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

Versions: (draft-mrw-trill-over-ip) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

INTERNET-DRAFT                                           Margaret Cullen
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                     Painless Security
Updates: 7177, 7178                                      Donald Eastlake
                                                            Mingui Zhang
                                                           Dacheng Zhang
                                                                  Huawei
Expires: August 18, 2018                               February 19, 2018


          TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
                           Over IP Transport
                   <draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14.txt>



Abstract
   The TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol
   supports both point-to-point and multi-access links and is designed
   so that a variety of link protocols can be used between TRILL switch
   ports. This document specifies transmission of encapsulated TRILL
   data and TRILL IS-IS over IP (v4 or v6) transport. so as to use an IP
   network as a TRILL link in a unified TRILL campus. This document
   updates RFC 7177 and updates RFC 7178.


Status of This Document

   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
   <dnsext@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.







Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Table of Contents

      1. Introduction............................................4
      2. Terminology.............................................6

      3. Use Cases for TRILL over IP Transport...................8
      3.1 Remote Office Scenario.................................8
      3.2 IP Backbone Scenario...................................8
      3.3 Important Properties of the Scenarios..................9
      3.3.1 Security Requirements................................9
      3.3.2 Multicast Handling..................................10
      3.3.3 Neighbor Discovery..................................10

      4. TRILL Packet Formats...................................11
      4.1 General Packet Formats................................11
      4.2 General TRILL Over IP Packet Formats..................12
      4.2.1 Without Security....................................12
      4.2.2 With Security.......................................12
      4.3 QoS Considerations....................................13
      4.4 Broadcast Links and Multicast Packets.................15
      4.5 TRILL Over IP Transport IS-IS SubNetwork Point of
          Attachment............................................15

      5. TRILL over IP Transport Encapsulation Formats..........17
      5.1 Encapsulation Considerations..........................17
      5.2 Encapsulation Agreement...............................18
      5.3 Broadcast Link Encapsulation Considerations...........19
      5.4 Native Encapsulation..................................20
      5.4.1 IPv4 UDP Checksum Considerations....................21
      5.4.2 IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations....................21
      5.5 VXLAN Encapsulation...................................24
      5.6 TCP Enacpulstion......................................24
      5.6.1 TCP Connection Establishment........................26
      5.7 Other Encapsulations..................................27

      6. Handling Multicast.....................................28

      7. Use of IPsec and IKEv2.................................29
      7.1 Keying................................................29
      7.1.1 Pairwise Keying.....................................29
      7.1.2 Group Keying........................................30
      7.2 Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms.....................30

      8. Transport Considerations...............................31
      8.1 Congestion Considerations.............................31
      8.1.1 Within a TMCE.......................................32
      8.1.2 In Other Environments...............................32
      8.2 Recursive Ingress.....................................33
      8.3 Fat Flows.............................................33
      8.4 MTU Considerations....................................34


Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Table of Contents (continued)

      9. TRILL over IP Transport Port Configuration.............35
      9.1 Per IP Port Configuration.............................35
      9.2 Additional per IP Address Configuration...............35
      9.2.1 Native Multicast Configuration......................36
      9.2.2 Serial Unicast Configuration........................36
      9.2.3 Encapsulation Specific Configuration................36
      9.2.3.1 UDP Source Port...................................36
      9.2.3.2 VXLAN Configuration...............................37
      9.2.3.3 TCP Configuration.................................37
      9.2.3.4 Other Encapsulation Configuration.................37
      9.2.4 Security Configuration..............................37

      10. Security Considerations...............................38
      10.1 IPsec................................................38
      10.2 IS-IS Security.......................................39

      11. IANA Considerations...................................40
      11.1 Port Assignments.....................................40
      11.2 Multicast Address Assignments........................40
      11.3 Encapsulation Method Support Indication..............41

      Normative References......................................42
      Informative References....................................44

      Appendix A: IP Security Choice............................47

      Acknowledgements..........................................48
      Authors' Addresses........................................49






















Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


1. Introduction

   TRILL switches (also know as RBridges) are devices that implement the
   IETF TRILL protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7177] [RFC7780].  TRILL provides
   transparent forwarding of frames within an arbitrary network
   topology, using least cost paths for unicast traffic. It supports
   VLANs and Fine Grained Labels [RFC7172] as well as multipathing of
   unicast and multi-destination traffic. It uses IS-IS [IS-IS]
   [RFC7176] link state routing with a TRILL header having a hop count.

