[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-wei-rift-applicability) 00
01 02 03 04
RIFT WG Yuehua. Wei, Ed.
Internet-Draft Zheng. Zhang
Intended status: Informational ZTE Corporation
Expires: 24 July 2021 Dmitry. Afanasiev
Yandex
Tom. Verhaeg
Juniper Networks
Jaroslaw. Kowalczyk
Orange Polska
P. Thubert
Cisco Systems
20 January 2021
RIFT Applicability
draft-ietf-rift-applicability-04
Abstract
This document discusses the properties, applicability and operational
considerations of RIFT in different network scenarios. It intends to
provide a rough guide how RIFT can be deployed to simplify routing
operations in Clos topologies and their variations.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 July 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem Statement of Routing in Modern IP Fabric Fat Tree
Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Applicability of RIFT to Clos IP Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Overview of RIFT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Applicable Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Horizontal Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Vertical Shortcuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. Generalizing to any Directed Acyclic Graph . . . . . 7
3.3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.1. Data Center Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Metro Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.3. Building Cabling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.4. Internal Router Switching Fabrics . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.5. CloudCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. South Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Suboptimal Routing on Link Failures . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Black-Holing on Link Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.4. Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5. Mis-cabling Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.6. Positive vs. Negative Disaggregation . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.7. Mobile Edge and Anycast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.8. IPv4 over IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.9. In-Band Reachability of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.10. Dual Homing Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.11. Fabric With A Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.11.1. Controller Attached to ToFs . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.11.2. Controller Attached to Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.12. Internet Connectivity With Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.12.1. Internet Default on the Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.12.2. Internet Default on the ToFs . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.13. Subnet Mismatch and Address Families . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.14. Anycast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.15. IoT Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
This document intends to explain the properties and applicability of
"Routing in Fat Trees" [RIFT] in different deployment scenarios and
highlight the operational simplicity of the technology compared to
traditional routing solutions. It also documents special
considerations when RIFT is used with or without overlays, with or
without controllers, corrects topology mis-cablings, and node or link
failures.
2. Problem Statement of Routing in Modern IP Fabric Fat Tree Networks
Clos [CLOS] and fat tree [FATTREE] topologies have gained prominence
in today's networking, primarily as a result of the paradigm shift
towards a centralized data-center based architecture that deliver a
majority of computation and storage services.
Today's current routing protocols were geared towards a network with
an irregular topology and low degree of connectivity originally.
When they are applied to fat tree topologies:
* They tend to need extensive configuration or provisioning during
bring up and re-dimensioning.
* Spine and leaf nodes have the entire network topology and routing
information which is in fact not needed on the leaf nodes during
normal operation.
* Significant Link State PDUs (LSPs) flooding duplication between
spine nodes and leaf nodes occurs during network bring up and
topology updates. It consumes both spine and leaf nodes' CPU and
link bandwidth resources.
3. Applicability of RIFT to Clos IP Fabrics
Further content of this document assumes that the reader is familiar
with the terms and concepts used in OSPF [RFC2328] and IS-IS
[ISO10589-Second-Edition] link-state protocols. The sections of RIFT
[RIFT] outline the requirements of routing in IP fabrics and RIFT
protocol concepts.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
3.1. Overview of RIFT
RIFT is a dynamic routing protocol for Clos and fat tree network
topologies. It defines a link-state protocol when "pointing north"
and path-vector protocol when "pointing south".
It floods flat link-state information northbound only so that each
level obtains the full topology of levels south of it. That
information is never flooded east-west or back south again. So a top
tier node has full set of prefixes from the Shortest Path First (SPF)
calculation.
In the southbound direction, the protocol operates like a "fully
summarizing, unidirectional" path vector protocol or rather a
distance vector with implicit split horizon. Routing information,
normally just the default route, propagates one hop south and is 're-
advertised' by nodes at next lower level.
+-----------+ +-----------+
| ToF | | ToF | LEVEL 2
+ +-----+--+--+ +-+--+------+
| | | | | | | | | ^
+ | | | +-------------------------+ |
Distance | +-------------------+ | | | | |
Vector | | | | | | | | +
South | | | | +--------+ | | | Link-state
+ | | | | | | | | Flooding
| | | +-------------+ | | | North
v | | | | | | | | +
+-+--+-+ +------+ +-------+ +--+--+-+ |
|SPINE | |SPINE | | SPINE | | SPINE | | LEVEL 1
+ ++----++ ++---+-+ +--+--+-+ ++----+-+ |
+ | | | | | | | | | ^ N
Distance | +-------+ | | +--------+ | | | E
Vector | | | | | | | | | +------>
South | +-------+ | | | +-------+ | | | |
+ | | | | | | | | | +
v ++--++ +-+-++ ++-+-+ +-+--++ +
|LEAF| |LEAF| |LEAF| |LEAF | LEVEL 0
+----+ +----+ +----+ +-----+
Figure 1: Rift overview
A spine node has only information necessary for its level, which is
all destinations south of the node based on SPF calculation, default
route, and potential disaggregated routes.
RIFT combines the advantage of both link-state and distance vector:
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
* Fastest possible convergence
* Automatic detection of topology
* Minimal routes/info on tors
* High degree of ECMP
* Fast de-commissioning of nodes
* Maximum Propagation speed with flexible prefixes in an update
And RIFT eliminates the disadvantages of link-state or distance
vector:
* Reduced and balanced flooding
* Automatic neighbor detection
So there are two types of link-state database which are "north
representation" North Topology Information Elements (N-TIEs) and
"south representation" South Topology Information Elements (S-TIEs).
The N-TIEs contain a link-state topology description of lower levels
and S-TIEs carry simply default routes for the lower levels.
There are more advantages unique to RIFT listed below which could be
understood if you read the details of RIFT [RIFT].
