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

Versions: (draft-tissa-trill-cmt) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7783

TRILL Working Group                                  Tissa Senevirathne
Internet Draft                                               Consultant
Intended status: Standard Track                    Janardhanan Pathangi
Updates: 6325                                                      DELL
                                                             Jon Hudson
                                                                Brocade

                                                       October 18, 2015
Expires: April2016



                Coordinated Multicast Trees (CMT) for TRILL
                        draft-ietf-trill-cmt-11.txt


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), 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18,2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents



Senevirathne            Expires April 18,2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   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.

Abstract

   TRILL facilitates loop free connectivity to non-TRILL networks via
   choice of an Appointed Forwarder for a set of VLANs. Appointed
   Forwarders provide load sharing based on VLAN with an active-standby
   model. High performance applications require an active-active load-
   sharing model. The Active-Active load-sharing model can be
   accomplished by representing any given non-TRILL network with a
   single virtual RBridge. Virtual representation of the non-TRILL
   network with a single RBridge poses serious challenges in multi-
   destination RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding) check calculations. This
   document specifies required enhancements to build Coordinated
   Multicast Trees (CMT) within the TRILL campus to solve related RPF
   issues. CMT, which only requires software upgrade, provides
   flexibility to RBridges in selecting desired path of association to
   a given TRILL multi-destination distribution tree. This document
   updates RFC 6325.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. Scope and Applicability...................................5
      1.2. Contributors..............................................5
   2. Conventions used in this document..............................5
      2.1. Acronyms and Phrases......................................5
   3. The AFFINITY sub-TLV...........................................6
   4. Multicast Tree Construction and Use of Affinity Sub-TLV........7
      4.1. Update to RFC 6325........................................8
      4.2. Announcing virtual RBridge nickname.......................9
      4.3. Affinity Sub-TLV Capability...............................9
   5. Theory of operation...........................................10
      5.1. Distribution Tree Assignment.............................10
      5.2. Affinity Sub-TLV advertisement...........................10
      5.3. Affinity sub-TLV conflict resolution.....................11
      5.4. Ingress Multi-Destination Forwarding.....................11
         5.4.1. Forwarding when n < k...............................12
      5.5. Egress Multi-Destination Forwarding......................12
         5.5.1. Traffic Arriving on an assigned Tree to RBk-RBv.....12
         5.5.2. Traffic Arriving on other Trees.....................12
      5.6. Failure scenarios........................................13


Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


         5.6.1. Edge RBridge RBk failure............................13
      5.7. Backward compatibility...................................14
   6. Security Considerations.......................................14
   7. IANA Considerations...........................................15
   8. References....................................................15
      8.1. Normative References.....................................15
      8.2. Informative References...................................16
   9. Acknowledgments...............................................16
   Appendix A. Change History.......................................17

1. Introduction

   TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) presented in
   [RFC6325] and other related documents, provides methods of utilizing
   all available paths for active forwarding, with minimum
   configuration. TRILL utilizes IS-IS (Intermediate System to
   Intermediate System [IS-IS]) as its control plane and uses a TRILL
   header with hop count.

   [RFC6325], [RFC7177], and [RFC6439] provide methods for
   interoperability between TRILL and Ethernet end stations and bridged
   networks. [RFC6439] provides an active-standby solution, where only
   one of the RBridges on a link with end stations is in the active
   forwarding state for end station traffic for any given VLAN. That
   RBridge is referred to as the Appointed Forwarder (AF). All frames
   ingressed into a TRILL network via the Appointed Forwarder are
   encapsulated with the TRILL header with a nickname held by the
   ingress AF RBridge. Due to failures, re-configurations and other
   network dynamics, the Appointed Forwarder for any set of VLANs may
   change. RBridges maintain forwarding tables that contain destination
   MAC address and Data Label (VLAN or Fine Grained Label (FGL)) to
   egress RBridge binding. In the event of an AF change, forwarding
   tables of remote RBridges may continue to forward traffic to the
   previous AF and that traffic may get discarded at the egress,
   causing traffic disruption.