   RBridge ports can communicate with each other over various protocols,
   such as Ethernet [RFC6325], pseudowires [RFC7173], or PPP [RFC6361].

   This document specifies transmission of encapsulated TRILL data and
   TRILL IS-IS over IP (v4 or v6 [RFC8200]) transport. so as to use an
   IP network as a TRILL link in a unified TRILL campus. One mandatory
   to implement UDP based encapsulation is specified along with two
   optional to implement encpsulations, one based on UDP and one based
   on TCP.  Provision is made to negotiate other encapsulations. TRILL
   over IP transport allows RBridges with IP connectivity to form a
   single TRILL campus, or multiple TRILL networks to be connected as a
   single TRILL campus via a TRILL over IP transport backbone.

   The protocol specified in this document connects RBridge ports using
   transport over IP transport in such a way that the ports with mutual
   IP connectivity appear to TRILL to be connected by a single multi-
   access link. If a set of more than two RBridge ports are connected
   via a single TRILL over IP transport link, each RBridge port in the
   set can communicate with every other RBridge port in the set.

   To support the scenarios where RBridges are connected via IP paths
   (including those over the public Internet) that are not under the
   same administrative control as the TRILL campus and/or not physically
   secure, this document specifies the use of IPsec [RFC4301]
   Encapsulating Security Protocol (ESP) [RFC4303] as the mandatory to
   implement protocol for security (see appendix A).

   To dynamically select a mutually supported TRILL over IP transport
   encapsulation, normally one with good fast path hardware support, a
   method is provided for agreement between adjacent TRILL switch ports
   as to what encapsulation to use. Alternatively, where a common
   encapsulation is known to be supported by the TRILL switch ports on a
   link, those ports can simply be configured to always use that
   encapsulation.

   This document updates [RFC7177] and [RFC7178] as described in
   Sections 5 and 11.3 by making adjacency between TRILL over IP
   transport ports dependent on having a method of encapsulation in
   common and by redefining an interval of RBridge Channel protocol
   numbers to indicate link technology specific capabilities, in this


Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   case encapsulation methods supported for TRILL over IP transport.



















































Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


2. Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The following terms and acronyms have the meaning indicated:

   DEI - Drop Eligibility Indicator. Part of QoS, see Section 4.3.

   DRB - Designated RBridge. The RBridge (TRILL switch) elected to be in
         charge of certain aspects of a TRILL link if that link is not
         configured as a point-to-point link [RFC6325] [RFC7177].

   ENCAP Hdr - See "encapsulation header".

   encapsulation header - Protocol header or headers appearing between
         the IP Header and the TRILL Header. See Sections 4 and 5.

   ESP - IPsec Encapsulating Security Protocol [RFC4303].

   FGL - Fine Grained Label [RFC7172].

   Hdr - Used herein as an abbreviation for "Header".

   link - In TRILL, a link connects TRILL ports and is transparent to
         TRILL data and TRILL IS-IS messages. It may, for example, be a
         bridged LAN.

   HKDF - Hash based Key Derivation Function [RFC5869].

   MTU - Maximum Transmission Unit.

   QoS - Quality of Service.

   RBridge - Routing Bridge. An alternative term for a TRILL switch.
         [RFC6325] [RFC7780]

   SNPA - Sub-Network Point of Attachment.

   Sz - The campus wide MTU [RFC6325] [RFC7780].

   TMCE - Traffic-Managed Controlled Environment, see Section 8.1.1.

   TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links or Tunneled
         Routing in the Link Layer. The protocol specified in [RFC6325],
         [RFC7177], [RFC7780], and related RFCs.



Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   TRILL switch - A device implementing the TRILL protocol.

   VNI - Virtual Network Identifier. In Virtual eXtensible Local Area
         Network (VXLAN) [RFC7348], the VXLAN Network Identifier.
















































Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


3. Use Cases for TRILL over IP Transport

   This section introduces two application scenarios (a remote office
   scenario and an IP backbone scenario) which cover typical situations
   where network administrators may choose to use TRILL over an IP
   network to connect TRILL switches.



3.1 Remote Office Scenario

   In the Remote Office Scenario, as shown in the example below, a
   remote TRILL network is connected to a TRILL campus across a multihop
   IP network, such as the public Internet. The TRILL network in the
   remote office becomes a part of the TRILL campus, and nodes in the
   remote office can be attached to the same VLANs or Fine Grained
   Labels [RFC7172] as local campus nodes. In many cases, a remote
   office may be attached to the TRILL campus by a single pair of
   RBridges, one on the campus end, and the other in the remote office.