* True ZTP
* Minimal blast radius on failures
* Can utilize all paths through fabric without looping
* Automatic disaggregation on failures
* Simple leaf implementation that can scale down to servers
* Key-Value store
* Horizontal links used for protection only
* Supports non-equal cost multipath and can replace MC-LAG
* Optimal flooding reduction and load-balancing
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
3.2. Applicable Topologies
Albeit RIFT is specified primarily for "proper" Clos or "fat tree"
structures, it already supports Points of Delivery (PoD) concepts
which are strictly speaking not found in original Clos concepts.
Further, the specification explains and supports operations of multi-
plane Clos variants where the protocol relies on set of rings to
allow the reconciliation of topology view of different planes as most
desirable solution making proper disaggregation viable in case of
failures. These observations hold not only in case of RIFT but also
in the generic case of dynamic routing on Clos variants with multiple
planes and failures in bi-sectional bandwidth, especially on the
leafs.
3.2.1. Horizontal Links
RIFT is not limited to pure Clos divided into PoD and multi-planes
but supports horizontal links below the top of fabric level. Those
links are used only as routes of last resort northbound when a spine
loses all northbound links or cannot compute a default route through
them.
A possible configuration is a "ring" of horizontal links at a level.
In presence of such a "ring" in any level (except Top of Fabric (ToF)
level) neither North SPF (N-SPF) nor South SPF (S-SPF) will provide a
"ring-based protection" scheme since such a computation would have to
deal necessarily with breaking of "loops" in Dijkstra sense; an
application for which RIFT is not intended.
A full-mesh connectivity between nodes on the same level can be
employed and that allows N-SPF to provide for any node loosing all
its northbound adjacencies (as long as any of the other nodes in the
level are northbound connected) to still participate in northbound
forwarding.
3.2.2. Vertical Shortcuts
Through relaxations of the specified adjacency forming rules, RIFT
implementations can be extended to support vertical "shortcuts" as
proposed by e.g. [I-D.white-distoptflood]. The RIFT specification
itself does not provide the exact details since the resulting
solution suffers from either much larger blast radius with increased
flooding volumes or in case of maximum aggregation routing bow-tie
problems.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
3.2.3. Generalizing to any Directed Acyclic Graph
RIFT is an anisotropic routing protocol, meaning that it has a sense
of direction (northbound, southbound, east-west) and that it operates
differently depending on the direction.
* Northbound, RIFT operates as a link-state IGP, whereby the control
packets are reflooded first all the way north and only interpreted
later. All the individual fine grained routes are advertised.
* Southbound, RIFT operates as a distance vector IGP, whereby the
control packets are flooded only one hop, interpreted, and the
consequence of that computation is what gets flooded one more hop
south. In the most common use-cases, a ToF node can reach most of
the prefixes in the fabric. If that is the case, the ToF node
advertises the fabric default and disaggregates the prefixes that
it cannot reach. On the other hand, a ToF node that can reach
only a small subset of the prefixes in the fabric will preferably
advertise those prefixes and refrain from aggregating.
In the general case, what gets advertised south is in more
details:
1. A fabric default that aggregates all the prefixes that are
reachable within the fabric, and that could be a default route
or a prefix that is dedicated to this particular fabric.
2. The loopback addresses of the northbound nodes, e.g., for
inband management.
3. The disaggregated prefixes for the dynamic exceptions to the
fabric default, advertised to route around the black hole that
may form.
* East-west routing can optionally be used, with specific
restrictions. It is useful in particular when a sibling has
access to the fabric default but this node does not.
A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) provides a sense of north (the
direction of the DAG) and of south (the reverse), which can be used
to apply RIFT. For the purpose of RIFT, an edge in the DAG that has
only incoming vertices is a ToF node.
There are a number of caveats though:
* The DAG structure must exist before RIFT starts, so there is a
need for a companion protocol to establish the logical DAG
structure.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
* A generic DAG does not have a sense of east and west. The
operation specified for east-west links and the southbound
reflection between nodes are not applicable.
* In order to aggregate and disaggregate routes, RIFT requires that
all the ToF nodes share the full knowledge of the prefixes in the
fabric. This can be achieved with a ring as suggested by the RIFT
main specification, by some preconfiguration, or using a
synchronization with a common repository where all the active
prefixes are registered.
3.3. Use Cases
3.3.1. Data Center Fabrics
RIFT is largely driven by demands and hence ideally suited for
applying in data center (DC) IP fabrics underlay routing, vast
majority of which seem to be currently (and for the foreseeable
future) Clos architectures. It significantly simplifies operation
and deployment of such fabrics as described in Section 4 for
environments compared to extensive proprietary provisioning and
operational solutions.
3.3.2. Metro Fabrics
The demand for bandwidth is increasing steadily, driven primarily by
environments close to content producers (server farms connection via
DC fabrics) but in proximity to content consumers as well. Consumers
are often clustered in metro areas with their own network
architectures that can benefit from simplified, regular Clos
structures and hence RIFT.
3.3.3. Building Cabling
Commercial edifices are often cabled in topologies that are either
Clos or its isomorphic equivalents. The Clos can grow rather high
with many floors. That presents a challenge for traditional routing
protocols (except BGP and by now largely phased-out PNNI) which do
not support an arbitrary number of levels which RIFT does naturally.
Moreover, due to the limited sizes of forwarding tables in network
elements of building cabling，the minimum FIB size RIFT
maintains under normal conditions is cost-effective in terms of
hardware and operational costs.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
3.3.4. Internal Router Switching Fabrics
It is common in high-speed communications switching and routing
devices to use fabrics when a crossbar is not feasible due to cost,
head-of-line blocking or size trade-offs. Normally such fabrics are
not self-healing or rely on 1:/+1 protection schemes but it is
conceivable to use RIFT to operate Clos fabrics that can deal
effectively with interconnections or subsystem failures in such
module. RIFT is neither IP specific and hence any link addressing
connecting internal device subnets is conceivable.
