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

Versions: (draft-zhang-trill-mtu-negotiation) 00 01 02 03 04 05 Draft is active
In: AD_Evaluation
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                  M. Zhang
Intended Status: Standards Track                                X. Zhang
Updates: 6325, 7177, 7780                                    D. Eastlake
                                                                  Huawei
                                                              R. Perlman
                                                                     EMC
                                                           S. Chatterjee
                                                                   Cisco
Expires: February 16, 2017                               August 15, 2016

         Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
                            MTU Negotiation
                draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-05.txt

Abstract

   The base IETF TRILL protocol has a TRILL campus-wide MTU feature,
   specified in RFC 6325 and RFC 7177, that assures that link state
   changes can be successfully flooded throughout the campus while being
   able to take advantage of a campus-wide capability to support jumbo
   packets. This document specifies recommended updates to that MTU
   feature to take advantage, for appropriate link-local packets, of
   link-local MTUs that exceed the TRILL campus MTU. In addition, it
   specifies an efficient algorithm for local MTU testing. This document
   updates RFC 6325, updates RFC 7177, and updates RFC 7780.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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





Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


Copyright and License Notice

   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.


Table of Contents

   1. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1. Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3. Link MTU Size Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4. Refreshing Campus-Wide Sz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz and Sz  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6. LSP Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7. Recommendations for Traffic Link MTU Size Testing . . . . . . .  9
   8. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   10. Additions to Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     10.1. Per RBridge Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     10.2. Per RBridge Port Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13













Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


1. Introduction

   [RFC6325] describes the way RBridges agree on the campus-wide minimum
   acceptable inter-RBridge MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size - the
   campus-wide "Sz" to ensure that link state flooding operates properly
   and all RBridges converge to the same link state. For the proper
   operation of TRILL IS-IS, all RBridges MUST format their LSPs to fit
   in the campus-wide Sz.

   [RFC7177] diagrams the state transitions of an adjacency. If MTU
   testing is enabled, "Link MTU size is successfully tested" is part of
   an event (event A6) causing the transition from "2-way" state to
   "Report" state for an adjacency. This means the link MTU testing of
   size X succeeds, and X is greater than or equal to the campus-wide Sz
   [RFC6325]. In other words, if this link cannot support an MTU of the
   campus-wide Sz, it will not be reported as part of the campus
   topology. While in this document, a new RECOMMENDED link-wide minimum
   inter-RBridge MTU size, Lz, is specified. By calculating a using Lz
   as specified herein, link-scoped PDUs can be formatted greater than
   the campus-wide Sz up to the link-wide minimum acceptable inter-
   RBridge MTU size potentially improving the efficiency of link
   utilization and speeding link state convergence.

   An optional TRILL MTU size testing algorithm is specified in Section
   3 as an efficient method to update the old MTU testing method
   described in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325] and in [RFC7177]. The new MTU
   size testing method specified in this document is backward compatible
   to the old one. Multicasting the MTU-probes is recommended when there
   are multiple RBridges on a link responding to the probing with MTU-
   ack [RFC7177]. The testing method and rules of this document are
   devised in a way to minimize the number of MTU probes for testing,
   which therefore reduces the number of multicast packets for MTU
   testing.

1.1. Conventions used in this document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size

   This document specifies a new value "Lz" for the acceptable inter-
   RBridge link MTU size on a local link. Link-wide Lz is the minimum Lz
   supported between all RBridges on a specific link. If the link is
   usable, Lz will be greater than or equal to the campus-wide Sz MTU.
   Some TRILL IS-IS PDUs are exchanged only between neighbors instead of
   the whole campus. They are confined by the link-wide Lz instead of



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   the campus-wide Sz. CSNPs and PSNPs are examples of such PDUs. These
   PDUs are exchanged just on the local link. (While TRILL IS-IS Hellos
   are also link local, they are always limited to 1470 bytes for
   robustness.)

