[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs

Network Working Group                                           E. Gray
Internet Draft                                                   Editor
Expires: December, 2006                                        Ericsson

                                                             June, 2006

              TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of RBridges

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
   any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
   aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
   becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
   BCP 79.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may
   not be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it
   into languages other than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 26, 2006.

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006


   RBridges provide the ability to have an entire domain, with multiple
   physical links, look to IP like a single subnet. The design allows
   for zero configuration of switches within an RBridge domain, optimal
   pair-wise routing, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary
   loops, and potential additional advantages as well.  The design also
   supports VLANs, allows forwarding tables to be based on destinations
   within the RBridge domain (rather than endnode destinations, allowing
   internal forwarding tables to be smaller than in conventional bridge

   The intent is to re-uses one or more existing routing protocols to
   accomplish these goals.

   This document lays out the background and specific requirements of
   potential routing protocols to be considered for use in this design.
   In particular, this document defines what is needed to accomodate
   this design using IS-IS (or OSPF) as a basis for RBridge protocols.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction....................................................3
      1.1. Terminology................................................4
      1.2. Specific TRILL Goals.......................................5
   2. General Requirements Potentially Affecting Routing..............6
   3. Link State Protocol Specific Requirements.......................6
   4. Potential Issues................................................7
      4.1. Interactions with Spanning Tree Forwarding.................7
      4.2. Computing Routes...........................................8
      4.3. RBridge Interactions with Routing..........................8
   5. Security Considerations.........................................8
   6. Conclusions.....................................................9
   7. Acknowledgments.................................................9
   8. References......................................................9
      8.1. Normative References.......................................9
      8.2. Informative References.....................................9
   9. Author's Address(es)............................................9
   10. Intellectual Property Statement...............................10
   11. Disclaimer of Validity........................................10
   12. Copyright Statement...........................................10
   13. Acknowledgment................................................10

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

1. Introduction

   The current dominant approach to segregating network traffic relies
   on a hierarchical arrangement of bridges and routers.  Hierarchy is
   further extended - both within routing protocols (such as IS-IS and
   OSPF) and between routing protocols (for example, between IGPs and
   BGP).  At least part of the current network structure is based on a
   determined trade-off between limitations of IP routing and similar
   disadvantages of 802 bridging.

   Bridging Limitations

   For example, bridged networks consist of single broadcast/flooding
   domains.  Ethernet/802 encapsulation (on which bridging is based)
   does not provide mechanisms for reducing the impact of looping data
   traffic that may result from a transient change in network topology
   and the existence of multiple paths.

   The impact of looping traffic is far worse with flooded or broadcast
   traffic as this results in exponentially increasing traffic load.
   Consideration of the impacts of looping data lead to the use of
   STP/RSTP to establish a connected - loop free - tree by disabling
   forwarding on a subset of links that might create a loop.  This has
   also the effect of eliminating redundant paths.

   Because of the potential for severe impact from looping traffic,
   many (if not most) current bridge implementations stop forwarding of
   traffic frames following a topology change event and restart only
   after STP/RSTP is complete.

   As a result, the process of eliminating potential loops in existing
   bridging deployments:

     1) Results in inefficient use of inter-bridge connections
     2) Causes delays in forwarding traffic as a result of
        changes in the network topology.

   The combined effect of broadcast/flooding traffic, and the use of
   spanning trees for loop avoidance, sets practical limits on bridged
   network size in the network hierarchy and results in inefficient
   bandwidth use of inter-bridge connections. Inefficient inter-bridge
   connection usage similarly limits the usefulness of bridging with
   high-speed (and consequently high cost) interfaces.

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

   IP Routing Issues

   For IP routed networks, any link (or subnet) must have at least one
   unique prefix. This means that a node that moves from one IP subnet
   to another must change its IP address. Also, nodes with multiple IP
   subnet attachments must have multiple IP addresses.  In IP routed
   networks, there are frequent trade-off considerations between using
   smaller subnets (longer prefix length) to minimize wasted IP address
   space (as a result of unused addresses in the fixed address range
   defined by the prefix and length) and using larger subnets (shorter
   prefix length) to minimize the need for (changes in) configuration.

   In any case - with current IP routing technology - subnets must be
   configured for each routed interface.

   Proposed Solution

   Using a hybrid of routing and bridging - an RBridge - we hope to
   gain the benefits of both technologies, in particular, gaining the
   bandwidth advantages of shortest path routing while retaning the
   simplified configuration associated with bridging.

