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

Versions: (draft-dunbar-trill-directory-assisted-encap) 00 01 02 03 04 05

INTERNET-DRAFT                                              Linda Dunbar
Intended status: Proposed Standard                       Donald Eastlake
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           Radia Perlman
                                                                     EMC
Expires: November 30, 2017                                  May 31, 2017


                 Directory Assisted TRILL Encapsulation
           <draft-ietf-trill-directory-assisted-encap-05.txt>


Abstract

   This draft describes how data center networks can benefit from non-
   RBridge nodes performing TRILL encapsulation with assistance from a
   directory service.


Status of This Memo

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

   Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
   to the authors or the TRILL working group mailing list:
   trill@ietf.org

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

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

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft
   Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.













L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


Table of Contents

      1. Introduction............................................3

      2. Conventions Used in This Document.......................4

      3. Directory Assistance to Non-RBridge.....................5

      4. Source Nickname in Encapsulation by Non-RBridge Nodes...8

      5. Benefits of Non-RBridge Performing TRILL Encapsulation..9
      5.1. Avoid Nickname Exhaustion Issue.......................9
      5.2. Reduce MAC Tables for Switches on Bridged LANs........9

      6. Manageability Considerations...........................11

      7. Security Considerations................................11

      8. IANA Considerations....................................12

      Normative References......................................13
      Informative References....................................13
      Acknowledgments...........................................13

      Authors' Addresses........................................14



























L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


1. Introduction

   This document describes how data center networks can benefit from
   non-RBridge nodes performing TRILL encapsulation with assistance from
   directory service and specifies a method for them to do so.

   [RFC7067] and [Directory] describe the framework and methods for
   RBridge edge to get MAC&VLAN<->RBridgeEdge mapping from a directory
   service in data center environments instead of flooding unknown DAs
   across TRILL domain. If it has the needed directory information, any
   node, even a non-RBridge node, can perform the TRILL encapsulation.
   This draft is to describe the benefits and a scheme for non-RBridge
   nodes performing TRILL encapsulation.







































L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


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].

   AF:       Appointed Forwarder RBridge port [RFC6439bis]

   Bridge:   IEEE 802.1Q compliant device. In this draft, Bridge
             is used interchangeably with Layer 2 switch.

   DA:       Destination Address

   ES-IS:    End System to Intermediate Systems [Directory]

   Host:     Application running on a physical server or a
             virtual machine. A host usually has at least one IP
             address and at least one MAC address.

   IS-IS:. Intermediate System to Intermediate System [RFC7176]

   SA:       Source Address

   TRILL-EN: TRILL Encapsulating node. It is a node that only
             performs the TRILL encapsulation but doesn't
             participate in RBridge's IS-IS routing.

   VM:       Virtual Machines
























L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


3. Directory Assistance to Non-RBridge

   With directory assistance [RFC7067] [Directory], a non-RBridge can be
   informed if a packet needs to be forwarded across the RBridge domain
   and the corresponding egress RBridge. Suppose the RBridge domain
   boundary starts at network switches (not virtual switches embedded on
   servers), a directory can assist Virtual Switches embedded on servers
   to encapsulate with a proper TRILL header by providing the nickname
   of the egress RBridge edge to which the destination is attached. The
   other information needed to encapsulate can be either learned by
   listening to TRILL ES-IS Hellos [Directory], which will indicate the
   MAC address and nickname of appropriate edge RBridges, or by
   configuration.

   If a destination is not shown as attached to one or more other
   RBridge edge nodes, based on the directory, the non-RBridge node can
   forward the data frames natively, i.e. not encapsulating with any
   TRILL header.

          \              +-------+         +------+ TRILL Domain/
           \           +/------+ |       +/-----+ |            /
            \          | Aggr11| + ----- |AggrN1| +           /
             \         +---+---+/        +------+/           /
              \         /     \            /      \         /
               \       /       \          /        \       /
                \   +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+   /
                 \- |T11|... |T1x|      |T21| ..  |T2y|---
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+
                      |        |          |         |
                    +-|-+    +-|-+      +-|-+     +-|-+
                    |   |... | V |      | V | ..  | V |<- vSwitch
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+
                    |   |... | V |      | V | ..  | V |
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+
                    |   |... | V |      | V | ..  | V |
                    +---+    +---+      +---+     +---+

           Figure 1. TRILL domain in typical Data Center Network


   When a TRILL encapsulated data packet reaches the ingress RBridge,
   the ingress RBridge simply forwards the pre-encapsulated packet to
   the RBridge that is specified by the egress nickname field of the
   TRILL header of the data frame.  When the ingress RBridge receives a
   native Ethernet frame, it handles it as usual and may drop it if it
   has complete directory information indicating that the target is not
   attached to the TRILL campus. In such an environment with complete
   directory information, the ingress RBridge doesn't flood or forward
   the received data frames when the DA in the Ethernet data frames is
   unknown.