   High performance applications require resiliency during failover.
   The active-active forwarding model minimizes impact during failures
   and maximizes the available network bandwidth. A typical deployment
   scenario, depicted in Figure 1, may have either End Stations and/or
   bridges attached to the RBridges.  These devices typically are
   multi-homed to several RBridges and treat all of the uplinks
   independently using a Local Active-Active Link Protocol (LAALP
   [RFC7379]) such as a single Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG)
   bundle or Distributed Resilient Network Interconnect [8021AX]. The
   Appointed Forwarder designation presented in [RFC6439] requires each
   of the edge RBridges to exchange TRILL Hello packets. By design, an


Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   LAALP does not forward packets received on one of the member ports
   of the MC-LAG to other member ports of the same MC-LAG. As a result
   the AF designation methods presented in [RFC6439] cannot be applied
   to deployment scenario depicted in Figure 1. [RFC7379]

   An active-active load-sharing model can be implemented by
   representing the edge of the network connected to a specific edge
   group of RBridges by a single virtual RBridge. Each virtual RBridge
   MUST have a nickname unique within its TRILL campus. In addition to
   an active-active forwarding model, there may be other applications
   that may requires similar representations.

   Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of [RFC6325] as updated by [RFC7180bis]
   specify distribution tree calculation and RPF (Reverse Path
   Forwarding) check calculation algorithms for multi-destination
   forwarding. These algorithms strictly depend on link cost and parent
   RBridge priority. As a result, based on the network topology, it may
   be possible that a given edge RBridge, if it is forwarding on behalf
   of the virtual RBridge, may not have a candidate multicast tree that
   the edge RBridge can forward traffic on because there is no tree for
   which the virtual RBridge is a leaf node from the edge RBridge.

   In this document we present a method that allows RBridges to specify
   the path of association for real or virtual child nodes to
   distribution trees. Remote RBridges calculate their forwarding
   tables and derive the RPF for distribution trees based on the
   distribution tree association advertisements. In the absence of
   distribution tree association advertisements, remote RBridges derive
   the SPF (Shortest Path First) based on the algorithm specified in
   section 4.5.1 of [RFC6325] as updated by [RFC7180bis]. This document
   updates [RFC6325] by changing, when CMT sub-TLVs are present,
   [RFC6325] mandatory provisions as to how distribution tree are
   constructed.

   Other applications, beside the above mentioned active-active
   forwarding model, may utilize the distribution tree association
   framework presented in this document to associate to distribution
   trees through a preferred path.

   This proposal requires the presence of multiple multi-destination
   trees within the TRILL campus and updating all the RBridges in the
   network to support the new Affinity sub-TLV (Section 3. ). It is
   expected that both of these requirements will be met as they are
   control plane changes, and will be common deployment scenarios. In
   case either of the above two conditions are not met, RBridges MUST
   support a fallback option for interoperability. Since the fallback
   is expected to be a temporary phenomenon till all RBridges are


Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   upgraded, this proposal gives guidelines for such fallbacks, and
   does not mandate or specify any specific set of fallback options.

1.1. Scope and Applicability

   This document specifies an Affinity sub-TLV to solve RPF issues at
   the active-active edge. Specific methods in this document for making
   use of the Affinity sub-TLV are applicable where a virtual RBridge
   is used to represent multiple RBridges connected to an edge CE
   through an LAALP such as multi-chassis link aggregation or some
   similar arrangement where the RBridges cannot see each other's
   Hellos.

   This document does not provide other required operational elements
   to implement an active-active edge solution, such as methods of
   multi-chassis link aggregation. Solution specific operational
   elements are outside the scope of this document and will be covered
   in other documents. (See, for example [TRILLPN].)

   Examples provided in this document are for illustration purposes
   only.