3.3.5. CloudCO
The Cloud Central Office (CloudCO) is a new stage of telecom Central
Office. It takes the advantage of Software Defined Networking (SDN)
and Network Function Virtualization (NFV) in conjunction with general
purpose hardware to optimize current networks. The following figure
illustrates this architecture at a high level. It describes a single
instance or macro-node of cloud CO. An Access I/O module faces a
Cloud CO access node, and the Customer Premises Equipments (CPEs)
behind it. A Network I/O module is facing the core network. The two
I/O modules are interconnected by a leaf and spine fabric. [TR-384]
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
+---------------------+ +----------------------+
| Spine | | Spine |
| Switch | | Switch |
+------+---+------+-+-+ +--+-+-+-+-----+-------+
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | +-------------------------------+ |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | +-------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | +----------------------+ | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| +---------------------------------+ | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | +-----------------------------+ | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | +--------------------+ | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+--+ +-+---+--+ +-+---+--+ +--+----+--+ +-+--+--+ +--+
|L | | Leaf | | Leaf | | Leaf | | Leaf | |L |
|S | | Switch | | Switch | | Switch | | Switch| |S |
++-+ +-+-+-+--+ +-+-+-+--+ +--+-+--+--+ ++-+--+-+ +-++
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-+-+-+--+ +-+-+-+--+ +--+-+--+--+ ++-+--+-+ |
| |Compute | |Compute | | Compute | |Compute| |
| |Node | |Node | | Node | |Node | |
| +--------+ +--------+ +----------+ +-------+ |
| || VAS5 || || vDHCP|| || vRouter|| ||VAS1 || |
| |--------| |--------| |----------| |-------| |
| |--------| |--------| |----------| |-------| |
| || VAS6 || || VAS3 || || v802.1x|| ||VAS2 || |
| |--------| |--------| |----------| |-------| |
| |--------| |--------| |----------| |-------| |
| || VAS7 || || VAS4 || || vIGMP || ||BAA || |
| |--------| |--------| |----------| |-------| |
| +--------+ +--------+ +----------+ +-------+ |
| |
++-----------+ +---------++
|Network I/O | |Access I/O|
+------------+ +----------+
Figure 2: An example of CloudCO architecture
The Spine-Leaf architecture deployed inside CloudCO meets the network
requirements of adaptable, agile, scalable and dynamic.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
4. Deployment Considerations
RIFT presents the opportunity for organizations building and
operating IP fabrics to simplify their operation and deployments
while achieving many desirable properties of a dynamic routing on
such a substrate:
* RIFT only foods routing information to the devices that absolutely
need it. RIFT design follows minimum blast radius and minimum
necessary epistemological scope philosophy which leads to good
scaling properties while delivering maximum reactiveness.
* RIFT allows for extensive Zero Touch Provisioning within the
protocol. In its most extreme version RIFT does not rely on any
specific addressing and for IP fabric can operate using IPv6 ND
[RFC4861] only.
* RIFT has provisions to detect common IP fabric mis-cabling
scenarios.
* RIFT negotiates automatically BFD per link allowing this way for
IP and micro-BFD [RFC7130] to replace Link Aggregation Groups
(LAGs) which do hide bandwidth imbalances in case of constituent
failures. Further automatic link validation techniques similar to
[RFC5357] could be supported as well.
* RIFT inherently solves many difficult problems associated with the
use of traditional routing topologies with dense meshes and high
degrees of ECMP by including automatic bandwidth balancing, flood
reduction and automatic disaggregation on failures while providing
maximum aggregation of prefixes in default scenarios.
* RIFT reduces FIB size towards the bottom of the IP fabric where
most nodes reside and allows with that for cheaper hardware on the
edges and introduction of modern IP fabric architectures that
encompass e.g. server multi-homing.
* RIFT provides valley-free routing and with that is loop free.
This allows the use of any such valley-free path in bi-sectional
fabric bandwidth between two destination irrespective of their
metrics which can be used to balance load on the fabric in
different ways.
* RIFT includes a key-value distribution mechanism which allows for
many future applications such as automatic provisioning of basic
overlay services or automatic key roll-overs over whole fabrics.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
* RIFT is designed for minimum delay in case of prefix mobility on
the fabric.
* Many further operational and design points collected over many
years of routing protocol deployments have been incorporated in
RIFT such as fast flooding rates, protection of information
lifetimes and operationally easily recognizable remote ends of
links and node names.
4.1. South Reflection
South reflection is a mechanism that South Node TIEs are "reflected"
back up north to allow nodes in same level without East-west links to
"see" each other.
For example, Spine111\Spine112\Spine121\Spine122 reflects Node S-TIEs
from ToF21 to ToF22 separately. Respectively,
Spine111\Spine112\Spine121\Spine122 reflects Node S-TIEs from ToF22
to ToF21 separately. So ToF22 and ToF21 see each other's node
information as level 2 nodes.
In an equivalent fashion, as the result of the south reflection
between Spine121-Leaf121-Spine122 and Spine121-Leaf122-Spine122,
Spine121 and Spine 122 knows each other at level 1.
4.2. Suboptimal Routing on Link Failures
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
+--------+ +--------+
| ToF21 | | ToF22 | LEVEL 2
++--+-+-++ ++-+--+-++
| | | | | | | +
| | | | | | | linkTS8
+-------------+ | +-+linkTS3+-+ | | | +-------------+
| | | | | | + |
| +----------------------------+ | linkTS7 |
| | | | + + + |
| | | +-------+linkTS4+------------+ |
| | | + + | | |
| | | +------------+--+ | |
| | | | | linkTS6 | |
+-+----+-+ +-----+--+ ++--------+ +-+----+-+
|Spine111| |Spine112| |Spine121 | |Spine122| LEVEL 1
+-+---+--+ +----+---+ +-+---+---+ +-+---+--+
| | | | | | | |
| +--------------+ | + ++XX+linkSL6+---+ +
| | | | linkSL5 | | linkSL8
| +------------+ | | + +---+linkSL7+-+ | +
| | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ +-+---+-+ +--+-+--+
|Leaf111| |Leaf112| |Leaf121| |Leaf122| LEVEL 0
+-+-----+ ++------+ +-----+-+ +-+-----+
+ + + +
Prefix111 Prefix112 Prefix121 Prefix122
Figure 3: Suboptimal routing upon link failure use case
As shown in Figure 3, as the result of the south reflection between
Spine121-Leaf121-Spine122 and Spine121-Leaf122-Spine122, Spine121 and
Spine 122 knows each other at level 1.