   In this use case, the TRILL over IP transport link will often cross
   logical and physical IP networks that do not support TRILL, and are
   not under the same administrative control as the TRILL campus.

         /---------------\               /---------------\
         |    Remote     |               |    Remote     |
         |    Office     |               |    Office     |
         |               |               |               |
         |   +-------+   |               |   +-------+   |
         \---|RBridge|---/               \---|RBridge|---/
             +-----+-+                       +-+-----+
                   |                           |
          /---------------------------------------------\
          |        |       The Internet        |        |
          \---------------------------------------------/
                   |                           |
                 +-+-----+               +-----+-+
            /----|RBridge|---------------|RBridge|----\
            |    +-------+               +-------+    |
            |                                         |
            |           Main TRILL Campus             |
            \-----------------------------------------/



3.2 IP Backbone Scenario

   In the IP Backbone Scenario, as shown in the example below, TRILL
   over IP transport is used to connect a number of TRILL networks to
   form a single TRILL campus. For example, a TRILL over IP transport


Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   backbone could be used to connect multiple TRILL networks on
   different floors of a large building, or to connect TRILL networks in
   separate buildings of a multi-building site. In this use case, there
   may often be several TRILL switches on a single TRILL over IP
   transport link, and the IP link(s) used by TRILL over IP transport
   are typically under the same administrative control as the rest of
   the TRILL campus.

           /---------------------------------------------\
           | Unified TRILL Campus                        |
           |                                             |
           |       TRILL Over IP Transport Backbone      |
           |    -----+------------+------------+-----    |
           |         |            |            |         |
           |     +---+---+    +---+---+    +---+---+     |
           |     |RBridge|    |RBridge|    |RBridge|     |
           |     +---+---+    +---+---+    +---+---+     |
           |         |            |            |         |
           |      ---+---      ---+---      ---+---      |
           |       TRILL Local Links or Networks         |
           |                                             |
           \---------------------------------------------/



3.3 Important Properties of the Scenarios

   There are a number of differences between the above two application
   scenarios, some of which drive features of this specification. These
   differences are especially pertinent to the security requirements of
   the solution, how multicast data frames are handled, and how the
   TRILL switch ports discover each other.



3.3.1 Security Requirements

   In the IP Backbone Scenario, TRILL over IP transport is used between
   a number of RBridge ports, on a network link that is in the same
   administrative control as the remainder of the TRILL campus. While it
   is desirable in this scenario to prevent the association of
   unauthorized RBridges, this can be accomplished using existing IS-IS
   security mechanisms. There may be no need to protect the data
   traffic, beyond any protections that are already in place on the
   local network.

   In the Remote Office Scenario, TRILL over IP transport may run over a
   network that is not under the same administrative control as the
   TRILL network. It may appear to nodes on the network that they are
   sending traffic locally, while that traffic is actually being sent,


Margaret Cullen, et al                                          [Page 9]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   in an IP tunnel, over the public Internet. It is necessary in this
   scenario to protect the integrity and confidentiality of user
   traffic, as well as ensuring that no unauthorized RBridges can gain
   access to the RBridge campus.  The issues of protecting integrity and
   confidentiality of user traffic can be addressed by using IPsec for
   both TRILL IS-IS and TRILL Data packets between RBridges in this
   scenario.



3.3.2 Multicast Handling

   In the IP Backbone scenario, native IP multicast may be supported on
   the TRILL over IP transport link. If so, it can be used to send TRILL
   IS-IS and multicast data packets, as discussed later in this
   document.  Alternatively, multi-destination packets can be
   transmitted serially by IP unicast to the intended recipients.

   In the Remote Office Scenario there will often be only one pair of
   RBridges connecting a given site and, even when multiple RBridges are
   used to connect a Remote Office to the TRILL campus, the intervening
   network may not provide reliable (or any) multicast connectivity.
   Issues such as complex key management also make it more difficult to
   provide strong data integrity and confidentiality protections for
   multicast traffic. For all of these reasons, the connections between
   local and remote RBridges will commonly be treated like point-to-
   point links, and all TRILL IS-IS control messages and multicast data
   packets that are transmitted between the Remote Office and the TRILL
   campus will be serially transmitted by IP unicast, as discussed later
   in this document.