1.2. Contributors

   The work in this document is a result of many passionate discussions
   and contributions from following individuals. Their names are listed
   in alphabetical order:

   Ayan Banerjee, Dinesh Dutt, Donald Eastlake, Mingui Zhang, Radia
   Perlman, Sam Aldrin, Shivakumar Sundaram, and Zhai Hongjun.

2. 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 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

2.1. Acronyms and Phrases



   The following acronyms and phrases are used in this document:



Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015




   AF: Appointed Forwarder [RFC6439].

   CE: Customer Ethernet device, that is, a device that performs
   forwarding based on 802.1Q bridging. This also can be end-station or
   a server.

   Data Label: VLAN or FGL.

   FGL: Fine Grained Label [RFC7172].

   LAALP: Local Active-Active Link Protocol [RFC7379].

  MC-LAG: Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation is a proprietary extension to
  [8021AX], that facilitates connecting group of links from an
  originating device (A) to a group of discrete devices (B). Device (A)
  treats, all of the links in a given Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation
  bundle as a single logical interface and treats all devices in Group
  (B) as a single logical device for all forwarding purposes. Device
  (A) does not forward packets receive on Multi-Chassis Link bundle out
  of the same Multi-Chassis link bundle. Figure 1 depicts a specific
  use case example.


   RPF: Reverse Path Forwarding. See section 4.5.2 of [RFC6325].

   Virtual RBridge: A purely conceptual RBridge that represents an
   Active-Active Edge group and is in turn represented by a nickname.
   For example, see [PseudoNickname].

3. The AFFINITY sub-TLV

   Association of an RBridge to a multi-destination distribution tree
   through a specific path is accomplished by using a new IS-IS sub-
   TLV, the Affinity sub-TLV.

   The AFFINITY sub-TLV appears in Router Capability TLVs or MT
   Capability TLVs that are within LSP PDUs, as described in [RFC7176]
   which specifies the code point and data structure for the Affinity
   sub-TLV.






Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


4. Multicast Tree Construction and Use of Affinity Sub-TLV

   Figure 1 and Figure 2 below show the reference topology and a
   logical topology using CMT to provide active-active service.



               -------------------
             /                    \
            |                      |
            |   TRILL Campus       |
            |                      |
             \                    /
              --------------------
                 |       |    |
            -----        |     --------
           |             |             |
       +------+      +------+      +------+
       |      |      |      |      |      |
       |(RB1) |      |(RB2) |      | (RBk)|
       +------+      +------+      +------+
         |..|          |..|          |..|
         |  +----+     |  |          |  |
         |   +---|-----|--|----------+  |
         | +-|---|-----+  +-----------+ |
         | | |   +------------------+ | |
        (| | |)  <-- MC-LAG          (| | |) <- MC-LAG
       +-------+    .  .  .       +-------+
       | CE1   |                  | CEn   |
       |       |                  |       |
       +-------+                  +-------+


                        Figure 1 Reference Topology















Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015




             ------------------            Sample Multicast Tree (T1)
           /                    \
          |                      |                  |
          | TRILL Campus         |                  o RBn
          |                      |                / | \
           \                     /               /  |  ---\
            ---------------------             RB1o  o      o
               |       |    |                    |   RB2    RBk
               |       |    --------------       |
               |       |                  |      oRBv
             +------+ +------+          +------+
             |      | |      |          |      |
             |(RB1) | |(RB2) |          | (RBk)|
             +------+ +------+          +------+
               |..|       |..|             |..|
               |  +----+  |  |             |  |
               |   +---|--|--|-------------+  |
               | +-|---|--+  +--------------+ |
       MC-     | | |   +------------------+ | |
       LAG--->(| | |)                    (| | |)<- MC-LAG
              +-------+    .  .  .       +-------+
              | CE1   |                  | CEn   |
              |       |                  |       |
              +-------+                  +-------+



                     Figure 2 Example Logical Topology



4.1. Update to RFC 6325

   Section 4.5.1 of [RFC6325], is updated to change the calculation of
   distribution trees as below:

   Each RBridge that desires to be the parent RBridge for child
   RBridge RBy in a multi-destination distribution tree x announces
   the desired association using an Affinity sub-TLV. The child is
   specified by its nickname. If an RBridge RB1 advertises an AFFINITY
   sub-TLV designating one its own nicknames N1 as its ''child'' in some
   distribution tree, the effect is that that nickname N1 is ignored
   when constructing other distribution trees. Thus the RPF check will
   enforce that only RB1 can use nickname N1 to do ingress/egress on


Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   tree x. (This has no effect on least cost path calculations for
   unicast traffic.)


   When such an Affinity sub-TLV is present, the association specified
   by the affinity sub-TLV MUST be used when constructing the multi-
   destination distribution tree except in case of conflicting Affinity
   sub-TLV, which are resolved as specified in Section 5.3. In the
   absence of such an Affinity sub-TLV, or if there are any RBridges in
   the campus that do not support Affinity sub-TLV, distribution trees
   are calculated as specified in the section 4.5.1 of [RFC6325] as
   updated by [RFC7180bis]. Section 4.3. below specifies how to
   identify RBridges that support Affinity sub-TLV capability.

4.2. Announcing virtual RBridge nickname

   Each edge RBridge RB1 to RBk advertises in its LSP virtual RBridge
   nickname RBv using the Nickname sub-TLV (6), [RFC7176], along with
   their regular nickname or nicknames.

   It will be possible for any RBridge to determine that RBv is a
   virtual RBridge because each RBridge (RB1 to RBk) this appears to be
   advertising that it is holding RBv is also advertising an Affinity
   sub-TLV asking that RBv be its child in one or more trees.

      Virtual RBridges are ignored when determining the distribution
   tree roots for the campus.

      All RBridges outside the edge group assume that multi-destination
   packets with ingress nickname RBv might use any of the distribution
   trees that any member of the edge group is advertising that it might
   use.



4.3. Affinity Sub-TLV Capability.

   RBridges that announce the TRILL version sub-TLV [RFC7176] and set
   the Affinity capability bit (Section 7. ) support the Affinity sub-
   TLV and calculation of multi-destination distribution trees and RPF
   checks as specified herein.







Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


5. Theory of operation

5.1. Distribution Tree Assignment

   Let's assume there are n distribution trees and k edge RBridges in
   the edge group of interest.

   If n >= k

     Let's assume edge RBridges are sorted in numerically ascending
     order by IS-IS System ID such that RB1 < RB2 < RBk. Each RBridge
     in the numerically sorted list is assigned a monotonically
     increasing number j such that; RB1=0, RB2=1, RBi=j and
     RBi+1=j+1. (See Section 4.5 of [RFC6325] as modified by Section
     3.4 of [RFC7180bis] for how tree numbers are determined.)

     Assign each tree to RBi such that tree number (((tree_number) %
     k)+1) is assigned to edge group RBridge i for tree_number from 1
     to n. where n is the number of trees, k is the number of edge
     group RBridges considered for tree allocation, and ''%'' is the
     integer division remainder operation.

   If n < k

     Distribution trees are assigned to edge group RBridges RB1 to
     RBn, using the same algorithm as n >= k case. RBridges RBn+1 to
     RBk do not participate in active-active forwarding process on
     behalf of RBv.

5.2. Affinity Sub-TLV advertisement

   Each RBridge in the RB1 through RBk domain advertises an Affinity
   TLV for RBv to be its child.

   As an example, let's assume that RB1 has chosen Trees t1 and tk+1 on
   behalf of RBv.

   RB1 advertises affinity TLV; {RBv, Num of Trees=2, t1, tk+1.

   Other RBridges in the RB1 through RBk edge group follow the same
   procedure.





Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


5.3. Affinity sub-TLV conflict resolution

   In TRILL, multi-destination distribution trees are built outward
   from the root by each RBridge so that they all derive the same set
   of distribution trees [RFC6325].

