
              Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
              Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.

   [RFC6439]  Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Li, Y., Banerjee, A., and F.
              Hu, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Appointed Forwarders",
              RFC 6439, November 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6439>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.

   [RFC7176]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
              D., and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
              of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.












Li, et al.                    Informational                    [Page 11]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


6.2.  Informative References

   [802.1AE]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks -- Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std
              802.1AE-2006, 18 August 2006.

   [802.1AX]  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
              networks -- Link Aggregration", IEEE Std 802.1AX-2008, 3
              November 2008.

   [RFC7175]  Manral, V., Eastlake 3rd, D., Ward, D., and A. Banerjee,
              "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
              Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support", RFC
              7175, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7175>.

Acknowledgments

   Special acknowledgments to Donald Eastlake, Adrian Farrel, and Mingui
   Zhang for their valuable comments.
































Li, et al.                    Informational                    [Page 12]
^L
RFC 7379          Problems of Active-Active Connection      October 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Yizhou Li
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56625409
   EMail: liyizhou@huawei.com


   Weiguo Hao
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56623144
   EMail: haoweiguo@huawei.com


   Radia Perlman
   EMC
   2010 256th Avenue NE, #200
   Bellevue, WA 98007
   United States

   EMail: Radia@alum.mit.edu


   Jon Hudson
   Brocade
   130 Holger Way
   San Jose, CA 95134
   United States

   Phone: +1-408-333-4062
   EMail: jon.hudson@gmail.com


   Hongjun Zhai
   JIT

   EMail: honjun.zhai@tom.com






Li, et al.                    Informational                    [Page 13]
^L