   [RFC7356] defines the PDUs which support flooding scopes in addition
   to area-wide scope and domain-wide scope. As specified in
   [RFC6439bis], RBridges MUST support the Extended L1 Circuit-Scoped
   (E-L1CS) flooding scope LSP (FS-LSP). They use that flooding to
   exchange their maximally supportable value of "Lz". The smallest
   value of the Lz advertised by the RBridges on a link, but not less
   than Sz, is the link-wide Lz. An RBridge on a local link will be able
   to tell which other RBridges on that link support E-L1CS FS-LSPs
   because, as required by [RFC7780], all RBridges MUST include the
   Scoped Flooding Support TLV [RFC7356] in their TRILL Hellos.

   The maximum sized level 1 link-local PDU, such as PSNP or CSNP, which
   may be generated by a system is controlled by the value of the
   management parameter originatingL1SNPBufferSize. This value
   determines Lz. The TRILL APPsub-TLV shown in Figure 2.1 SHOULD be
   included in a TRILL GENINFO TLV [RFC7357] in an E-L1CS FS-LSP
   fragment zero. If it is missing from a fragment zero E-L1CS FS-LSP or
   there is no fragment zero E-L1CS FS-LSP, it is assumed that its
   originating IS is implicitly advertising its originatingSNPBufferSize
   value as Sz octets.

   E-L1CS FS-LSPs are link-local and can also be sent up to Lz in size
   but, for robustness, E-L1CS FS-LSP fragment zero MUST NOT exceed 1470
   bytes.

                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | Type = tbd                    |   (2 byte)
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | Length = 2                    |   (2 byte)
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   | originatingSNPBufferSize      |   (2 byte)
                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 2.1: The originatingSNPBufferSize TLV.

   Type: set to originatingSNPBufferSize APPsubTLV (TRILL APPsub-TLV
   type tbd). Two bytes because this APPsub-TLV appears in an Extended
   TLV [RFC7356].

   Length: set to 2.

   originatingSNPBufferSize: the local value of
   originatingL1SNPBufferSize as an unsigned integer, limited in the



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   range from 1470 to 65,535 bytes. (A value less than 1470 will be
   ignored.)

2.1. Operations

   Lz is reported using a originatingSNPBufferSize TLV that MUST occur
   in fragment zero of the RBridge's E-L1CS FS-LSP. An
   originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment
   is ignored. If more than one originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV
   occurs in fragment zero, the one advertising the smallest value for
   originatingSNPBufferSize, but not less than 1470 bytes, is used.

                         Lz:1800               Lz:1800
                          +---+         |         +---+
                          |RB1|(2000)---|---(2000)|RB2|
                          +---+         |         +---+
                                        |
                  Lz:1800               |
                   +---+               +--+
                   |RB3|(2000)---(1700)|B1|
                   +---+               +--+
                                        |

   Figure 2.2: Link-wide Lz = 1800 v.s. tested link MTU size = 1700

   Even if all RBridges on a specific link have reached consensus on the
   value of link-wide Lz based on advertised originatingSNPBufferSize,
   it does not mean that these RBridges can safely exchange PDUs between
   each other. Figure 2.2 shows such a corner case. RB1, RB2 and RB3 are
   three RBridges on the same link and their Lz is 1800, so the link-
   wide Lz of this link is 1800. There is an intermediate bridge (say
   B1) between RB2 and RB3 whose port MTU size is 1700. If RB2 sends
   PDUs formatted in chunk of size 1800, it will be discarded by B1.

   Therefore the link MTU size SHOULD be tested. After the link MTU size
   of an adjacency is successfully tested, those link-local PDUs such as
   CSNPs, PSNPs and E-L1CS FS-LSPs will be formatted no greater than the
   tested link MTU size and will be safely transmitted on this link.

   As for campus-wide Sz, RBridges continue to propagate their
   originatingL1LSPBufferSize across the campus through the
   advertisement of LSPs as defined in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325]. The
   smallest value of Sz advertised by any RBridge, but not less than
   1470, will be deemed as the campus-wide Sz. Each RBridge formats
   their "campus-wide" PDUs, for example LSPs, not greater than what
   they determine as the campus-wide Sz.

3. Link MTU Size Testing



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   [RFC7177] defines the event A6 as including "MTU test is successful"
   if the MTU testing is enabled. As described in Section 4.3.2 of
   [RFC6325], this is a combination of the following event and
   condition.

   Event: The link MTU size has been tested.

   Condition: The link can support the campus-wide Sz.