   If an RBridge RB1 advertises an Affinity sub-TLV with an AFFINITY
   RECORD that asks for RBridge RBroot to be its child in a tree rooted
   at RBroot, that AFFINITY RECORD is in conflict with TRILL
   distribution tree root determination and MUST be ignored.

   If an RBridge RB1 advertises an Affinity sub-TLV with an AFFINITY
   RECORD that asks for nickname RBn to be its child in any tree and
   RB1 is neither adjacent to RBn nor does nickname RBn identify RB1
   itself, that AFFINITY RECORD is in conflict with the campus
   topology and MUST be ignored.

   If different RBridges advertise Affinity sub-TLVs that try to
   associate the same virtual RBridge as their child in the same tree
   or trees, those Affinity sub-TLVs are in conflict with each other
   for those trees. The nicknames of the conflicting RBridges are
   compared to identify which RBridge holds the nickname that is the
   highest priority to be a tree root, with the System ID as the
   tiebreaker

   The RBridge with the highest priority to be a tree root will retain
   the Affinity association. Other RBridges with lower priority to be a
   tree root MUST stop advertising their conflicting Affinity sub-TLV,
   re-calculate the multicast tree affinity allocation, and, if
   appropriate, advertise a new non-conflicting Affinity sub-TLV.

   Similarly, remote RBridges MUST honor the Affinity sub-TLV from the
   RBridge with the highest priority to be a tree root (use system-ID
   as the tie-breaker in the event of conflicting priorities) and
   ignore the conflicting Affinity sub-TLV entries advertised by the
   RBridges with lower priorities to be tree roots.

5.4. Ingress Multi-Destination Forwarding

   If there is at least one tree on which RBv has affinity via RBk,
   then RBk performs the following operations, for multi-destination
   frames received from a CE node:

   1. Flood to locally attached CE nodes subjected to VLAN and multicast
     pruning.



Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   2. Ingress in the TRILL header and assign ingress RBridge nickname as
     RBv (nickname of the virtual RBridge).
   3. Forward to one of the distribution trees, tree x in which RBv is
     associated with RBk.


5.4.1. Forwarding when n < k

     If there is no tree on which RBv can claim affinity via RBk
     (probably because the number of trees n built is less than number
     of RBridges k announcing the affinity sub-TLV), then RBk MUST fall
     back to one of the following

     1. This RBridge should stop forwarding frames from the CE nodes,
        and should mark that port as disabled. This will prevent CE
        nodes from forwarding data on to this RBridge, and only use
        those RBridges which have been assigned a tree -
        -OR-
     2. This RBridge tunnels multi-destination frames received from
        attached native devices to an RBridge RBy that has an assigned
        tree. The tunnel destination should forward it to the TRILL
        network, and also to its local access links. (The mechanism of
        tunneling and handshake between the tunnel source and
        destination are out of scope of this specification and may be
        addressed in other documents such as [ChannelTunnel].)

   Above fallback options may be specific to active-active forwarding
   scenario. However, as stated above, Affinity sub-TLV may be used in
   other applications. In such event the application SHOULD specify
   applicable fallback options.

5.5. Egress Multi-Destination Forwarding

5.5.1. Traffic Arriving on an assigned Tree to RBk-RBv

   Multi-destination frames arriving at RBk on a Tree x, where RBk has
   announced the affinity of RBv via x, MUST be forwarded to CE members
   of RBv that are in the frame's VLAN. Forwarding to other end-nodes
   and RBridges that are not part of the network represented by the RBv
   virtual RBridge MUST follow the forwarding rules specified in
   [RFC6325].

5.5.2. Traffic Arriving on other Trees

   Multi-destination frames arriving at RBk on a Tree y, where RBk has
   not announced the affinity of RBv via y, MUST NOT be forwarded to CE
   members of RBv. Forwarding to other end-nodes and RBridges that are



Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   not part of the network represented by the RBv virtual RBridge MUST
   follow the forwarding rules specified in [RFC6325].