3.3.3 Neighbor Discovery

   In the IP Backbone Scenario, TRILL switches that use TRILL over IP
   transport can use the normal TRILL IS-IS Hello mechanisms to discover
   the existence of other TRILL switches on the link [RFC7177] and to
   establish authenticated communication with them.

   In the Remote Office Scenario, an IPsec session will need to be
   established before TRILL IS-IS traffic can be exchanged, as discussed
   below. In this case, one end will need to be configured to establish
   a IPsec session with the other. This will typically be accomplished
   by configuring the TRILL switch or a border device at a Remote Office
   to initiate an IPsec session and subsequent TRILL exchanges with a
   TRILL over IP-enabled RBridge attached to the TRILL campus.





Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


4. TRILL Packet Formats

   To support TRILL two types of TRILL packets are transmitted between
   TRILL switches: TRILL Data packets and TRILL IS-IS packets.

   Section 4.1 describes general TRILL packet formats for data and IS-IS
   independent of link technology. Section 4.2 specifies general TRILL
   over IP transport packet formats including IPsec ESP encapsulation.
   Section 4.3 provides QoS Considerations.  Section 4.4 discusses
   broadcast links and multicast packets. And Section 4.5 provides TRILL
   IS-IS Hello SubNetwork Point of Attachment (SNPA) considerations for
   TRILL over IP transport.



4.1 General Packet Formats

   The on-the-wire form of a TRILL Data packet in transit between two
   neighboring TRILL switch ports is as shown below:

      +----------------+----------+----------------+-----------+
      |  Link Header   |  TRILL   |  Native Frame  |   Link    |
      | for TRILL Data |  Header  |     Payload    |  Trailer  |
      +----------------+----------+----------------+-----------+

   The encapsulated Native Frame Payload is similar to an Ethernet frame
   with a VLAN tag or Fine Grained Label [RFC7172] but with no trailing
   Frame Check Sequence (FCS).

   TRILL IS-IS packets are formatted on-the-wire as follows:

      +-----------------+---------------+-----------+
      |   Link Header   |  TRILL IS-IS  |   Link    |
      | for TRILL IS-IS |    Payload    |  Trailer  |
      +-----------------+---------------+-----------+

   The Link Header and Link Trailer in these formats depend on the
   specific link technology. The Link Header contains one or more fields
   that distinguish TRILL Data from TRILL IS-IS. For example, over
   Ethernet, the Link Header for TRILL Data ends with the TRILL
   Ethertype while the Link Header for TRILL IS-IS ends with the L2-IS-
   IS Ethertype; on the other hand, over PPP, there are no Ethertypes in
   the Link Header but different PPP protocol code points are included
   that distinguish TRILL Data from TRILL IS-IS.








Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


4.2 General TRILL Over IP Packet Formats

   In TRILL over IP transport, we use an IP (v4 or v6) header followed
   by an encapsulation header, such as UDP, as the link header. (On the
   wire, the IP header will normally be preceded by the lower layer
   header of a protocol that is carrying IP; however, this does not
   concern us at the level of this document.)

   There are multiple IP based encapsulations usable for TRILL over IP
   transport that differ in exactly what appears after the IP header and
   before the TRILL Header or the TRILL IS-IS Payload. Those
   encapsulations specified in this document are further detailed in
   Section 5. In the general specification below, those encapsulation
   fields will be represented as "ENCAP Hdr".



4.2.1 Without Security

   When TRILL over IP transport link security is not being used, a TRILL
   over IP transport packet on the wire looks like one of the following:

      TRILL Data Packet
        +---------+-----------+---------+------------------+
        |   IP    | ENCAP Hdr | TRILL   |   Native frame   |
        | Header  | for Data  | Header  |     Payload      |
        +---------+-----------+---------+------------------+
        <--- link header ---->

      TRILL IS-IS Packet
        +---------+-----------+-----------------+
        |   IP    | ENCAP Hdr |   TRILL IS-IS   |
        | Header  | for IS-IS |     Payload     |
        +---------+-----------+-----------------+
        <--- link header ---->

   As discussed above and further specified in Section 5, the ENCAP Hdr
   indicates whether the packet is TRILL Data or IS-IS.