Without disaggregation mechanism, when linkSL6 fails, the packet from
leaf121 to prefix122 will probably go up through linkSL5 to linkTS3
then go down through linkTS4 to linkSL8 to Leaf122 or go up through
linkSL5 to linkTS6 then go down through linkTS4 and linkSL8 to
Leaf122 based on pure default route. It's the case of suboptimal
routing or bow-tieing.
With disaggregation mechanism, when linkSL6 fails, Spine122 will
detect the failure according to the reflected node S-TIE from
Spine121. Based on the disaggregation algorithm provided by RIFT,
Spine122 will explicitly advertise prefix122 in Disaggregated Prefix
S-TIE PrefixesElement(prefix122, cost 1). The packet from leaf121 to
prefix122 will only be sent to linkSL7 following a longest-prefix
match to prefix 122 directly then go down through linkSL8 to Leaf122
.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
4.3. Black-Holing on Link Failures
+--------+ +--------+
| ToF 21 | | ToF 22 | LEVEL 2
++-+--+-++ ++-+--+-++
| | | | | | | +
| | | | | | | linkTS8
+--------------+ | +-+linkTS3+X+ | | | +--------------+
linkTS1 | | | | | + |
+ +-----------------------------+ | linkTS7 |
| | + | + + + |
| | linkTS2 +-------+linkTS4+X+----------+ |
| + + + + | | |
| linkTS5 +-+ +------------+--+ | |
| + | | | linkTS6 | |
+-+----+-+ +-+----+-+ ++-------+ +-+-----++
|Spine111| |Spine112| |Spine121| |Spine122| LEVEL 1
+-+---+--+ ++----+--+ +-+---+--+ +-+---+--+
| | | | | | | |
+ +---------------+ | + +---+linkSL6+---+ +
linkSL1 | | | linkSL5 | | linkSL8
+ +--+linkSL3+--+ | | + +---+linkSL7+-+ | +
| | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ +-+---+-+ +--+-+--+
|Leaf111| |Leaf112| |Leaf121| |Leaf122| LEVEL 0
+-+-----+ ++------+ +-----+-+ +-+-----+
+ + + +
Prefix111 Prefix112 Prefix121 Prefix122
Figure 4: Black-holing upon link failure use case
This scenario illustrates a case when double link failure occurs and
with that black-holing can happen.
Without disaggregation mechanism, when linkTS3 and linkTS4 both fail,
the packet from leaf111 to prefix122 would suffer 50% black-holing
based on pure default route. The packet supposed to go up through
linkSL1 to linkTS1 then go down through linkTS3 or linkTS4 will be
dropped. The packet supposed to go up through linkSL3 to linkTS2
then go down through linkTS3 or linkTS4 will be dropped as well.
It's the case of black-holing.
With disaggregation mechanism, when linkTS3 and linkTS4 both fail,
ToF22 will detect the failure according to the reflected node S-TIE
of ToF21 from Spine111\Spine112. Based on the disaggregation
algorithm provided by RITF, ToF22 will explicitly originate an S-TIE
with prefix 121 and prefix 122, that is flooded to spines 111, 112,
121 and 122.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
The packet from leaf111 to prefix122 will not be routed to linkTS1 or
linkTS2. The packet from leaf111 to prefix122 will only be routed to
linkTS5 or linkTS7 following a longest-prefix match to prefix122.
4.4. Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP)
Each RIFT node may operate in zero touch provisioning (ZTP) mode. It
has no configuration (unless it is a ToF at the top of the topology
or it is desired to confine it to leaf role w/o leaf-2-leaf
procedures). In such case RIFT will fully configure the node's level
after it is attached to the topology.
The most important component for ZTP is the automatic level
derivation procedure. All the ToF nodes are explicitly marked with
TOP_OF_FABRIC flag which are initial 'seeds' needed for other ZTP
nodes to derive their level in the topology. The derivation of the
level of each node happens then based on Link Information Elements
(LIEs) received from its neighbors whereas each node (with possibly
exceptions of configured leafs) tries to attach at the highest
possible point in the fabric. This guarantees that even if the
diffusion front reaches a node from "below" faster than from "above",
it will greedily abandon already negotiated level derived from nodes
topologically below it and properly peer with nodes above.
4.5. Mis-cabling Examples
+----------------+ +-----------------+
| ToF21 | +------+ ToF22 | LEVEL 2
+-------+----+---+ | +----+---+--------+
| | | | | | | | |
| | | +----------------------------+ |
| +---------------------------+ | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | +-----------------------+ | |
| | +------------------------+ | | |
| | | | | | | | |
+-+---+--+ +-+---+--+ | +--+---+-+ +--+---+-+
|Spine111| |Spine112| | |Spine121| |Spine122| LEVEL 1
+-+---+--+ ++----+--+ | +--+---+-+ +-+----+-+
| | | | | | | | |
| +---------+ | link-M | +---------+ |
| | | | | | | | |
| +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ | +-+---+-+ +--+--+-+
|Leaf111| |Leaf112+-----+ |Leaf121| |Leaf122| LEVEL 0
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
Figure 5: A single plane mis-cabling example
Figure 5 shows a single plane mis-cabling example. It's a perfect
fat tree fabric except link-M connecting Leaf112 to ToF22.