5.6. Failure scenarios

   The below failure recovery algorithm is presented only as a
   guideline. An active-active edge group MAY use other failure
   recovery algorithms; it is recommended that only one algorithm be
   used in an edge group at a time. Details of such algorithms are
   outside the scope of this document.

5.6.1. Edge RBridge RBk failure

   Each of the member RBridges of a given virtual RBridge edge group is
   aware of its member RBridges through configuration, LSP
   advertisements, or some other method.

   Member RBridges detect nodal failure of a member RBridge through IS-
   IS LSP advertisements or lack thereof.

   Upon detecting a member failure, each of the member RBridges of the
   RBv edge group start recovery timer T_rec for failed RBridge RBi. If
   the previously failed RBridge RBi has not recovered after the expiry
   of timer T_rec, members RBridges perform the distribution tree
   assignment algorithm specified in section 5.1. Each of the member
   RBridges re-advertises the Affinity sub-TLV with new tree
   assignment. This action causes the campus to update the tree
   calculation with the new assignment.

   RBi, upon start-up, advertises its presence through IS-IS LSPs and
   starts a timer T_i. Other member RBridges of the edge group,
   detecting the presence of RBi, start a timer T_j.

   Upon expiry of timer T_j, other member RBridges recalculate the
   multi-destination tree assignment and advertised the related trees
   using Affinity sub-TLV. Upon expiry of timer T_i, RBi recalculate
   the multi-destination tree assignment and advertises the related
   trees using Affinity TLV.

   If the new RBridge in the edge group calculates trees and starts to
   use one or more before the existing RBridges in the edge group
   recalculate, there could be duplication of packets (for example
   more than one edge group RBridge could decapsulate and forward a
   multi-destination frame on links into the active-active group) or



Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   loss of packets (for example due to the Reverse Path Forwarding
   Check in the rest of the campus if two edge group RBridges are
   trying to forward on the same tree those from one will be
   discarded).  Alternatively, if the new RBridge in the edge group
   calculates trees and starts to use one or more after the existing
   RBridges recalculate, there could be loss of data due to frames
   arriving at the new RBridge being black holed. Timers T_i and T_j
   should be initialized to values designed to minimize these problems
   keeping in mind that, in general, duplicating is a more serious
   problem than dropping. It is RECOMMENDED that T_j be less than T_i
   and a reasonable default is 1/2 of T_i.

5.7. Backward compatibility

   Implementations MUST support backward compatibility mode to
   interoperate with pre Affinity sub-TLV RBridges in the network. Such
   backward compatibility operation MAY include, however is not limited
   to, tunneling and/or active-standby modes of operations. It should
   be noted that tunneling would require silicon changes. However, CMT
   in itself is a software upgrade.

   Example:

   Step 1.  Stop using virtual RBridge nickname for traffic ingressing
     from CE nodes
   Step 2.  Stop performing active-active forwarding. And fall back to
     active standby forwarding, based on locally defined policies.
     Definition of such policies is outside the scope of this document
     and may be addressed in other documents.

6. Security Considerations

   In general, the RBridges in a campus are trusted routers and the
   authenticity of their link state information (LSPs) and link local
   PDUs (Hellos, etc.) can be enforced using regular IS-IS security
   mechanisms [IS-IS] [RFC5310]. This including authenticating the
   contents of the PDUs used to transport Affinity sub-TLVs.

   The particular Security Considerations involved with different
   applications of the Affinity sub-TLV will be covered in the
   document(s) specifying those applications.

   For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].




Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


7. IANA Considerations



   This document serves as the reference for "TRILL-VER Sub-TLV
   Capability Flags" registration "Affinity sub-TLV support." (bit 0)
   so that reference should be updated when this document is published
   as an RFC.

   This document mentions "Sub-TLVs for TLV 144" registration
   "AFFINITY" (value 17), but should not be listed as a reference for
   that registration which should remain [RFC7176].