4.2.2 With Security

   The mandatory to implement TRILL over IP transport link security is
   IPsec Encapsulating Security Protocol (ESP) in tunnel mode [RFC4303]
   (see Appendix A). Since TRILL over IP transport always starts with an
   IP Header (on the wire this appears after any lower layer header that
   might be required), the modifications for IPsec are independent of
   the TRILL over IP transport ENCAP Hdr that occurs after that IP
   Header. The resulting packet formats are as follows for IPv4 and


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   IPv6:

    With IPv4:
   +-------------+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+
   | new IP Hdr  | ESP | TRILL IP Hdr | ENCAP Hdr | ESP   |ESP|
   |(any options)| Hdr | (any options)| + payload |Trailer|ICV|
   +-------------+-----+--------------+-----------+-----------+
                       |<---------- encryption ---------->|
                 |<-------------- integrity ------------->|

    With IPv6:
   +------+-------+-----+------+--------+-----------+-------+---+
   | new  |new ext| ESP | orig |orig ext| ENCAP Hdr | ESP   |ESP|
   |IP Hdr| Hdrs  | Hdr |IP Hdr| Hdrs   | + payload |Trailer|ICV|
   +------+-------+-----+------+--------+-----------+-------+---+
                        |<----------- encryption ---------->|
                  |<--------------- integrity ------------->|

   As shown above, IP Header options are considered part of the IPv4
   Header but are extensions ("ext") of the IPv6 Header. For further
   information on the IPsec ESP Hdr, Trailer, and ICV, see [RFC4303] and
   Section 7 below. "ENCAP Hdr + payload" is the encapsulation header
   (Section 5) and TRILL data or the encapsulation header and IS-IS
   payload, that is, the material after the IP Header in the diagram in
   Section 4.2.1.

   This architecture permits the ESP tunnel end point to be separated
   from the TRILL over IP transport RBridge port (see, for example,
   Section 1.1.3 of [RFC7296]).



4.3 QoS Considerations

   In IP, QoS handling is indicated by the Differentiated Services Code
   Point (DSCP [RFC2474] [RFC3168]) in the IP Header.  The former Type
   of Service (TOS) octet in the IPv4 Header and the Traffic Class octet
   in the IPv6 Header have been divided as shown in the following
   diagram adapted from [RFC3168]. (TRILL support of ECN is beyond the
   scope of this document. See [TRILLECN].)

            0     1     2     3     4     5     6     7
         +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
         |          DSCP FIELD               | ECN FIELD |
         +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

           DSCP: Differentiated Services Codepoint
           ECN:  Explicit Congestion Notification

   Although recommendations are provided below for mapping from TRILL


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   priority to DSCP, behavior for various DSCP values on the general
   Internet is not predictable. The default mapping below is appropriate
   where the TRILL campus is under the control of a network manager or
   consists of islands connected by an Internet Service Provider where
   that manager and/or provider support the DSCPs below to provide the
   QoS indicated.

   Within a TRILL switch, QoS is determined (1) by configuration for
   TRILL IS-IS packets and (2) by a three bit (0 through 7) priority
   field and a Drop Eligibility Indicator (DEI) bit (see Sections 8.2
   and 7 of [RFC7780]) for TRILL Data packets. (Typically TRILL IS-IS is
   configured to use one of the highest two priorities depending on the
   particular IS-IS PDU.) The QoS affects queuing behavior at TRILL
   switch ports and may be encoded into the link header, particularly if
   there could be priority sensitive devices within the link. For
   example, if the link Ethner net and thus might be a bridged LAN, QoS
   is commonly encoded into an Outer.VLAN tag's priority and DEI fields.

   TRILL over IP transport implementations MUST support setting the DSCP
   value in the outer IP Header of TRILL packets they send by mapping
   the TRILL priority and DEI to the DSCP. They MAY support, for a TRILL
   Data packet where the native frame payload is an IP packet, mapping
   the DSCP in this inner IP packet to the DSCP in the outer IP Header
   with the default for that mapping being to copy the DSCP without
   change.

   The default TRILL priority and DEI to DSCP mapping, which may be
   configured per TRILL over IP transport port, is an follows. Note that
   the DEI value does not affect the default mapping and, to provide a
   potentially lower priority service than the default priority 0,
   priority 1 is considered lower priority than 0. So the priority
   sequence from lower to higher priority is 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, as
   it is in [802.1Q].