   This condition can be efficiently tested by the following "Binary
   Search Algorithm" and rules. The MTU-probe and MTU-ack PDUs are
   specified in Section 3 of [RFC7176].

   linkMtuSize, lowerBound, and upperBound are local integer variables.

   Step 0: RB1 sends an MTU-probe padded to the size of link-wide Lz.

   1) If RB1 successfully receives the MTU-ack from RB2 to the probe of
      the value of link-wide Lz within k tries (where k is a
      configurable parameter whose default is 3), link MTU size is set
      to the size of link-wide Lz and stop.

   2) RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size 1470.

      a) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries, RB1
         sets the "failed minimum MTU test" flag for RB2 in RB1's Hello
         and stop.

      b) Link MTU size is set to 1470, lowerBound is set to 1470,
         upperBound is set to the link-wide Lz, linkMtuSize is set to
         [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2] (Operation "[...]" returns the
         fraction-rounded-up integer.).

   Step 1: RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size
   linkMtuSize.

   1) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries:

         upperBound is set to linkMtuSize and linkMtuSize is set to
         [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2]

   2) If RB1 receives an MTU-ack to a probe of size linkMtuSize from
      RB2:

         link MTU size is set to linkMtuSize, lowerBound is set to
         linkMtuSize and linkMtuSize is set to [(lowerBound +
         upperBound)/2]




Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   3) If lowerBound >= upperBound or Step 1 has been repeated n times
      (where n is a configurable parameter whose default value is 5),
      stop.

   4) Repeat Step 1.

   MTU testing is only done in the Designated VLAN [RFC7177]. Since the
   execution of the above algorithm can be resource consuming, it is
   RECOMMENDED that the Designated RBRidge (DRB [RFC7177]) take the
   responsibility to do the testing.  Multicast MTU-probes are used
   instead of unicast when multiple RBridges are desired to respond with
   an MTU-ack on the link. The Binary Search Algorithm given here is a
   way to minimize the probing attempts; it reduces the number of
   multicast packets for MTU-probing.

   The following rules are designed to determine whether the
   aforementioned "Condition" holds.

   RBridges have figured out the upper bound and lower bound for the
   link MTU size from the execution of the above algorithm. If the
   campus-wide Sz is smaller than the lower bound or greater than the
   upper bound, RBridges can directly judge whether the link supports
   the campus-wide Sz without MTU-probing.

   (a) If "lowerBound" >= campus-wide Sz. This link can support campus-
       wide Sz.

   (b) Else if "upperBound" <= campus-wide Sz. This link cannot support
       campus-wide Sz.

   Otherwise, RBridges SHOULD test whether the link can support campus-
   wide Sz as in item (c) below. If they do not, the only safe
   assumption will be that the link cannot support Sz. This assumption,
   without testing, might rule out the use of a link that can, in fact,
   handle packets up to Sz. In the worst case, this might result in
   unnecessary network partition.

   (c) "lowerBound" < campus-wide Sz < "upperBound". RBridges probe the
       link with MTU-probe messages padded to campus-wide Sz. If an MTU-
       ack is received within k tries, this link can support campus-wide
       Sz. Otherwise, this link cannot support campus-wide Sz. Through
       this test, the lower bound and upper bound of link MTU size can
       be updated accordingly.

4. Refreshing Campus-Wide Sz

   RBridges may join or leave the campus, which may change the campus-
   wide Sz.



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   1) Joining

      a) When a new RBridge joins the campus and its
         originatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than current campus-wide
         Sz, reporting its originatingL1LSPBufferSize in its LSPs will
         cause other RBridges decrease their campus-wide Sz. Then any
         LSP greater than the reduced Sz MUST be split and/or the LSP
         contents in the campus MUST be otherwise redistributed so that
         no LSP is greater than the new campus-wide Sz.

      b) If the joining RBridge's originatingL1LSPBufferSize is equal to
         or bigger than current campus-wide Sz, reporting its
         originatingL1LSPBufferSize will not change the campus-wide Sz.