8. References

8.1. Normative References

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

   [RFC5310] Bhatia, M., et.al. ''IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
             Authentication'', RFC 5310, February 2009.

   [RFC6325] Perlman, R., et.al. ''RBridge: Base Protocol
             Specification'', RFC 6325, July 2011.

   [RFC7177] Eastlake 3rf, D. et.al., ''RBridge: Adjacency'', RFC 7177,
             May 2014.

   [RFC6439] Eastlake 3rd, D. et.al., ''RBridge: Appointed Forwarder'',
             RFC 6439, November 2011.

   [RFC7172] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Agarwal, P., Perlman, R., and
             D. Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
             (TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC 7172, May 2014,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.

   [RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D. et.al., ''Transparent Interconnection of
             Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS'', RFC 7176, May 2014.

   [RFC7180bis] Eastlake 3rd, D. et.al., ''TRILL: Clarifications,
             Corrections, and Updates'', draft-ietf-trill-rfc7180bis,
             work in progress.




Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   [IS-IS] ISO/IEC, ''Intermediate System to Intermediate System Routing
             Information Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with
             the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network
             Service (ISO 8473)'' ISO/IEC 10589:2002.

   [PseudoNickname] H. Zhai, T. Senevirathne, R. Perlman, M. Zhang, and
             Y. Li, "TRILL: Pseudo-Nickname for Active-Active Access",
             draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname, in RFC Editor's
             queue.

8.2. Informative References

   [RFC7379] Li, Y., Hao, W., Perlman, R., Hudson, J., and H. Zhai,
             "Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active Connection
             at the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
             (TRILL) Edge", RFC 7379, 2014.

   [TRILLPN] Zhai, H., et.al ''RBridge: Pseudonode Nickname'', draft-hu-
             trill-pseudonode-nickname, Work in progress, November
             2011.

   [8021AX] IEEE, ''Link Aggregation'', IEEE Std 802.1AX-2014,
            December 2014.

   [ChannelTunnel] D. Eastlake and Y. Li, "TRILL: RBridge Channel
             Tunnel Protocol", draft-ietf-trill-channel-tunnel, work
             in progress.

9. Acknowledgments

   Authors wish to extend their appreciations towards individuals who
   volunteered to review and comment on the work presented in this
   document and provided constructive and critical feedback. Specific
   acknowledgements are due for Anoop Ghanwani, Ronak Desai, Gayle
   Noble, and Varun Shah. Very special Thanks to Donald Eastlake for
   his careful review and constructive comments.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.












Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


Appendix A. Change History.



   From -01 to -02:

   Replaced all references to ''LAG'' with references to Multi-Chassis
   (MC-LAG) or the like.

   Expanded, Security Considerations section.

   Other editorial changes.

   From -02 to -03

   Minor editorial changes

   From -03 to -04

   Minor editorial changes and version update.

   From -04 to -05

   Editorial, reference, and other minor changes based on Document
   Shepherd review.

   From -05 to -6

   Minor editorial fixes.

   From -06 to -07

   Clarifications primarily based on AD review.

   From -08 to -09 to -10

   IANA Considerations updated based on IANA feedback. Typos fixed
   based on IESG, GENART and SECDIR reviews.

   From -10 to -11

   Editorial changes based on IESG review.







Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft  Coordinated Multicast Trees for TRILL      October 2015


   Authors' Addresses

   Tissa Senevirathne
   Consultant

   Email: tsenevir@gmail.com


   Janardhanan Pathangi
   Dell/Force10 Networks
   Olympia Technology Park,
   Guindy Chennai 600 032

   Phone: +91 44 4220 8400
   Email:Pathangi_Janardhanan@Dell.com


   Jon Hudson
   Brocade
   130 Holger Way
   San Jose, CA 95134 USA
               Phone: +1-408-333-4062
   Email:jon.hudson@gmail.com

























Senevirathne            Expires April 18, 2016                [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/