      TRILL Priority  DEI  DSCP Field (Binary/decimal)
      --------------  ---  -----------------------------
                  0   0/1  000000 / 0
                  1   0/1  -TBD0- / TBD0
                  2   0/1  010000 / 16
                  3   0/1  011000 / 24
                  4   0/1  100000 / 32
                  5   0/1  101000 / 40
                  6   0/1  110000 / 48
                  7   0/1  111000 / 56

   RFC Editor: Please change the TBD0 DSCP for TRILL Priority 1 in the
   above table and below text to the DSCP value that is recommended for
   the Lower Effort PHB (LE PHB) by draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb [LEphb]
   draft when that draft is published as an RFC and delete this note.



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   The above all follow the recommended DSCP values from [RFC2474]
   except for the placing of priority 1 below priority 0, as specified
   in [802.1Q], and for the DSCP value of TBD0 binary for low effort as
   recommended in [LEphb].



4.4 Broadcast Links and Multicast Packets

   TRILL supports broadcast links. These are links to which more than
   two TRILL switch ports can be attached and where a packet can be
   broadcast or multicast from a port to all or a subset of the other
   ports on the link as well as unicast to a specific other port on the
   link.

   As specified in [RFC6325], TRILL Data packets being forwarded between
   TRILL switches can be unicast on a link to a specific TRILL switch
   port or multicast on a link to all TRILL switch ports. TRILL IS-IS
   packets are always multicast to all other TRILL switches on the link
   except for IS-IS MTU PDUs, which may be unicast [RFC7177]. This
   distinction is not significant if the link is inherently point-to-
   point, such as a PPP link; however, on a broadcast link there will be
   a packet outer link address that will be unicast or multicast as
   appropriate. For example, over Ethernet links, the Ethernet multicast
   addresses All-RBridges and All-IS-IS-RBridges are used for
   multicasting TRILL Data and TRILL IS-IS respectively. For details on
   TRILL over IP transport handling of multicast, see Section 6.



4.5 TRILL Over IP Transport IS-IS SubNetwork Point of Attachment

   IS-IS routers, including TRILL switches, establish adjacency through
   the exchange of Hello PDUs on a link [RFC7176] [RFC7177]. The Hellos
   transmitted out a port indicate what neighbor ports that port can see
   on the link by listing what IS-IS refers to as the neighbor port's
   SubNetwork Point of Attachment (SNPA). (For an Ethernet link, which
   may be a bridged network, the SNPA is the port MAC address.)

   In TRILL Hello PDUs on a TRILL over IP transport link, the IP
   addresses of the IP ports connected to that link are their actual
   SNPA (SubNetwork Point of Attachment [IS-IS]) addresses and, for
   IPv6, the 16-byte IPv6 address is used as the SNPA; however, for ease
   in re-using code designed for the common case of 48-bit SNPAs, in
   TRILL over IPv4 a 48-bit synthetic SNPA that looks like a unicast MAC
   address is constructed for use in the SNPA field of TRILL Neighbor
   TLVs [RFC7176] [RFC7177] in such Hellos. This synthetic SNPA is
   derived from the port IPv4 address is as follows:

     0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |   0xFE                |   0x00                |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |   IPv4 upper half                             |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
   |   IPv4 lower half                             |
   +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   This synthetic SNPA (MAC) address has the local (0x02) bit on in the
   first byte and so cannot conflict with any globally unique 48-bit
   Ethernet MAC. However, when TRILL operates on an IP link as specified
   in this document, TRILL sees only IP ports on that link, not MAC
   stations, even if the TRILL over IP transport link is being carried
   over Ethernet. Therefore conflicts on the link between a real MAC
   address and a TRILL over IP transport synthetic SNPA (MAC) address
   are impossible.




































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 16]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


5. TRILL over IP Transport Encapsulation Formats

   There are a variety of TRILL over IP transport encapsulation formats
   possible.  By default TRILL over IP transport adopts a hybrid
   encapsulation approach.

   There is one format, called "native encapsulation" that MUST be
   implemented. Although native encapsulation does not typically have
   good fast path support, as a lowest common denominator it can be used
   by low bandwidth control traffic to determine a preferred
   encapsulation with better performance. In particular, by default, all
   TRILL IS-IS Hellos are sent using native encapsulation and those
   Hellos are used to determine the encapsulation used for all TRILL
   Data packets and all other TRILL IS-IS PDUs (with the exception of
   IS-IS MTU-probe and MTU-ack PDUs used to establish adjacency which
   also use native encapsulation by default).