   2) Leaving

      a) From the specification of the Joining process, we know it's
         non-applicable that an RBridge leaves the campus while its
         origiatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than the campus-wide Sz.

      b) When an RBridge leaves the campus and its
         origiatingL1LSPBufferSize equals to the campus-wide Sz, its
         LSPs are purged from the remaining campus after reaching MaxAge
         [IS-IS]. The campus-wide Sz MAY be recalculated and MAY
         increase. In other words, while in most cases RB1 ignores link
         state information for IS-IS unreachable RBridge RB2 [RFC7780],
         originatingL1LSPBufferSize is meaningful. Its value, even from
         IS-IS unreachable RBridges, is used in determining Sz. This
         updates [RFC7780].

      c) When an RBrige leaves the campus and its
         originatingL1LSPBufferSize is greater than the campus-wide Sz,
         this will not update Sz since Sz is determined by another
         RBridge with smaller originatingL1LSPBufferSize.

   Frequent LSP "re-sizing" is harmful to the stability of the TRILL
   campus, so, to avoid this, upward resizing SHOULD be dampened. When
   an upward resizing event is noticed by an RBridge, it is RECOMMENDED
   that a timer be set at that RBridge. This is a configurable
   parameter, LSPresizeTime, whose default value is 300 seconds. Before
   this timer expires, all subsequent upward resizing will be dampened
   (ignored). Of course, in a well-configured campus with all RBridges
   configured to have the same originatingL1LSPBufferSize, no resizing
   will be necessary. It does not matter if different RBridges have
   different dampening timers or some RBridges re-size upward more
   quickly than others.

   If the refreshed campus-wide Sz is smaller than the lower bound or



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   greater than the upper bound of the tested link MTU size, the
   resource consuming link MTU size testing can be avoided according to
   rule (a) or (b) specified in Section 3. Otherwise, RBridges test the
   link MTU size according to rule (c).

5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz and Sz

   When the port MTU of an RBridge is smaller than the local
   originatingL1SNPBufferSize of an RBridge (an inconsistent
   configuration), that port SHOULD be disabled and, in any case, an
   adjacency cannot be formed through such a port. On the other hand,
   when an RBridge receives an LSP or E-L1CS FS-LSP with size greater
   than the link-wide Lz or the campus-wide Sz but not greater than its
   port MTU size, this LSP is processed normally. If the size of an LSP
   is greater than the MTU size of a port over which it is to be
   propagated, this LSP MUST NOT be sent over the port and an
   LSPTooLargeToPropagate alarm shall be generated [IS-IS].

6. LSP Synchronization

   An RBridge participates in LSP synchronization on a link as soon as
   it has at least one adjacency on that link that has advanced to at
   least the 2-Way state [RFC7177]. On a LAN link, CSNP and PSNP PDUs
   are used for synchronization. On a point-to-point link, only PSNP are
   used.

   The CSNPs and PSNPs MUST be formatted in chunks of size at most the
   link-wide Lz but are processed normally if received larger than that.
   Since the link MTU size may not have been tested in the 2-Way state,
   link-wide Lz may be greater than the supported link MTU size. In that
   case, a CSNP or PSNP may be discarded. After the link MTU size is
   successfully tested, RBridges will begin to format these PDUs in the
   size no greater than that MTU, therefore these PDUs will eventually
   get through.

   Note that the link MTU size is frequently greater than the campus-
   wide Sz. Link-local PDUs are limited in the size by the link MTU size
   rather than the campus-wide Sz, which, when Lz is greater than Sz,
   promises a reduction in the number of PDUs and a faster LSP
   synchronization process.

7. Recommendations for Traffic Link MTU Size Testing

   Campus-wide Sz and link-wide Lz are used to limit the size of most
   TRILL IS-IS PDUs. They are different from the MTU size restricting
   the size of TRILL Data packets. The size of a TRILL Data packet is
   restricted by the physical MTU of the ports and links the packet
   traverses. It is possible that a TRILL Data packet successfully gets



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017                [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   through the campus but its size is greater than the campus-wide Sz or
   link-wide Lz values.

   The algorithm defined for link MTU size testing can also be used in
   TRILL traffic MTU size testing; in that case the link-wide Lz used in
   that algorithm is replaced by the port MTU of the RBridge sending MTU
   probes. The successfully tested size X MAY be advertised as an
   attribute of this link using MTU sub-TLV defined in [RFC7176].