The RIFT control protocol can discover the physical links
automatically and be able to detect cabling that violates fat tree
topology constraints. It reacts accordingly to such mis-cabling
attempts, at a minimum preventing adjacencies between nodes from
being formed and traffic from being forwarded on those mis-cabled
links. Leaf112 will in such scenario use link-M to derive its level
(unless it is leaf) and can report links to Spine111 and Spine112 as
mis-cabled unless the implementations allows horizontal links.
Figure 6 shows a multiple plane mis-cabling example. Since Leaf112
and Spine121 belong to two different PoDs, the adjacency between
Leaf112 and Spine121 can not be formed. link-W would be detected and
prevented.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|ToF A1| |ToF A2| |ToF B1| |ToF B2| LEVEL 2
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | | | |
| | | +-----------------+ | | |
| +--------------------------+ | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| +------+ | | | +------+ |
| | +-----------------+ | | | | |
| | | +--------------------------+ | |
| A | | B | | A | | B |
+-----+--+ +-+---+--+ +--+---+-+ +--+-----+
|Spine111| |Spine112| +---+Spine121| |Spine122| LEVEL 1
+-+---+--+ ++----+--+ | +--+---+-+ +-+----+-+
| | | | | | | | |
| +---------+ | | | +---------+ |
| | | | link-W | | | |
| +-------+ | | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ | +-+---+-+ +--+--+-+
|Leaf111| |Leaf112+------+ |Leaf121| |Leaf122| LEVEL 0
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
+--------PoD#1----------+ +---------PoD#2---------+
Figure 6: A multiple plane mis-cabling example
RIFT provides an optional level determination procedure in its Zero
Touch Provisioning mode. Nodes in the fabric without their level
configured determine it automatically. This can have possibly
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
counter-intuitive consequences however. One extreme failure scenario
is depicted in Figure 7 and it shows that if all northbound links of
spine11 fail at the same time, spine11 negotiates a lower level than
Leaf11 and Leaf12.
To prevent such scenario where leafs are expected to act as switches,
LEAF_ONLY flag can be set for Leaf111 and Leaf112. Since level -1 is
invalid, Spine11 would not derive a valid level from the topology in
Figure 7. It will be isolated from the whole fabric and it would be
up to the leafs to declare the links towards such spine as mis-
cabled.
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
|ToF A1| |ToF A2| |ToF A1| |ToF A2|
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | |
+ + | | ====> | |
X X +------+ | +------+ |
+ + | | | |
+----+--+ +-+-----+ +-+-----+
|Spine11| |Spine12| |Spine12|
+-+---+-+ ++----+-+ ++----+-+
| | | | | |
| +---------+ | | |
| | | | | |
| +-------+ | | +-------+ |
| | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ +-----+-+ +-----+-+
|Leaf111| |Leaf112| |Leaf111| |Leaf112|
+-------+ +-------+ +-+-----+ +-+-----+
| |
| +--------+
| |
+-+---+-+
|Spine11|
+-------+
Figure 7: Fallen spine
4.6. Positive vs. Negative Disaggregation
Disaggregation is the procedure whereby [RIFT] advertises a more
specific route southwards as an exception to the aggregated fabric-
default north. Disaggregation is useful when a prefix within the
aggregation is reachable via some of the parents but not the others
at the same level of the fabric. It is mandatory when the level is
the ToF since a ToF node that cannot reach a prefix becomes a black
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
hole for that prefix. The hard problem is to know which prefixes are
reachable by whom.
In the general case, [RIFT] solves that problem by interconnecting
the ToF nodes. So the ToF nodes can exchange the full list of
prefixes that exist in the fabric and figure when a ToF node lacks
reachability and to existing prefix. This requires additional ports
at the ToF, typically 2 ports per ToF node to form a ToF-spanning
ring. [RIFT] also defines the southbound reflection procedure that
enables a parent to explore the direct connectivity of its peers,
meaning their own parents and children; based on the advertisements
received from the shared parents and children, it may enable the
parent to infer the prefixes its peers can reach.
When a parent lacks reachability to a prefix, it may disaggregate the
prefix negatively, i.e., advertise that this parent can be used to
reach any prefix in the aggregation except that one. The Negative
Disaggregation signaling is simple and functions transitively from
ToF to top-of-pod (ToP) and then from ToP to Leaf. But it is hard
for a parent to figure which prefix it needs to disaggregate, because
it does not know what it does not know; it results that the use of a
spanning ring at the ToF is required to operate the Negative
Disaggregation. Also, though it is only an implementation problem,
the programmation of the FIB is complex compared to normal routes,
and may incur recursions.
The more classical alternative is, for the parents that can reach a
prefix that peers at the same level cannot, to advertise a more
specific route to that prefix. This leverages the normal longest
prefix match in the FIB, and does not require a special
implementation. But as opposed to the Negative Disaggregation, the
Positive Disaggregation is difficult and inefficient to operate
transitively.
Transitivity is not needed to a grandchild if all its parents
received the Positive Disaggregation, meaning that they shall all
avoid the black hole; when that is the case, they collectively build
a ceiling that protects the grandchild. But until then, a parent
that received a Positive Disaggregation may believe that some peers
are lacking the reachability and readvertise too early, or defer and
maintain a black hole situation longer than necessary.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
In a non-partitioned fabric, all the ToF nodes see one another
through the reflection and can figure if one is missing a child. In
that case it is possible to compute the prefixes that the peer cannot
reach and disaggregate positively without a ToF-spanning ring. The
ToF nodes can also ascertain that the ToP nodes are connected each to
at least a ToF node that can still reach the prefix, meaning that the
transitive operation is not required.
The bottom line is that in a fabric that is partitioned (e.g., using
multiple planes) and/or where the ToP nodes are not guaranteed to
always form a ceiling for their children, it is mandatory to use the
Negative Disaggregation. On the other hand, in a highly symmetrical
and fully connected fabric, (e.g., a canonical Clos Network), the
Positive Disaggregation methods allows to save the complexity and
cost associated to the ToF-spanning ring.