   Alternatively, the network operator can pre-configure a TRILL over IP
   transport port to use a particular encapsulation chosen for their
   particular network's needs and port capabilities. That encapsulation
   is then used for all TRILL Data and IS-IS packets, including Hellos,
   on ports so configured. This is expected to frequently be the case
   for a managed campus of TRILL switches.

   Section 5.1 discusses general considerations for the TRILL over IP
   transport encapsulation format.  Section 5.2 discusses encapsulation
   agreement.  Section 5.3 discusses broadcast link encapsulation
   considerations. Section 5.4 and subsequent subsections discuss
   particular encapsulations.



5.1 Encapsulation Considerations

   An encapsulation must provide a method to distinguish TRILL Data
   packets and TRILL IS-IS packets or it is not useful for TRILL. In
   addition, the following criteria can be helpful is choosing between
   different encapsulations:

   a) Fast path support - For most applications, it is highly desirable
      to be able to encapsulate/decapsulate TRILL over IP transport at
      line speed.  Thus a format where existing or anticipated fast path
      hardware can do that is best. This is commonly the dominant
      consideration.

   b) Ease of multi-pathing - The IP path between TRILL over IP
      transport ports may include equal cost multipath routes internal
      to the IP link so a method of encapsulation that provides variable
      fields available for fast path hardware multi-pathing is
      preferred.


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 17]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   c) Robust fragmentation and re-assembly - Fragmentation should
      generally be avoided; however, the MTU of the IP link may require
      fragmentation in which case an encapsulation with robust
      fragmentation and re-assembly is important. There are known
      problems with IPv4 fragmentation and re-assembly [RFC6864] which
      generally do not apply to IPv6. Some encapsulations can fix these
      problems but the encapsulations specified in this document do not.
      Therefore, if fragmentation is anticipated with the encapsulations
      specified in this document, the use of IPv6 is RECOMMENDED.

   d) Checksum strength - Depending on the particular circumstances of
      the TRILL over IP transport link, a checksum provided by the
      encapsulation may be a significant factor. Use of IPsec can also
      provide a strong integrity check.



5.2 Encapsulation Agreement

   TRILL Hellos sent out a TRILL over IP transport port indicate the
   encapsulations that port is willing to support through a mechanism
   initially specified in [RFC7178] and [RFC7176] that is hereby
   extended.  Specifically, RBridge Channel Protocol numbers 0xFD0
   through 0xFF7 are redefined to be link technology dependent flags
   that, for TRILL over IP transport, indicate support for different
   encapsulations, allowing support for up to 40 encapsulations to be
   specified.  Support for an encapsulation is indicated in the Hello
   PDU in the same way that support for an RBridge Channel protocol was
   indicated. (See also section 11.3.)  "Support" indicates willingness
   to use that encapsulation for TRILL Data and TRILL IS-IS packets
   (although TRILL IS-IS Hellos are still sent in native encapsulation
   by default unless the port is configured to always use some other
   encapsulation).

   If, in a TRILL Hello on a TRILL over IP transport link, support is
   not indicated for any encapsulation, then the port from which it was
   sent is assumed to support native encapsulation only (see Section
   5.4).

   An adjacency can be formed between two TRILL over IP transport ports
   if the intersection of the sets of encapsulation methods they support
   is not null. If that intersection is null, then no adjacency is
   formed. In particular, for a TRILL over IP transport link, the
   adjacency state machine MUST NOT advance to the Report state unless
   the ports share an encapsulation [RFC7177]. If no encapsulation is
   shared, the adjacency state machine remains in the state from which
   it would otherwise have transitioned to the Report state when an
   event occurs that would have transitioned it to the Report state.

   If a TRILL over IP transport port is using an encapsulation different


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 18]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   from that in which Hellos are being exchanged, it is RECOMMENDED that
   BFD [RFC7175] or some other protocol that confirms adjacency using
   TRILL Data packets be used. As provided in [RFC7177], adjacency is
   not actually obtained when such a confirmatory protocol is in use
   until that protocol succeeds.

   If any TRILL over IP transport packet, other than an IS-IS Hello or
   MTU PDU in native encapsulation, is received in an encapsulation for
   which support is not being indicated by the receiver, that packet
   MUST be discarded (see Section 5.3).

   If there are two or more encapsulations in common between two
   adjacent ports for unicast or across all of the set of adjacent ports
   for multicast, a transmitter is free to choose whichever of the
   encapsulations it wishes to use. Thus transmissions between adjacent
   ports P1 and P2 could use different encapsulations depending on which
   port is transmitting and which is receiving, that is to say,
   encapsulation usage could be asymmetric.