   Unlike RBridges, end stations do not participate in the exchange of
   TRILL IS-IS PDUs, therefore they cannot grasp the traffic link MTU
   size from a TRILL campus automatically. An operator may collect these
   values using network management tools such as TRILL ping or
   TraceRoute. Then the path MTU can be set as the smallest tested link
   MTU on this path and end stations should not generate frames that,
   when encapsulated as TRILL Data packets, exceed this path MTU.

8. Backwards Compatibility

   There can be a mixture of Lz-ignorant and Lz-aware RBridges on a
   link. This will act properly although it may not be as efficient as
   it would be if all RBridges on the link are Lz-aware.

   For an Lz-ignorant RBridge, TRILL IS-IS PDUs are always formatted not
   greater than the campus-wide Sz. Lz-aware RBridges as receivers can
   handle these PDUs since they cannot be greater than the link-wide Lz.

   For an Lz-aware RBridge, in the case that link-wide Lz is greater
   than campus-wide Sz, larger link-local TRILL IS-IS PDUs can be sent
   out to gain efficiencies. Lz-ignorant RBridges as receivers will have
   no problem handling them since the originatingL1LSPBufferSize value
   of these RBridges had been tested and the link-wide Lz is not greater
   than that value.

   An Lz-ignorant RBridge might not support the link MTU testing
   algorithm defined in Section 3 but could be using some algorithm just
   to test for Sz MTU on the link. In any case, if an RBridge per
   [RFC6325] receives an MTU-probe, it MUST respond with an MTU-ack
   padded to the same size as the MTU-probe.

9. Security Considerations

   This document raises no new security issues for TRILL. For general
   and adjacency related TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325]
   and [RFC7177].

10. Additions to Configuration




Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017               [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


   Implementation of the features specified in this document adds two
   RBridge configuration parameters as follows:

10.1. Per RBridge Configuration

   Each RBridge implementing the RECOMMENDED LSP re-sizing damping
   strategy specified in Section 4 has an LSPresizeTime parameter that
   is an integer in the range of 0-65,535 which defaults to 300. It is
   the number of seconds for which an RBridge determines that Sz has
   increased before it will create any LSP or E-L1FS FS-LSP fragments.

10.2. Per RBridge Port Configuration

   Each RBridge port on which the calculation and use of Lz is
   implemented has an originatingL1SNPBufferSize parameter that is an
   integer in the range of 1,470-65,535. This parameter defaults to the
   minimum of the size that the port can accommodate and the size link-
   local IS-IS PDU that the TRILL implementation can accommodate.

11. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign a new APPsub-TLV number from the range
   less than 256 in the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251
   Application Identifier 1" registry for the TRILL
   originatingSNPBufferSize sub-TLV defined in Section 2 of this
   document. The entry is as follows:

   Type  Name                      Reference
   ----  ------------------------  ---------------
   tbd   originatingSNPBufferSize  [this document]


12. Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Vishwas
   Manral.

13. References

13.1. 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



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017               [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


             Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.

   [RFC7177] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and
             V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
             (TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177, May
             2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
             Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356, DOI
             10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc7356>.

   [RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
             Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection of
             Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and
             Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016,
             <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.

   [RFC7357] Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., and O.
             Stokes, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
             (TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information
             (ESADI) Protocol", RFC 7357, DOI 10.17487/RFC7357,
             September 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7357>.

13.2. Informative References

   [IS-IS]   International Organization for Standardization,
             "Information technology -- Telecommunications and
             information exchange between systems -- 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)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, November 2002.

   [RFC6439bis] Eastlake 3rd, D., Yizhou, L., et al, "TRILL: Appointed
             Forwarders", draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis, Work in progress.








Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017               [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016


Author's Addresses

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

   Phone: +86-13810702575
   Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com


   Xudong Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
   Beijing 100095
   China

   Email: zhangxudong@huawei.com


   Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
   Huawei Technologies
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757
   United States

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


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

   Email: radia@alum.mit.edu


   Somnath Chatterjee
   Cisco Systems
   SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park
   Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore - 560087
   India

   Email: somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com



Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017               [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT              MTU Negotiation              August 15, 2016





















































Mingui Zhang, et al    Expires February 16, 2017               [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.121, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/