1.1. Terminology

   The following terms are used in this document in the way that
   they are defined in "TRILL RBridge Architecture" [TARCH]:

     ARP (Address Resolution Protocol)
     Bridge Learning
     Broadcast Domain
     Broadcast Traffic
     Cooperating RBridges
     Egress RBridge
     Flooded Traffic
     IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol)
     Ingress RBridge
     Ingress RBridge Tree
     IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System)
     ND (Neighbor Discovery)
     OSPF (Open Shortest Path First)
     SPF (Shortest Path First)
     STP/RSTP (Spanning Tree Protocol/Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol)
     TRILL (TRansport Interconnect over Lots of Links)
     Unknown Destination
     VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network)

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

1.2. Specific TRILL Goals

   (Near) Zero Configuration

   It is a TRILL requirement that it must be possible to deploy RBridges
   in at least a nominal set of potential deployment scenarios without a
   need to perform any configuration at each RBridge.  It is possible to
   meet this goal for a sub-set of all possible deployment scenarios by
   making realistic restrictions on deployment - such as restricting the
   deployment scenarios to exclude those involving a "trust model" that
   imposes a need for configuration of some form of "shared secret" or
   other configuration required to restrict access to "trusted" devices.

   It is also conceivable that a minimal configuration may be required
   for deployment of an initial (set of) device(s) - with subsequently
   deployed devices deriving that configuration information during the
   process of - for example - peer discovery.  This would constitute a
   mechanism for "near zero configuration".

   Efficient Unicast Bandwidth Usage

   For unicast, non-flooded traffic, RBridges are intended to merge the
   efficient bandwidth use of IP routing with the simplicity of Ethernet
   (or 802.1) bridging for networks possibly larger - and with greater
   forwarding capacity - than is the case with these networks presently.

   The approach that we will use in accomplishing this is based on the
   idea of extending (one or more) link state routing protocol(s) to
   include distribution of Ethernet/802 reachability information between
   R-Bridge instances. In addition, there may be specific requirements
   imposed on the interactions between these extensions and the Spanning
   Tree Protocol (STP) and between R-Bridge instances and (potentially
   colocated) IP routing instances.

   Potentially More Efficient Multicast and Broadcast Usage

   There are clear advantages to incorporating mechanisms for improved
   efficiency in forwarding (layer 2) multicast frames and - possibly
   in reducing the amount of broadcast traffic as well.  To the extent
   that these efficiency improvements may be considered "optimizations"
   and may be defined orthogonally to the process of specifying basic
   RBridge functionality, the potential to include these optimizations
   is (highly) desirable, but not mandatory.

   Examples of this type of optimization include use of any intrinsic
   multicast routing capabilities and optimizations of ARP/ND.

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

   Backward Compatibility

   RBridges must be fully compatible with current bridges, IPv4 and
   IPv6 routers and endnodes.  They should be invisible to current IP
   routers (just as bridges are), and like routers, they terminate a
   bridged spanning tree.  Unlike Routers, RBridges do not terminate
   a broadcast domain.

2. General Requirements Potentially Affecting Routing

   Candidate IGP Routing protocols - IS-IS or OSPF - must be evaluated
   for compatibility with the above goals.

   For example, since IS-IS requires a unique System ID for each IS-IS
   instance (at least within a "scoped" deployment), a requirement for
   "(near) zero configuration" implies a need for mechanisms that allow
   auto-configuration and/or negotiation of these (scoped) unique IDs.

   Similar requirement must apply for OSPF as well, if selected.

   In addition, forwarding of protocol messages must be compatible with
   (or reasonably adaptable to) use of forwarding at layer 2, or there
   must be a means for deriving suitable higher layer addresses for the
   purpose of protocol exchanges - without imposing the need to manually
   configure higher-layer addresses.

3. Link State Protocol Specific Requirements

   Assuming that link state routing protocols meet above requirements,
   running a link state protocol among RBridges is straightforward.  It
   is the same as running a level 1 routing protocol in an area.  This
   would be theoretically true for either IS-IS or OSPF, assuming that
   both of these meet the general requiremenst above.

   From the perspective of simply extending existing routing protocols,
   IS-IS is a more appropriate choice than OSPF because it is easy in
   IS-IS to define new TLVs for use in carrying a new information type.
   This document, however, does not mandate a specific link-state, IGP,
   routing protocol.  Instead, it sets forth the requirements that will
   apply to any link-state routing protocol that may be used.

   For implementations providing colocated Router and RBridge function,
   it is necessary to have mechanisms for distinguishing any protocol
   interactions in Routing instances from protocol interactions in the
   colocated RBridge instance.  The specific mechanisms we will use are
   very likely to be determined by the Link State Routing Protocol that

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

   we select.  Potential distinguishing mechanisms include use of a new
   well-known Ethernet/802 multicast address, higher-layer protocol ID
   or other - routing protocol specific - approaches.

   The mechanism chosen should be consistent with the TRILL goals.  If,
   for example, a routing protocol specific approach required use of a
   unique "area" identifier, the RBridge area identifier should be a
   constant, well-known, value for all RBridges, and would not be one
   that would ever appear as a real routing area identifer - in order
   to allow for a potential for configuration-free operation.

