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

Versions: (draft-zhang-pwe3-iccp-stp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7727

INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Mingui Zhang
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                           Huafeng Wen
Expires: April 11, 2016                                           Huawei
                                                                  Jie Hu
                                                           China Telecom
                                                         October 9, 2015

               Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) Application
             of Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP)
                    draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-05.txt

Abstract

   Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP) supports an inter-chassis
   redundancy mechanism which is used to support high network
   availability.

   In this document, Provider Edge (PE) devices in a Redundancy Group
   (RG) running ICCP are used to offer multi-homed connectivity to
   Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) networks to improve availability of the
   STP networks. The ICCP TLVs and usage for the ICCP STP application
   are defined.

Status of this Memo

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

   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-Drafts.

   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
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2. Use Case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3. Spanning Tree Protocol Application TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.1. STP Connect TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2. STP Disconnect TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3. STP Config TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.3.1. STP System Config . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.3.2. STP Region Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.3.3. STP Revision Level  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.3.4. STP Instance Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       3.3.5. STP Configuration Digest  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.4. STP State TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.4.1. STP Topology Changed Instances  . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       3.4.2. STP CIST Root Time Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       3.4.3. STP MSTI Root Time Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.5. STP Synchronization Request TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   4. Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.1. Common AC Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.1.1. Remote PE Node Failure or Isolation . . . . . . . . . . 18
       4.1.2. Local PE Isolation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.2. ICCP STP Application Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.2.1. Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       4.2.2. Configuration Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       4.2.3. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       4.2.4. Failure and Recovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


     7.1. Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.2. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
















































Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


1. Introduction

   Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol (ICCP [RFC7275]) specifies a
   multi-chassis redundancy mechanism which enables Provider Edge (PE)
   devices located in a multi-chassis arrangement to act as a single
   Redundancy Group (RG).

   With the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP), a spanning tree will be formed
   over connected bridges by blocking some links between these bridges
   so that forwarding loops are avoided. This document introduces
   support of STP as a new application of ICCP. This STP application of
   ICCP supports when a bridged STP network is connected to a RG, the RG
   members act as a single root bridge participating in the operations
   of STP protocol.

   STP relevant information needs to be exchanged and synchronized among
   the RG members. New ICCP TLVs for the ICCP STP application are
   specified for this purpose.

   From the point of view of the customer, the Service Provider is
   providing a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) [RFC4762].

1.1. Conventions used in this document

   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].

1.2. Terminology

   ICCP: Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol
   VPLS: Virtual Private LAN Service
   STP: Spanning Tree Protocol
   MSTP: Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol
   MST: Multiple Spanning Trees
   CIST: Common and Internal Spanning Tree ([802.1q] Section 3.27)
   MSTI: Multiple Spanning Tree Instance ([802.1q] Section 3.138)
   BPDU: Bridge Protocol Data Unit

   In this document, unless otherwise explicitly noted, the term STP
   also covers MSTP.

2. Use Case

   Customers widely use Ethernet as an access technology [RFC4762]. It's
   common that one customer's Local Area Network (LAN) has multiple
   bridges connected to a carrier's network at different locations for
   reliability purposes. Requirements for this use case are listed as



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   follows.

   o  Customers desire to balance the load among their available
      connections to the carrier's network, therefore all the
      connections need to be active.

   o  When one connection to the carrier network fails, customers
      require a connection in another location to continue to work after
      the re-convergence of the STP rather than compromising the whole
      STP network. The failure of the connection may be due to the
      failure of the PE, the attachment circuit (AC) or even the
      Customer Edge (CE) device itself.

   In order to meet these requirements, the 'ICCP-STP' model is
   proposed. It introduces STP as a new application of ICCP.