L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


   When all nodes attached to an ingress RBridge can pre-encapsulate
   with a TRILL header for traffic across the TRILL domain, the ingress
   RBridge don't need to encapsulate any native Ethernet frames to the
   TRILL domain. The attached nodes can be connected to multiple edge
   RBridges by having multiple ports or by an bridged LAN.  All RBridge
   edge ports connected to one bridged LAN can receive and forward pre-
   encapsulated traffic, which can greatly improve the overall network
   utilization. However, it is still necessary to designate AF ports.
   For example, to be sure that multi-destination packets from the TRILL
   campus are only egressed through one RBridge.

   The TRILL base protocol specification [RFC6325] Section 4.6.2 Bullet
   8 specifies that an RBridge port can be configured to accept TRILL
   encapsulated frames from a neighbor that is not an RBridge.

   When a TRILL frame arrives at an RBridge whose nickname matches the
   destination nickname in the TRILL header of the frame, the processing
   is exactly same as normal, i.e. as specified in [RFC6325] the RBridge
   decapsulates the received TRILL frame and forwards the decapsulated
   frame to the target attached to its edge ports.  When the DA of the
   decapsulated Ethernet frame is not in the egress RBridge's local MAC
   attachment tables, the egress RBridge floods the decapsulated frame
   to all attached links in the frame's VLAN, or drops the frame (if the
   egress RBridge is configured with that policy).

   We call a node that, as specified herein, only performs the TRILL
   encapsulation but doesn't participate in RBridge's IS-IS routing a
   TRILL Encapsulating node (TRILL-EN). The TRILL Encapsulating Node can
   get the MAC&VLAN<->RBridgeEdge mapping table pulled from directory
   servers [Directory]. In order to do this, a TRILL-EN MUST support
   TRILL ES-IS [Directory].

   Upon receiving a native Ethernet frame, the TRILL-EN checks the
   MAC&VLAN<->RBridgeEdge mapping table, and perform the corresponding
   TRILL encapsulation if the entry is found in the mapping table. If
   the destination address and VLAN of the received Ethernet frame
   doesn't exist in the mapping table and there is no positive reply
   from pulling requests to a directory, the Ethernet frame is dropped
   or forwarded in native form to an edge RBridge.













L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


       +------------+--------+---------+---------+--+-------+---+
       |OuterEtherHd|TRILL HD| InnerDA | InnerSA |..|Payload|FCS|
       +------------+--------+---------+---------+--+-------+---+
               ^
               |             |<Inner Ether Header>  |
               |
               |
               |      +-------+  TRILL    +------+
               |      |  R1   |-----------|  R2  |  Decapsulate
               |      +---+---+  domain   +------+  TRILL header
               |          |                   |
               +----------|                   |
                          |                   |
                       +-----+             +-----+
      Non-RBridge node:|T12  |             | T22 |
      Encapsulate TRILL+-----+             +-----+
      Header for data
      Frames to traverse
      TRILL domain.

                   Figure 2.  Data frames from TRILL-EN































L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


4. Source Nickname in Encapsulation by Non-RBridge Nodes

   The TRILL header includes a Source RBridge's Nickname (ingress) and
   Destination RBridge's Nickname (egress). When a TRILL header is added
   by TRILL-EN, the Ingress RBridge edge node's nickname is used in the
   source address field. The TRILL-EN learns this nickname by listening
   to the TRILL ES-IS Hellos [Directory] from the Ingress RBridge. Those
   Hellos have that nickname in a field in the Special VLANs and Flags
   Sub-TLV [RFC7176] contained in the Hello.











































L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


5. Benefits of Non-RBridge Performing TRILL Encapsulation



5.1. Avoid Nickname Exhaustion Issue

   For a large Data Center with hundreds of thousands of virtualized
   servers, setting the TRILL boundary at the servers' virtual switches
   will create a TRILL domain with hundreds of thousands of RBridge
   nodes, which has issues of TRILL Nicknames exhaustion and challenges
   to IS-IS. On the other hand, setting TRILL boundary at aggregation
   switches that have many virtualized servers attached can limit the
   number of RBridge nodes in a TRILL domain, but introduce the issues
   of very large MAC&VLAN<->RBridgeEdge mapping table to be maintained
   by RBridge edge nodes.

   Allowing Non-RBridge nodes to pre-encapsulate data frames with TRILL
   header makes it possible to have a TRILL domain with a reasonable
   number of RBridge nodes in a large data center. All the TRILL-ENs
   attached to one RBridge are represented by one TRILL nickname, which
   can avoid the Nickname exhaustion problem.