Note that in the case of Positive Disaggregation, the first ToF
node(s) that announces a more-specific route attracts all the traffic
for that route and may suffer from a transient incast. A ToP node
that defers injecting the longer prefix in the FIB, in order to
receive more advertisements and spread the packets better, also keeps
on sending a portion of the traffic to the black hole in the
meantime. In the case of Negative Disaggregation, the last ToF
node(s) that injects the route may also incur an incast issue; this
problem would occur if a prefix that becomes totally unreachable is
disaggregated, but doing so is mostly useless and is not recommended.
4.7. Mobile Edge and Anycast
When a physical or a virtual node changes its point of attachement in
the fabric from a previous-leaf to a next-leaf, new routes must be
installed that supersede the old ones. Since the flooding flows
northwards, the nodes (if any) between the previous-leaf and the
common parent are not immediately aware that the path via previous-
leaf is obsolete, and a stale route may exist for a while. The
common parent needs to select the freshest route advertisement in
order to install the correct route via the next-leaf. This requires
that the fabric determines the sequence of the movements of the
mobile node.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
On the one hand, a classical sequence counter provides a total order
for a while but it will eventually wrap. On the other hand, a
timestamp provides a permanent order but it may miss a movement that
happens too quickly vs. the granularity of the timing information.
It is not envisioned in the short term that the average fabric
supports a Precision Time Protocol [IEEEstd1588], and the precision
that may be available with the Network Time Protocol [RFC5905], in
the order of 100 to 200ms, may not be necessarily enough to cover,
e.g., the fast mobility of a Virtual Machine.
Section 4.3.3. "Mobility" of [RIFT] specifies an hybrid method that
combines a sequence counter from the mobile node and a timestamp from
the network taken at the leaf when the route is injected. If the
timestamps of the concurrent advertisements are comparable (i.e.,
more distant than the precision of the timing protocol), then the
timestamp alone is used to determine the relative freshness of the
routes. Otherwise, the sequence counter from the mobile node, if
available, is used. One caveat is that the sequence counter must not
wrap within the precision of the timing protocol. Another is that
the mobile node may not even provide a sequence counter, in which
case the mobility itself must be slower than the precision of the
timing.
Mobility must not be confused with anycast. In both cases, a same
address is injected in RIFT at different leaves. In the case of
mobility, only the freshest route must be conserved, since mobile
node changed its point of attachment for a leaf to the next. In the
case of anycast, the node may be either multihomed (attached to
multiple leaves in parallel) or reachable beyond the fabric via
multiple routes that are redistributed to different leaves; either
way, in the case of anycast, the multiple routes are equally valid
and should be conserved. Without further information from the
redistributed routing protocol, it is impossible to sort out a
movement from a redistribution that happens asynchronously on
different leaves. [RIFT] expects that anycast addresses are
advertised within the timing precision, which is typically the case
with a low-precision timing and a multihomed node. Beyond that time
interval, RIFT interprets the lag as a mobility and only the freshest
route is retained.
When using IPv6 [RFC8200], RIFT suggests to leverage "Registration
Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network
(6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery (ND)" [RFC8505] as the IPv6 ND
interaction between the mobile node and the leaf. This provides not
only a sequence counter but also a lifetime and a security token that
may be used to protect the ownership of an address [RFC8928]. When
using [RFC8505], the parallel registration of an anycast address to
multiple leaves is done with the same sequence counter, whereas the
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
sequence counter is incremented when the point of attachement
changes. This way, it is possible to differentiate a mobile node
from a multihomed node, even when the mobility happens within the
timing precision. It is also possible for a mobile node to be
multihomed as well, e.g., to change only one of its points of
attachement.
4.8. IPv4 over IPv6
RIFT allows advertising IPv4 prefixes over IPv6 RIFT network. IPv6
Address Family (AF) configures via the usual Neighbor Discovery (ND)
mechanisms and then V4 can use V6 nexthops analogous to [RFC5549].
It is expected that the whole fabric supports the same type of
forwarding of address families on all the links. RIFT provides an
indication whether a node is v4 forwarding capable and
implementations are possible where different routing tables are
computed per address family as long as the computation remains loop-
free.
+-----+ +-----+
+---+---+ | ToF | | ToF |
^ +--+--+ +-----+
| | | | |
| | +-------------+ |
| | +--------+ | |
+ | | | |
V6 +-----+ +-+---+
Forwarding |Spine| |Spine|
+ +--+--+ +-----+
| | | | |
| | +-------------+ |
| | +--------+ | |
| | | | |
v +-----+ +-+---+
+---+---+ |Leaf | | Leaf|
+--+--+ +--+--+
| |
IPv4 prefixes| |IPv4 prefixes
| |
+---+----+ +---+----+
| V4 | | V4 |
| subnet | | subnet |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 8: IPv4 over IPv6
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
4.9. In-Band Reachability of Nodes
RIFT doesn't precondition that nodes of the fabric have reachable
addresses. But the operational purposes to reach the internal nodes
may exist. Figure 9 shows an example that the network management
station (NMS) attaches to leaf1.
+-------+ +-------+
| ToF1 | | ToF2 |
++---- ++ ++-----++
| | | |
| +----------+ |
| +--------+ | |
| | | |
++-----++ +--+---++
|Spine1 | |Spine2 |
++-----++ ++-----++
| | | |
| +----------+ |
| +--------+ | |
| | | |
++-----++ +--+---++
| Leaf1 | | Leaf2 |
+---+---+ +-------+
|
|NMS
Figure 9: In-Band reachability of node
If NMS wants to access Leaf2, it simply works. Because loopback
address of Leaf2 is flooded in its Prefix North TIE.
If NMS wants to access Spine2, it simply works too. Because spine
node always advertises its loopback address in the Prefix North TIE.
NMS may reach Spine2 from Leaf1-Spine2 or Leaf1-Spine1-ToF1/
ToF2-Spine2.