             +--------------+       +=============+
             |              |       |             |
             |              |       |             |
             |       +---+  |       |  +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->|
             |   +---+CE1+<6>-------<5>+ PE1 ||   |               |
             |  <1>  +---+  |       |  +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->|
             | +-+-+        |       |     ||      |
             | |CE3|        |       |     ||ICCP  |--> Towards the Core
             | +-+-+        |       |     ||      |
             |  <2>  +---+  |       |  +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->|
             |   +---+CE2+<3>-------<4>+ PE2 ||   |               |
             |       +---+  |       |  +-----+|<--|--Pseudowire-->|
             |              |       |             |
             | Multi-homed  |       |  Redundancy |
             | STP Network  |       |    Group    |
             +--------------+       +=============+

      Figure 2.1: A STP network is multihomed to RG running ICCP.

   Figure 2.1 shows an example topology of this model. With ICCP, the
   whole RG will be virtualized to be a single bridge. Each RG member
   has its BridgeIdentifier (the MAC address). The numerically lowest
   one is used as the BridgeIdentifier of the 'virtualized root bridge'.
   The RG acts as if the ports connected to the STP network (port <4>,
   <5>) are for the same root bridge. All these ports send the
   configuration BPDU with the highest root priority to trigger the
   construction of the spanning tree. The link between the peering PEs
   is not visible to the bridge domains of the STP network. In this way,
   the STP will always break a possible loop within the multi-homed STP
   network by breaking the whole network into separate islands so that
   each is attached to one PE. That forces all PEs in the RG to be
   active. This is different from a generic VPLS [RFC4762] where the



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   root bridge resides in the customer network and the multi-homed PEs
   act in the active-standby mode. Note that the specification of VPLS
   remains unchanged other than for this operation. For instance, a
   full-mesh of pseudowires (PWs) is established between PEs, and split-
   horizon is still used to perform the loop-breaking through the core.

3. Spanning Tree Protocol Application TLVs

   This section specifies the ICCP TLVs for the ICCP STP application.
   The Unknown TLV bit (U-bit) and the Forward unknown TLV bit (F-bit)
   of the following TLVs MUST be sent as cleared and processed on
   receipt as specified in [RFC7275].

3.1. STP Connect TLV

   This TLV is included in the RG Connect message to signal the
   initiation of ICCP STP application connection.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA1               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Protocol Version         |A|         Reserved            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Optional Sub-TLVs                        |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +                                 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             ...                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA1 (value to be assigned by IANA) for "STP Connect TLV"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields.

      - Protocol Version

        The version of STP ICCP application protocol. This document
        defines version 0x0001.




Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


      - A bit

        Acknowledgement Bit. Set to 1 if the sender has received a STP
        Connect TLV from the recipient. Otherwise, set to 0.

      - Reserved

        Reserved for future use. These bits MUST be sent as zero and
        ignored on receipt.

      - Optional Sub-TLVs

        There are no optional Sub-TLVs defined for this version of the
        protocol.

3.2. STP Disconnect TLV

   This TLV is used in RG Disconnect Message to indicate that the
   connection for the ICCP STP application is to be terminated.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA2               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Optional Sub-TLVs                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA2 for "STP Disconnect TLV"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields.

      - Optional Sub-TLVs

        The only optional Sub-TLV defined for this version of the
        protocol is the "STP Disconnect Cause" sub-TLV, defined below:

3.2.1. STP Disconnect Cause sub-TLV






Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA13              |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Disconnect Cause String                  |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA13 for "STP Disconnect Cause TLV"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields.

      - Disconnect Cause String

        Variable length string specifying the reason for the disconnect,
        encoded in UTF-8 [RFC3629] format. Used for operational
        purposes.

3.3. STP Config TLVs

   The STP Config TLVs are sent in the RG Application Data message. When
   STP Config TLV is received by a peer RG member, it MUST synchronize
   the configuration information contained in the TLV. TLVs specified
   from Section 3.3.1 through Section 3.3.5 defines specific
   configuration information.

3.3.1. STP System Config

   This TLV announces the local node's STP System Parameters to the RG
   peers.













Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA3               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              ROID                             |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         MAC Address                           |
   +                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA3 for "STP System Config"

      - Length

        Length of the ROID plus the MAC address in octets. Always set to
        14.

      -ROID

        Redundant Object Identifier, format defined in Section 6.1.3 of
        [RFC7275].

      - MAC Address

        The MAC address of the sender. This MAC address is set to the
        BridgeIdentifier of the sender, as defined in [802.1q] Section
        13.26.2. The numerically lowest 48 bit unsigned value of
        BridgeIdentifier is used as the MAC address of the Virtual Root
        Bridge mentioned in Section 2.

3.3.2. STP Region Name

   This TLV carries the value of Region Name.










Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                 [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA4               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Region Name                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA4 for "STP Region Name"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields.

      - Region Name

        The Name of the MST Region as specified in [802.1q] Section
        3.142.

3.3.3. STP Revision Level

   This TLV carries the value of Revision Level.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA5               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Revision Level          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        Set to TBA5 for "STP Revision Level".

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields. Always set to 2.

      - Revision Level



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


        The Revision Level as specified in [802.1q] Section 13.8 bullet
        c));

3.3.4. STP Instance Priority

   This TLV carries the value of Instance Priority to other members in
   the RG.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA6               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Pri  |      InstanceID       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA6 for "STP Instance Priority"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields.

      - Pri

        The Instance Priority. It is interpreted as unsigned integer
        with higher value indicating a higher priority.

      - InstanceID

        The 12 bits Instance Identifier of the CIST or MSTI. This
        parameter takes a value in the range 1 through 4094 for MSTI as
        defined in [802.1q] Section 12.8.1.2.2 and takes value of 0 for
        CIST.

3.3.5. STP Configuration Digest

   This TLV carries the value of STP VLAN Instance Mapping.









Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA7             |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                    Configuration Digest                       |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA7 for "STP Configuration Digest"

      - Length

        Length of the STP Configuration Digest. Always set to 16
        octets.

      - Configuration Digest

        As specified in [802.1q] Section 13.8 bullet d)).

3.4. STP State TLVs

   The STP State TLVs are sent in the RG Application Data message. They
   are used by a PE device to report its STP status to other members in
   the RG. Such TLVs are specified in the following subsections.

3.4.1. STP Topology Changed Instances

   This TLV is used to report the Topology Changed Instances to other
   members of the RG. The sender monitors TCN messages and generates
   this list. The receiving RG member MUST initiate the Topology Change
   event, including sending BPDU with the Topology Change flag set to 1
   out of the designated port(s) of the Topology Changed bridge domains
   of the STP network, flushing out of MAC addresses relevant to the
   instances listed in this TLV.

   If the PE device supports MAC Address Withdrawal (see Section 6.2 of
   [RFC4762]), it SHOULD send an Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
   Address Withdraw Message with the list of MAC addresses towards the
   core over the corresponding LDP sessions. It is not necessary to send
   such a message to PEs of the same RG since the flushing of their MAC
   address tables should have been performed upon the receipt of "STP
   Topology Changed Instances" TLV.




Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA8               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       InstanceID List                         |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA8 for "STP Topology Changed Instances"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields.

      - InstanceID List

        The list of the InstanceIDs of CIST or MSTIs whose topologies
        have changed as indicated by the Topology Change Notification
        (TCN) Messages as specified in [802.1q] Section 13.14. The list
        is formatted by padding Instance ID value to 16 bit boundary as
        follows, where the bits in the "R" fields MUST be sent as zero
        and ignored on receipt.
       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |R|R|R|R| InstanceID#1          |R|R|R|R| InstanceID#2          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                             ... ...                           ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3.4.2. STP CIST Root Time Parameters

   This TLV is used to report the Value of CIST Root Time Parameters
   ([802.1q] Section 13.26.7) to other members of the RG. All time
   parameter values are in seconds with a granularity of 1. For ranges
   and default values of these parameter values, refer to [802.1d1998]
   Section 8.10.2 Table 8-3, [802.1d2004] Section 17.14 Table 17-1, and
   [802.1q] Section 13.26.7.







Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA9               |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    MaxAge                     |   MessageAge                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    FwdDelay                   |   HelloTime                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | RemainingHops |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA9 for "STP CIST Root Time"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields. Always set to 9.

      - MaxAge

        The Max Age of the CIST. It is the maximum age of the
        information transmitted by the bridge when it is the Root Bridge
        ([802.1d2004] Section 17.13.8).

      - MessageAge

        The Message Age of the CIST (see [802.1q] Section 13.26.7).

      - FwdDelay

        The Forward Delay of the CIST. It is the delay used by STP
        Bridges to transition Root and Designated Ports to Forwarding
        ([802.1d2004] Section 17.13.5).

      - HelloTime

        The Hello Time of the CIST. It is the interval between periodic
        transmissions of Configuration Messages by Designated Ports
        ([802.1d2004] Section 17.13.6).

      - RemainingHops

        The remainingHops of the CIST ([802.1q] Section 13.26.7) .



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


3.4.3. STP MSTI Root Time Parameter

   This TLV is used to report the parameter value of MSTI Root Time to
   other members of the RG. As defined in [802.1q] Section 13.26.7, it
   is the value of remainingHops for the given MSTI.

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA10              |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Pri  |  InstanceID           | RemainingHops |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA10 for "STP MSTI Root Time"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields. Always set to 3.

      - Pri

        The Instance Priority. It is interpreted as an unsigned integer
        with higher value indicating a higher priority.

      - InstanceID

        The 12 bits Instance IDentifier of the Multiple Spanning Tree
        Instance (MSTID). As defined in [802.1q] Section 12.8.1.2.2,
        this parameter takes a value in the range 1 through 4094.

      - RemainingHops

        The remainingHops of the MSTI. It is encoded in the same way as
        in [802.1q] Section 14.4.1 bullet f).

3.5. STP Synchronization Request TLV

   The STP Synchronization Request TLV is used in the RG Application
   Data message. This TLV is used by a device to request from its peer
   to re-transmit configuration or operational state. The following
   information can be requested:




Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


     - configuration and/or state of the STP system,
     - configuration and/or state for a given list of instances.
      The format of the TLV is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA11              |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Request Number           |C|S|   Request Type            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       InstanceID List                         |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA11 for "STP Synchronization Request TLV"

      - Length

        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields. Always set to 4.

      - Request Number

        2 octets. Unsigned integer uniquely identifying the request.
        Used to match the request with a corresponding response. The
        value of 0 is reserved for unsolicited synchronization, and MUST
        NOT be used in the STP Synchronization Request TLV. As indicated
        in [RFC7275], given the use of TCP, there are no issues
        associated with the wrap-around of the Request Number.

      - C-bit

        Set to 1 if the request is for configuration data. Otherwise,
        set to 0.

      - S-bit

        Set to 1 if the request is for running state data. Otherwise,
        set to 0.

      - Request Type




Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


        14-bits specifying the request type, encoded as follows:

           0x00   Request System Data
           0x01   Request data of the listed instances
           0x3FFF Request System Data and data of all instances

      - InstanceID List

        The InstanceIDs of CIST or MSTIs, format specified in Section
        3.4.1.

3.6. STP Synchronization Data TLV

   The pair of STP Synchronization Data TLVs are used by sender to
   delimit a set of TLVs that are being transmitted in response to an
   STP Synchronization Request TLV. The delimiting TLVs signal the start
   and end of the synchronization data, and associate the response with
   its corresponding request via the 'Request Number' field. It's
   REQUIRED that each pair of STP Synchronization Data TLVs occur in the
   same fragment. When the total size of the TLVs to be transmitted
   exceeds the maximal size of a fragment, these TLVs MUST be divided
   into multiple sets, delimited by multiple pairs of STP
   Synchronization Data TLVs, and filled into multiple fragments. With
   the Request Number lost fragments can be identified and re-
   requested.