5.2. Reduce MAC Tables for Switches on Bridged LANs

   When hosts in a VLAN (or subnet) span across multiple RBridge edge
   nodes and each RBridge edge has multiple VLANs enabled, the switches
   on the bridged LANs attached to the RBridge edge are exposed to all
   MAC addresses among all the VLANs enabled.

   For example, for an Access switch with 40 physical servers attached,
   where each server has 100 VMs, there are 4000 hosts under the Access
   Switch. If indeed hosts/VMs can be moved anywhere, the worst case for
   the Access Switch is when all those 4000 VMs belong to different
   VLANs, i.e. the access switch has 4000 VLANs enabled. If each VLAN
   has 200 hosts, this access switch's MAC table potentially has
   200*4000 = 800,000 entries.

   If the virtual switches on servers pre-encapsulate the data frames
   destined for hosts attached to other RBridge Edge nodes, the outer
   MAC DA of those TRILL encapsulated data frames will be the MAC
   address of the local RBridge edge, i.e.  the ingress RBridge.
   Therefore, the switches on the local bridged LAN don't need to keep
   the MAC entries for remote hosts attached to other edge RBridges.

   But the traffic from nodes attached to other RBridges is decapsulated
   and has the true source and destination MACs. One simple way to
   prevent local bridges from learning remote hosts' MACs and adding to
   their MAC tables, if that is a problem, is to disable this data plane


L. Dunbar, et al                                                [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


   learning on local bridges. The local bridges can be pre-configured
   with MAC addresses of local hosts with the assistance of a directory.
   The local bridges can always send frames with unknown Destination to
   the ingress RBridge. In an environment where a large number of VMs
   are instantiated in one server, the number of remote MAC addresses
   could be very large. If it is not feasible to disable learning and
   pre- configure MAC tables for local bridges, one effective method to
   minimize local bridges' MAC table size is to use the server's MAC
   address to hide MAC addresses of the attached VMs. I.e. the server
   acting as an edge node uses its own MAC address in the Source Address
   field of the packets originated from a host (or VM) embedded. When
   the Ethernet frame arrives at the target edge node (the server), the
   target edge node can send the packet to the corresponding destination
   host based on the packet's IP address. Very often, the target edge
   node communicates with the embedded VMs via a layer 2 virtual switch.
   In this case, the target edge node can construct the proper Ethernet
   header with the assistance of the directory.  The information from
   the directory includes the proper host IP to MAC mapping information.


































L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


6. Manageability Considerations

   It requires directory assistance [Directory] to make it possible for
   a non-TRILL node to pre-encapsulate packets destined towards remote
   RBridges.



7. Security Considerations

   For Pull Directory and TRILL ES-IS security considerations, see
   [Directory].

   For general TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325].






































L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


8. IANA Considerations

   This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Edtior: please remove
   this section before publication.
















































L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
          Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119,
          March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
          Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
          Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
          <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.

   [RFC6439bis] Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Li, Y., Banerjee, A., and F.
          Hu, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Appointed Forwarders", RFC
          6439, DOI 10.17487/RFC6439, November 2011, <http://www.rfc-
          editor.org/info/rfc6439>.

   [RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D.,
          and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
          (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, DOI 10.17487/RFC7176, May
          2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.

   [Directory] D. Eastlake, L. Dunbar, R. Perlman, Y. Li, "TRILL: Edge
          Directory Assist Mechanisms", draft-ietf-trill-directory-
          assist-mechanisms, work in progress.



Informative References

   [RFC7067] Dunbar, et, al "Directory Assistance Problem and High-Level
          Design Proposal", RFC7067, November 2013.




Acknowledgments

   The followiing are thanked for their contributions:

      Igor Gashinsky

   The document was prepared in raw nroff. All macros used were defined
   within the source file.









L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


Authors' Addresses

      Linda Dunbar
      Huawei Technologies
      5340 Legacy Drive, Suite 175
      Plano, TX 75024, USA

      Phone: +1-469-277-5840
      Email: linda.dunbar@huawei.com


      Donald Eastlake
      Huawei Technologies
      155 Beaver Street
      Milford, MA 01757 USA

      Phone: +1-508-333-2270
      Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com


      Radia Perlman
      EMC
      2010 256th Avenue NE, #200
      Bellevue, WA 98007 USA

      Email: Radia@alum.mit.edu


























L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT                            Directory Assisted TRILL Encap


Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   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.  The definitive version of
   an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
   IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
   including those that are translated into other languages, should not
   be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
   definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
   that are published by third parties, including those that are
   translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
   definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.  For the avoidance of
   doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
   Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
   Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
   language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
   from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
   RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
   published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such
   Contribution.





















L. Dunbar, et al                                               [Page 15]


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