[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 6361

Network Working Group                                      James Carlson
INTERNET-DRAFT                                               WorkingCode
Intended status: Proposed Standard                      October 12, 2009
Expires: April 12, 2010

                  PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Distribution of this document is unlimited.  Comments should be sent
   to the PPP Extensions <pppext@ietf.org> or TRILL working group
   <rbridge@postel.org> mailing list.

   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 April 12, 2010.


   The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [1] defines a Link Control Protocol
   (LCP) and a method for negotiating the use of multi-protocol traffic
   over point-to-point links.  This document describes support for
   Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol,
   allowing direct communication between Routing Bridges (RBridges) via
   PPP links.

Carlson                    expires April 2010                   [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT  The PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol     October 2009

1.  Introduction

   The TRILL Protocol [2] defines a set of mechanisms used to communi-
   cate between RBridges.  These devices can bridge together large 802
   networks using link-state protocols in place of the traditional span-
   ning tree mechanisms.

   Over Ethernet, TRILL uses two separate Ethertypes to distinguish
   between encapsulation headers, which carry user data, and link-state
   messages, which compute network topology using a protocol based on
   ISO IS-IS.  These two protocols must be distinguished from one
   another, and segregated from all other traffic.

   To interconnect these devices over PPP links, three protocol numbers
   are needed, and are reserved as follows:

   Value (in hex)  Protocol Name
   TBD-00XX        TRILL Network Protocol (TNP)
   TBD-40XX        TRILL Link State Protocol (TLSP)
   TBD-80XX        TRILL Network Control Protocol (TNCP)

   The usage of these three protocols is described in detail in the fol-
   lowing section.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [3].

2.  PPP TRILL Negotiation

   The TRILL Network Control Protocol (TNCP) is responsible for nego-
   tiating the use of the TRILL Network Protocol (TNP) and TRILL Link
   State Protocol (TLSP) on a PPP link.  TNCP uses the same option nego-
   tiation mechanism as LCP.

   TNCP packets MUST NOT be exchanged until PPP has reached the
   Network-Layer Protocol phase.  Any TNCP packets received when not in
   that phase MUST be silently ignored.

   The encapsulated network layer data, carried in TNP packets, and
   topology information, carried in TLSP packets, MUST NOT be sent
   unless TNCP is in Opened state.  If a TNP or TLSP packet is received
   when TNCP is not in Opened state and LCP is Opened, an implementation
   SHOULD respond using LCP Protocol-Reject.

Carlson                    expires April 2010                   [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT  The PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol     October 2009

2.1.  TNCP Packet Format

   Exactly one TNCP packet is carried in the PPP Information field, with
   the PPP Protocol field set to hex TBD-80XX (TNCP).  A summary of the
   TNCP packet format is shown below.  The fields are transmitted from
   left to right.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      |     Code      |  Identifier   |            Length             |
      |    Data ...


      Only LCP Code values 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-
      Ack, Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request,
      Terminate-Ack, and Code-Reject) are used.  All other codes SHOULD
      result in a TNCP Code-Reject reply.

   Identifier and Length

      These are as documented for LCP.


      This field contains data in the same format as for the
      corresponding LCP Code numbers.

   Because no configuration options have been defined for TNCP, nego-
   tiating the use of TRILL Protocol with IS-IS for the link state pro-
   tocol is the default when no options are specified.  A future docu-
   ment may specify the use of configuration options to enable different
   TRILL operating modes, such the use of a different link state proto-

2.2.  TNP Packet Format

   When TNCP is in Opened state, TNP packets may be sent by setting the
   PPP Protocol field to hex TBD-00XX (TNP) and placing the TRILL-
   encapsulated data in the PPP Information field.

   A summary of this format is provided below:

Carlson                    expires April 2010                   [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT  The PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol     October 2009

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      | V | R |M|Op-Length| Hop Count | Egress (RB2) Nickname         |
      | Ingress (RB1) Nickname        | Inner Destination MAC ...

   This is identical to the Ethernet format except that the Outer MAC
   header and Ethertype are replaced by the PPP headers and Protocol
   Field.  Both user data and ESADI packets are encoded in this format.

2.3.  TLSP Packet Format

   When TNCP is in Opened state, TLSP packets may be sent by setting the
   PPP Protocol field to hex TBD-40XX (TLSP) and placing the IS-IS Pay-
   load in the PPP Information field.

3.  TRILL PPP Behavior

   1. On a PPP link, TRILL always uses P2P Hellos.  There is no need
      for TRILL-Hello frames, nor is per-port configuration necessary.

   2. RBridges are never appointed forwarders on PPP links.  If an
      implementation includes Bridging Control Protocol (BCP) [4], then
      it must ensure that only BCP or TNCP is negotiated on a link, and
      not both.  If the peer is an RBridge, then there is no need to
      pass unencapsulated frames nor to any TRILL-ignorant peer to be
      concerned about.  If the peer is not an RBridge, then TRILL is
      not possible.

   3. An implementation that has only PPP links might have no OUI that
      can form an IS-IS System ID.  Resolving that issue is an
      implementation-dependent matter, but it is expected that, if at
      all possible, some means of minimizing the need for
      administrative configuration should be considered in order to
      accomplish the RBridge goal of zero configuration.

   4. MTU-probe and MTU-ack messages are not needed on a PPP link.
      Implementations MUST NOT send MTU-probe and SHOULD NOT reply to
      these messages.  The MTU computed by LCP should be used instead.
      Negotiating an LCP MTU of at least 1524, to allow for an inner
      Ethernet payload of 1500 octets, is recommended.

Carlson                    expires April 2010                   [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT  The PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol     October 2009

4.  Security Considerations

   Both PPP authentication and IS-IS authentication mechanisms may play
   important roles in a network of RBridges interconnected by PPP links.
   The PPP authentication mechanism protects the establishment of a
   link, and identify a link with an known peer.  The IS-IS mechanisms
   prevent fabrication of link-state control messages.

   Implementors are encouraged to use these existing security mechanisms
   where appropriate.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has assigned three similarly-numbered PPP Protocol field values,
   TBD-00XX, TBD-40XX, and TBD-80XX, as described in Section 1 of this

6.  References

   [1] W. Simpson, Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)," RFC
       1661, July 1994

   [2] R. Perlman, et al., "RBridges: Base Protocol Specification,"
       work in progress

   [3] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
       Levels," BCP 14 and RFC 2119, March 1997

   [4] M. Higashiyama, et al., "PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP),"
       RFC 2878, July 2000

7.  Acknowledgments

   The author thanks Radia Perlman and Donald Eastlake for their com-
   ments and help.


8.1.  PPP Working Group Chair

   James Carlson
   25 Essex Street

Carlson                    expires April 2010                   [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT  The PPP TRILL Protocol Control Protocol     October 2009

   North Andover, MA 01845 USA

   Phone: +1-781-301-2471
   Email: carlsonj@workingcode.com

8.2.  Author

   James Carlson
   Email:  <carlsonj@workingcode.com>

9.  Standard Notices

9.1.  Copyright and IPR Provisions

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
   those that are translated into other languages, should not be
   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.  For
   the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.

Carlson                    expires April 2010                   [Page 6]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/