   The STP Synchronization Data TLVs are also used for unsolicited
   advertisements of complete STP configuration and operational state
   data. The 'Request Number' field MUST be set to 0 in this case.

   STP Synchronization Data TLV has the following format:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |U|F|   Type=TBA12              |    Length                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Request Number            |    Reserved                 |S|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      - U=F=0

      - Type

        set to TBA12 for "STP Synchronization Data TLV"

      - Length




Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


        Length of the TLV in octets excluding the U-bit, F-bit, Type,
        and Length fields. Always set to 4.

      - Request Number

        2 octets. Unsigned integer identifying the Request Number of the
        "STP Synchronization Request TLV" which initiated this
        synchronization data response.

      - Reserved

        Reserved bits for future use. These MUST be sent as zero and
        ignored on receipt.

      -S

        S = 0: Synchronization Data Start
        S = 1: Synchronization Data End

4. Operations

   Operational procedures for AC redundancy applications have been
   specified in Section 9.2 of [RFC7275]. The operational procedures of
   ICCP STP application should follow these procedures except the
   changes presented in this section.

4.1. Common AC Procedures

   For the generic procedures of  AC redundancy applications defined in
   Section 9.2.1 of [RFC7275], the following changes are introduced.

4.1.1. Remote PE Node Failure or Isolation

   When a local PE device detects that a remote PE device that is a
   member of the same RG is no longer reachable (using the mechanisms
   described in Section 5 of [RFC7275]), the local PE device checks if
   it has redundancy ACs for the affected services. In case of redundant
   ACs present, and if the local PE device has the new highest bridge
   priority, the local PE device becomes the virtual root bridge for
   corresponding ACs.

4.1.2. Local PE Isolation

   When a PE device detects that it has been isolated from the core
   network, then it need ensure that its AC redundancy mechanism will
   change the status of all active ACs to standby. The AC redundancy
   application SHOULD then send ICCP "Application Data" message in order
   to trigger failover to another active PE device in the RG.  Note that



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   this works only in the case of dedicated interconnect (Sections 3.2.1
   and 3.2.3), since ICCP will still have the path to the peer, even
   though the PE device is isolated from the MPLS core network.

4.2. ICCP STP Application Procedures

   This section defines the procedures that are specific to the ICCP STP
   application which are applicable for Ethernet ACs.

4.2.1. Initial Setup

   When a RG is configured on a system that supports the ICCP STP
   application, such systems MUST send an "RG Connect" message with "STP
   Connect TLV" to each PE device that is member of the RG. The sending
   PE device MUST set the A bit to 1 in that TLV if it has received a
   corresponding "STP Connect TLV" from its peer PE; otherwise, the
   sending PE device MUST set the A bit to 0. If a PE device receives an
   "STP Connect TLV" from its peer after sending its own TLV with the A
   bit set to 0, it MUST resend the TLV with the A bit set to 1. A
   system considers the ICCP STP application connection to be
   operational when it has both sent and received "STP Connect TLVs"
   with the A bit set to 1. When the ICCP STP application connection
   between a pair of PEs is operational, the two devices can start
   exchanging "RG Application Data" messages for the ICCP STP
   application. This involves having each PE device advertise its STP
   configuration and operational state in an unsolicited manner. A PE
   device SHOULD follow the following order when advertising its STP
   state upon initial application connection setup:

     - Advertise system configuration TLV
     - Advertise remaining configuration TLVs
     - Advertise state TLVs

   The update of the information contained in the State TLVs depends on
   that in the configuration TLVs. By sending the TLVs in the above
   order, the two peers may begin to update STP state as early as
   possible in the middle of exchanging these TLVs.

   A PE device MUST use a pair of "STP Synchronization Data TLVs" to
   delimit the entire set of TLVs that are being sent as part of this
   unsolicited advertisement.