If NMS wants to access ToF2, ToF2's loopback address needs to be
injected into its Prefix South TIE. This TIE must be seen by all
nodes at the level below - the spine nodes in Figure 9 - that must
form a ceiling for all the traffic coming from below (south).
Otherwise, the traffic from NMS may follow the default route to the
wrong ToF Node, e.g., ToF1.
In a fully connected ToF, in case of failure between ToF2 and spine
nodes, ToF2's loopback address must be disaggregated recursively all
the way to the leaves.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
In a partitioned ToF, a TOF node is only reachable within its Plane,
and the disaggregation to the leaves is also required. A possible
alternative is to use the ring that interconnects the ToF nodes to
transmit packets between them for their loopback addresses only. The
idea is that this is mostly control traffic and should not alter the
load balancing properties of the fabric.
4.10. Dual Homing Servers
Each RIFT node may operate in Zero Touch Provisioning (ZTP) mode. It
has no configuration (unless it is a Top-of-Fabric at the top of the
topology or the must operate in the topology as leaf and/or support
leaf-2-leaf procedures) and it will fully configure itself after
being attached to the topology.
+---+ +---+ +---+
|ToF| |ToF| |ToF| ToF
+---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | |
| +----------------+ | |
| | | | | |
| +----------------+ |
| | | | | |
+----------+--+ +--+----------+
| ToR1 | | ToR2 | Spine
+--+------+---+ +--+-------+--+
+---+ | | | | | | +---+
| | | | | | | |
| +-----------------+ | | |
| | | +-------------+ | |
+ | + | | |-----------------+ |
X | X | +--------x-----+ | X |
+ | + | | | + |
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
| | | | | | | |
+---+ +---+ ...............+---+ +---+
SV(1) SV(2) SV(n+1) SV(n) Leaf
Figure 10: Dual-homing servers
In the single plane, the worst condition is disaggregation of every
other servers at the same level. Suppose the links from ToR1 (Top of
Rack) to all the leaves become not available. All the servers'
routes are disaggregated and the FIB of the servers will be expanded
with n-1 more specific routes.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
Sometimes, people may prefer to disaggregate from ToR to servers from
start on, i.e. the servers have couple tens of routes in FIB from
start on beside default routes to avoid breakages at rack level.
Full disaggregation of the fabric could be achieved by configuration
supported by RIFT.
4.11. Fabric With A Controller
There are many different ways to deploy the controller. One
possibility is attaching a controller to the RIFT domain from ToF and
another possibility is attaching a controller from the leaf.
+------------+
| Controller |
++----------++
| |
| |
+----++ ++----+
------- | ToF | | ToF |
| +--+--+ +-----+
| | | | |
| | +-------------+ |
| | +--------+ | |
| | | | |
+-----+ +-+---+
RIFT domain |Spine| |Spine|
+--+--+ +-----+
| | | | |
| | +-------------+ |
| | +--------+ | |
| | | | |
| +-----+ +-+---+
------- |Leaf | | Leaf|
+-----+ +-----+
Figure 11: Fabric with a controller
4.11.1. Controller Attached to ToFs
If a controller is attaching to the RIFT domain from ToF, it usually
uses dual-homing connections. The loopback prefix of the controller
should be advertised down by the ToF and spine to leaves. If the
controller loses link to ToF, make sure the ToF withdraw the prefix
of the controller(use different mechanisms).
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
4.11.2. Controller Attached to Leaf
If the controller is attaching from a leaf to the fabric, no special
provisions are needed.
4.12. Internet Connectivity With Underlay
If global addressing is running without overlay, an external default
route needs to be advertised through rift fabric to achieve internet
connectivity. For the purpose of forwarding of the entire rift
fabric, an internal fabric prefix needs to be advertised in the South
Prefix TIE by ToF and spine nodes.
4.12.1. Internet Default on the Leaf
In case that an internet access request comes from a leaf and the
internet gateway is another leaf, the leaf node as the internet
gateway needs to advertise a default route in its Prefix North TIE.
4.12.2. Internet Default on the ToFs
In case that an internet access request comes from a leaf and the
internet gateway is a ToF, the ToF and spine nodes need to advertise
a default route in the Prefix South TIE.
4.13. Subnet Mismatch and Address Families
+--------+ +--------+
| | LIE LIE | |
| A | +----> <----+ | B |
| +---------------------+ |
+--------+ +--------+
X/24 Y/24
Figure 12: subnet mismatch
LIEs are exchanged over all links running RIFT to perform Link
(Neighbor) Discovery. A node MUST NOT originate LIEs on an address
family if it does not process received LIEs on that family. LIEs on
same link are considered part of the same negotiation independent on
the address family they arrive on. An implementation MUST be ready
to accept TIEs on all addresses it used as source of LIE frames.
As shown in the above figure, without further checks adjacency of
node A and B may form, but the forwarding between node A and node B
may fail because subnet X mismatches with subnet Y.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
To prevent this a RIFT implementation should check for subnet
mismatch just like e.g. ISIS does. This can lead to scenarios where
an adjacency, despite exchange of LIEs in both address families may
end up having an adjacency in a single AF only. This is a
consideration especially in Section 4.8 scenarios.
4.14. Anycast Considerations
+ traffic
|
v
+------+------+
| ToF |
+---+-----+---+
| | | |
+------------+ | | +------------+
| | | |
+---+---+ +-------+ +-------+ +---+---+
| | | | | | | |
|Spine11| |Spine12| |Spine21| |Spine22| LEVEL 1
+-+---+-+ ++----+-+ +-+---+-+ ++----+-+
| | | | | | | |
| +---------+ | | +---------+ |
| | | | | | | |
| +-------+ | | | +-------+ | |
| | | | | | | |
+-+---+-+ +--+--+-+ +-+---+-+ +--+--+-+
| | | | | | | |
|Leaf111| |Leaf112| |Leaf121| |Leaf122| LEVEL 0
+-+-----+ ++------+ +-----+-+ +-----+-+
+ + + ^ |
PrefixA PrefixB PrefixA | PrefixC
|
+ traffic
Figure 13: Anycast
If the traffic comes from ToF to Leaf111 or Leaf121 which has anycast
prefix PrefixA. RIFT can deal with this case well. But if the
traffic comes from Leaf122, it arrives Spine21 or Spine22 at level 1.