   Information that RBridge link state information will carry includes:

   o  layer 2 addresses of nodes within the domain which have
      transmitted frames but have not transmitted ARP or ND replies

   o  layer 3, layer 2 addresses of IP nodes within the domain.  For
      data compression, perhaps only the portion of the address
      following the domain-wide prefix need be carried.  This will be
      more of an issue for IPv6 than for IPv4.

   o  VLANs directly connected to this RBridge

   The endnode information (the endnode information) need only be
   delivered to RBridges supporting the VLAN in which the endnode
   resides. So, for instance, if endnode E is discovered through a VLAN
   A frame, then E's location need only be delivered to other RBridges
   that are attached to VLAN A links.

   Given that RBridges must support delivery only to links within a VLAN
   (for multicast or unknown frames marked with the VLAN's tag), this
   mechanism can be used to advertise endnode information solely to the
   RBridges "within" a VLAN (i.e. - having connectivity or configuration
   that assoicates them with a VLAN). Although a separate instance of
   the link state protocol could be run for this purpose, the topology
   is so restricted (just a single broadcast domain), that it may be
   preferable to define special case mechanisms whereby each DR
   advertises attached endnodes, and receives explicit acknolegments
   from other RBridges.

4. Potential Issues

4.1. Interactions with Spanning Tree Forwarding and Bridge Learning

   Spanning tree forwarding applies within the RBridge domain, where two
   or more RBridges are connected by a link that includes multiple 802.1

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

   In order to simplify the interactions between RBridges and bridges -
   in particular, relative to spanning tree forwarding - RBridges do not
   actively participate in spanning tree protocol with 802.1 bridges.

   Hence, from the Link State Routing protocol perspective, the protocol
   will be able to treat spanning tree links as indistinguishable from
   any other Ethernet/802.1 link, in the same way that routing protocols
   do today.

   However, support for multi-pathing is potentially problematic and is
   assumed - in this document - to be a non-goal.  Multi-path forwarding
   has the potential to confound the bridge learning process.

4.2. Computing Routes

   RBridges must calculate an L2 "route table" consisting of Next Hop
   information for each L2 unicast destination address within each
   (possibly VLAN scoped) broadcast domain. This is computed using a
   routing protocol's SPF algorithm and based on destination layer 2
   address reachability advertisements.

4.3. R-Bridge Interactions with Routing

   The fact that R-Bridges participate in flooding, and will have other
   significant differences in forwarding behavior, provides additional
   reasons to maintain separate routing instances if an R-Bridge and
   Router are colocated. Otherwise, interactions between routers and
   R-Bridges should be identical to interactions with bridges.

5. Security Considerations

   The goal is not to add additional security issues over what would be
   present with traditional bridges and routers.  R-Bridge Interactions
   with Routers must be defined such that there is no "leaking" of info
   used in authentication and/or encryption between router and r-bridge

   As with routing schemes, authentication of RBridge messages would be
   a simple addition to protocol (and it could be accomplished the same
   way as it would be in existing routing protocol).  However, any sort
   of authentication requires additional configuration, which might
   interfere with the requirement that RBridges need no configuration.

   The essential requirement that RBridges do not require configuration
   provides a forceful argument that most RBridge components are likely
   to be physically separate (verses logically separate instances within
   a single physical device) from routers.  However, implementers may
   choose to provide devices with both Routing and RBridge instancing

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

   Implementers should consider the differences in trust models implied
   in Routing and Bridging domains and apply appropriate trust boundary
   safeguards in addition to instance isolation in general.

6. Conclusions

   Routing protocols must be evaluated using the criteria in sections
   2 and 3 above, with a clear objective of satisfying the TRILL goals
   outlined in section 1.2.  In addition, specific protocol solutions
   should use discussion in section 4 above in making a determination
   as to what approaches TRILL should use, for that (or those) routing
   protocols that is determined to be useful for RBridge implementation.

   Because of the requirement to be able to extend the routing protocol
   to carry new information, and potentially support new types of peer
   negotiation, the selected routing protocol must include mechanisms
   to allow simple routing protocol extensions, new message formats and
   potentially new types of message exchanges.

   For reasons stated in above sections, we believe it is clear that the
   IS-IS routing protocol may easily be adapted to satisfy TRILL routing
   protocol requirements.

7. Acknowledgments

   Thanks and appreciation are due Radia Perlman and Erik Nordmark for
   their efforts in reviewing this document.  Also appreciated are the
   review efforts of Joel Halpern and Russ White.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

   [TARCH]  "TRILL RBridge Architecture", Gray, E. Editor - Work in

8.2. Informative References


9. Author's Addresses

   Eric Gray
   900 Chelmsford Street,
   Lowell, MA - 01851
   Email: Eric.Gray@marconi.com

Gray                     Expires December 2006                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        TRILL Routing Requirements            June, 2006

10. Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

11. Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

12. Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

13. Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Gray                     Expires December 2006               [Page 10]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/