   If a system receives an "RG Connect" message with "STP Connect TLV"
   that has a differing Protocol Version, it MUST follow the procedures
   outlined in the "Application Versioning" Section of [RFC7275].

   After the ICCP STP application connection has been established, every
   PE device MUST communicate its system level configuration to its



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 19]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   peers via the use of "STP System Config TLV".

   When the ICCP STP application is administratively disabled on the PE,
   or on the particular RG, the system MUST send an "RG Disconnect"
   message containing "STP Disconnect TLV".

4.2.2. Configuration Synchronization

   A system that supports ICCP STP application MUST synchronize the
   configuration with other RG members. This is achieved via the use of
   "STP Config TLVs". The PEs in the RG MUST all agree on the common MAC
   address to be associated with the virtual root bridge. It is possible
   to achieve this via consistent configuration on member PEs. However,
   in order to protect against possible misconfigurations, a virtual
   root bridge identifier MUST be set to the MAC address advertised by
   the PE device with the numerically lowest BridgeIdentifier (i.e., the
   MAC address of the bridge) in the RG.

   Furthermore, for a given ICCP STP application, an implementation MUST
   advertise the configuration prior to advertising its corresponding
   state. If a PE device receives any STP State TLV that it had not
   learned of before via an appropriate STP Config TLV, then the PE
   device MUST request synchronization of the configuration and state
   from its peer. If during such synchronization a PE device receives a
   State TLV that it has not learned before, then the PE device MUST
   send a NAK TLV for that particular TLV. The PE device MUST NOT
   request resynchronization in this case.

4.2.3. State Synchronization

   PEs within the RG need to synchronize their state for proper STP
   operation. This is achieved by having each system advertise its
   running state in STP State TLVs. Whenever any STP parameter either on
   the CE or PE side is changed, the system MUST transmit an updated TLV
   for the affected STP instances. Moreover, when the administrative or
   operational state changes, the system MUST transmit an updated state
   TLV to its peers.

   A PE device MAY request its peer to retransmit previously advertised
   state. This is useful in case of the PE device recovering from a soft
   failure and attempting to relearn state. To request such
   retransmissions, a PE device MUST send a set of one or more "STP
   Synchronization Request TLVs".

   A PE device MUST respond to a "STP Synchronization Request TLV" by
   sending the requested data in a set of one or more STP configuration
   or state TLVs delimited by a pair of "STP Synchronization Data
   TLVs".



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 20]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   Note that the response may span across multiple RG Application Data
   messages, for example when MTU limits are exceeded; however, the
   above ordering MUST be retained across messages, and only a single
   pair of Synchronization Data TLVs MUST be used to delimit the
   response across all Application Data Messages.

   A PE device MAY readvertise its STP state in an unsolicited manner.
   This is done by sending the appropriate State TLVs delimited by a
   pair of "STP Synchronization Data TLVs" and using a 'Request Number'
   of 0.

   While a PE device has sent out a synchronization request for a
   particular PE device, it SHOULD silently ignore all TLVs from that
   node, that are received prior to the synchronization response and
   which carry the same type of information being requested.  This saves
   the system from the burden of updating state that will ultimately be
   overwritten by the synchronization response. Note that TLVs
   pertaining to other systems should continue to be processed normally.

   If a PE device receives a synchronization request for an instance
   that doesn't exist or is not known to the PE, then it MUST trigger
   the unsolicited synchronization of all information by restarting the
   initialization.

   If during the synchronization operation a PE device receives an
   advertisement of a Node ID value which is different from the value
   previously advertised, then the PE device MUST purge all state data
   previously received from that peer prior to the last synchronization.

4.2.4. Failure and Recovery

   When a PE device that is active for the ICCP STP application
   encounters a core isolation fault [RFC7275], it SHOULD attempt to
   fail-over to a peer PE device which hosts the same RG. The default
   fail-over procedure is to have the failed PE device bring down the
   link(s) towards the multi-homed STP network. This will cause the STP
   network to reconverge and to use the other links that are connected
   to the other PE devices in the RG. Other procedures for triggering
   fail-over are possible, and are outside the scope of this document.