But Spine21 or Spine22 doesn't know another PrefixA attaching
Leaf111. So it will always get to Leaf121 and never get to Leaf111.
If the intension is that the traffic should been offloaded to
Leaf111, then use policy guided prefixes defined in "Routing in Fat
Trees" [RIFT].
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
4.15. IoT Applicability
The design of RIFT inherits from RPL [RFC6550] the anisotropic design
of a default route upwards (northwards); it also inherits the
capability to inject external host routes at the Leaf level using
Wireless ND (WiND) [RFC8505][RFC8928] between a RIFT-agnostic host
and a RIFT router. Both the RPL and the RIFT protocols are meant for
large scale, and WiND enables device mobility at the edge the same
way in both cases.
The main difference between RIFT and RPL is that with RPL, there's a
single Root, whereas RIFT has many ToF nodes. The adds huge
capabilities for leaf-2-leaf ECMP paths, but additional complexity
with the need to disaggregate. Also RIFT uses Link State flooding
northwards, and is not designed for low-power operation.
Still nothing prevents that the IP devices connected at the Leaf are
IoT (Internet of Things) devices, which typically expose their
address using WiND - which is an upgrade from 6LoWPAN ND [RFC6775].
A network that serves high speed/ high power IoT devices should
typically provide deterministic capabilities for applications such as
high speed control loops or movement detection. The Fat Tree is
highly reliable, and in normal condition provides an equilatent
multipath operation; but the ECMP doesn't provide hard guarantees for
either delivery or latency. As long as the fabric is non-blocking
the result is the same; but there can be load unbalances resulting in
incast and possibly congestion loss that will prevent the delivery
within bounded latency.
This could be alleviated with Packet Replication, Elimination and
Reordering (PREOF) [RFC8655] leaf-2-leaf but PREOF is hard to provide
at the scale of all flows, and the replication may increase the
probability of the overload that it attempts to solve.
Note that the load balancing is not RIFT's problem, but it is key to
serve IoT adequately.
5. Security Considerations
This document presents applicability of RIFT. As such, it does not
introduce any security considerations. However, there are a number
of security concerns at [RIFT].
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
6. Contributors
The following people (listed in alphabetical order) contributed
significantly to the content of this document and should be
considered co-authors:
Tony Przygienda
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: prz@juniper.net
7. Normative References
[ISO10589-Second-Edition]
International Organization for Standardization,
"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)", November
2002.
[TR-384] Broadband Forum Technical Report, "TR-384 Cloud Central
Office Reference Architectural Framework", January 2018.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>.
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
[RFC7130] Bhatia, M., Ed., Chen, M., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed.,
Binderberger, M., Ed., and J. Haas, Ed., "Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) on Link Aggregation Group (LAG)
Interfaces", RFC 7130, DOI 10.17487/RFC7130, February
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7130>.
[RFC5549] Le Faucheur, F. and E. Rosen, "Advertising IPv4 Network
Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop",
RFC 5549, DOI 10.17487/RFC5549, May 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5549>.
[RFC6550] Winter, T., Ed., Thubert, P., Ed., Brandt, A., Hui, J.,
Kelsey, R., Levis, P., Pister, K., Struik, R., Vasseur,
JP., and R. Alexander, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for
Low-Power and Lossy Networks", RFC 6550,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6550, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6550>.
[RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C.
Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over
Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)",
RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>.
[RFC8655] Finn, N., Thubert, P., Varga, B., and J. Farkas,
"Deterministic Networking Architecture", RFC 8655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8655, October 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8655>.
[RIFT] Przygienda, T., Sharma, A., Thubert, P., Rijsman, B., and
D. Afanasiev, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-rift-12, 26 May
2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-rift-12>.
[I-D.white-distoptflood]
White, R., Hegde, S., and S. Zandi, "IS-IS Optimal
Distributed Flooding for Dense Topologies", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-white-distoptflood-04, 27
July 2020,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-white-distoptflood-04>.
8. Informative References
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
[IEEEstd1588]
IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Standard
for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for
Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
<https://standards.ieee.org/standard/1588-2019.html>.
[CLOS] Yuan, X., "On Nonblocking Folded-Clos Networks in Computer
Communication Environments", IEEE International Parallel &
Distributed Processing Symposium, 2011.
[FATTREE] Leiserson, C. E., "Fat-Trees: Universal Networks for
Hardware-Efficient Supercomputing", 1985.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[RFC8928] Thubert, P., Ed., Sarikaya, B., Sethi, M., and R. Struik,
"Address-Protected Neighbor Discovery for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks", RFC 8928, DOI 10.17487/RFC8928, November
2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8928>.
Authors' Addresses
Yuehua Wei (editor)
ZTE Corporation
No.50, Software Avenue
Nanjing
210012
China
Email: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft RIFT Applicability Statement January 2021
Zheng Zhang
ZTE Corporation
No.50, Software Avenue
Nanjing
210012
China
Email: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
Dmitry Afanasiev
Yandex
Email: fl0w@yandex-team.ru
Tom Verhaeg
Juniper Networks
Email: tverhaeg@juniper.net
Jaroslaw Kowalczyk
Orange Polska
Email: jaroslaw.kowalczyk2@orange.com
Pascal Thubert
Cisco Systems, Inc
Building D
45 Allee des Ormes - BP1200
06254 MOUGINS - Sophia Antipolis
France
Phone: +33 497 23 26 34
Email: pthubert@cisco.com
Wei, et al. Expires 24 July 2021 [Page 31]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/