   If the isolated PE device is the one that has the numerically lowest
   BridgeIdentifier, PEs in the RG MUST synchronize STP configuration
   and state TLVs and determine a new virtual root bridge as specified
   in Section 4.2.2.

   Upon recovery from a previous fault, a PE device SHOULD NOT reclaim
   the role of the virtual root for the STP network even if it has the



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 21]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


   numerically lowest BridgeIdentifier among the RG. This minimizes
   traffic disruption.

   Whenever the virtual root bridge changes, the STP Topology Changed
   Instances TLV lists the instances that are affected by the change.
   These instances MUST undergo a STP reconvergence procedure when this
   TLV is received as defined in Section 3.4.1.

5. Security Considerations

   This document specifies an application running on the channel
   provided by ICCP [RFC7275]. The security considerations on ICCP apply
   in this document as well.

   For the ICCP STP application, an attack on a channel (running in the
   provider's network) can break not only the ability to deliver traffic
   across the provider's network, but also the ability to route traffic
   within the customer's network. That is, a careful attack on a channel
   (such as the DOS attacks as described in [RFC7275]) can break STP
   within the customer network. Implementations need provide mechanisms
   to mitigate these types of attacks. For example, the port between the
   PE device and the malicious CE device may be blocked.

6. IANA Considerations

   The IANA maintains a top-level registry called "Pseudowire Name
   Spaces (PWE3)". It has a sub-registry called "ICC RG Parameter
   Types".

   IANA is requested to make 13 allocations from this registry as shown
   below. IANA is requested to allocate the codepoints in sequential
   block starting from the next available value in the range marked for
   assignment by IETF review (0x2000-0x2FFF) [RFC5226]. All assignments
   should reference this document.

      Parameter Type Description
      -------------- ---------------------------------
      TBA1           STP Connect TLV
      TBA2           STP Disconnect TLV
      TBA3           STP System Config TLV
      TBA4           STP Region Name TLV
      TBA5           STP Revision Level TLV
      TBA6           STP Instance Priority TLV
      TBA7           STP Configuration Digest TLV
      TBA8           STP Topology Changed Instances TLV
      TBA9           STP STP CIST Root Time TLV
      TBA10          STP MSTI Root Time TLV
      TBA11          STP Synchronization Request TLV



Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 22]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


      TBA12          STP Synchronization Data TLV
      TBA13          STP Disconnect Cause TLV

Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Ignas
   Bagdonas, Adrian Farrel, Andrew G. Malis, Gregory Mirsky and
   Alexander Vainshtein.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
         Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646",
         STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
         LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
         Signaling", RFC 4762, January 2007.

   [RFC7275] Martini, L., Salam, S., Sajassi, A., Bocci, M., Matsushima,
         S., and T. Nadeau, "Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for
         Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) Provider Edge (PE)
         Redundancy", RFC 7275, June 2014.

   [802.1q] "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks---
         Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks". IEEE Std 802.1 Q-2014,
         November 11, 2014.

   [802.1d1998] "Information technology---Telecommunications and
         information exchange between systems---Local and metropolitan
         area networks---Common specifications--Part 3: Media Access
         Control (MAC) Bridges". ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D, 1998 Edition.

   [802.1d2004] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks-
         -- Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges". IEEE Std 802.1 D-2004.

7.2. Informative References

   [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
         IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
         2008.






Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 23]


INTERNET-DRAFT          STP Application of ICCP          October 9, 2015


Author's Addresses


   Mingui Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District,
   Beijing 100095
   P.R. China

   EMail: zhangmingui@huawei.com

   Huafeng Wen
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012
   P.R. China

   EMail: wenhuafeng@huawei.com

   Jie Hu
   China Telecom

   EMail: hujie@ctbri.com.cn




























Mingui Zhang             Expires April 11, 2016                [Page 24]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/