   It is expected to be the normal case in a well-configured network
   that all the TRILL over IP transport ports connected to an IP link
   (i.e., an IP network) that are intended to communicate with each
   other support the same encapsulation(s).



5.3 Broadcast Link Encapsulation Considerations

   To properly handle TRILL protocol packets on a TRILL over IP
   transport link in the general case, either native IP multicast mode
   is used on that link or multicast must be simulated using serial IP
   unicast, as discussed in Section 6. (Of course, if the IP link
   happens to actually be point-to-point no special provision is needed
   for handling IP multicast addressed packets.)

   It is possible for the Hellos from a TRILL over IP transport port P1
   to establish adjacency with multiple other TRILL over IP transport
   ports (P2, P3, ...) on a broadcast link. In a well-configured network
   one would expect all of the IP ports involved to support the same
   encapsulation; but, for example, if P1 supports multiple
   encapsulations, it is possible that P2 and P3, do not have an
   encapsulation in common that is also supported by P1. [IS-IS] can
   handle such non-transitive adjacencies that are reported as specified
   in [RFC7177]. This is generally done, albeit with reduced efficiency,
   by forwarding through the designated RBridge (router) on the link.
   Thus it is RECOMENDED that all TRILL over IP transport ports on an IP
   link be configured to support one encapsulation in common that has
   good fast path support.

   If serial IP unicast is being used by P1, it MAY use different


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 19]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   encapsulations for different transmissions.

   If multiple IP multicast encapsulations are available for use by P1,
   it can send one transmission per encapsulation method by which it has
   a disjoint set of adjacencies on the link. If the transmitting port
   has adjacencies with overlapping sets of ports that are adjacent
   using different encapsulations, use of native multicast with
   different encapsulations may result in packet duplication. It would
   always be possible to use native IP multicast for one encapsulation
   or multiple encapsulations supported by non-overlapping sets of
   receiving ports for which the transmitting port has adjacencies,
   perhaps the encapsulation(s) for which it has the largest number of
   adjacencies, and serially unicast to other receivers. These
   considerations are the reason that a TRILL over IP transport port
   MUST discard any packet received with an encapsulation for which it
   has not established an adjacency with the transmitter. Otherwise,
   packets might be further duplicated.



5.4 Native Encapsulation

   The mandatory to implement "native encapsulation" format of a TRILL
   over IP transport packet, when used without security, is TRILL over
   UDP as shown below. This provides simple and direct access by TRILL
   to the native datagram service of IP.

               +----------+--------+-----------------------+
               | IP       | UDP    |  TRILL                |
               | Header   | Header |  Payload              |
               +----------+--------+-----------------------+

   Where he UDP Header is as follows:

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Source Port = Entropy      |      Destination Port         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           UDP Length          |        UDP Checksum           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  TRILL Payload ...

      Source Port - see Section 8.3.

      Destination Port - indicates TRILL Data or IS-IS, see Section
         11.1.

      UDP Length - as specified in [RFC0768].



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 20]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


      UDP Checksum - as specified in [RFC0768]. See discussion below.

   The TRILL Payload starts with the TRILL Header (not including the
   TRILL Ethertype) for TRILL Data packets and starts with the 0x83
   Intradomain Routeing Protocol Discriminator byte (thus not including
   the L2-IS-IS Ethertype) for TRILL IS-IS packets.

   Note that if the mandatory to implement TRILL over IP transport
   security is in use, then traffic is not actually over UDP but rather
   over IPsec ESP. The authentication / integrity services provided
   protect against the processing of traffic by the wrong receiver even
   when the destination IP address / port is corrupted or the like and
   the confidentiality services provided by IPsec protect against
   compromise even if a receiver attempts to process packets not
   originally addressed to it.



5.4.1 IPv4 UDP Checksum Considerations

   For UDP in IPv4, when a non-zero UDP checksum is used, the UDP
   checksum MUST be processed as specified in [RFC0768] and [RFC1122]
   for both transmit and receive.  The IPv4 header includes a checksum
   that protects against misdelivery of the packet due to corruption of
   IP addresses.  The UDP checksum potentially provides protection
   against corruption of the UDP header and TRILL payload.  Disabling
   the use of checksums is a deployment consideration that should take
   into account the risk and effects of packet corruption.

   When a port receives a TRILL over IP transport packet, the UDP
   checksum field MUST be processed.  If the UDP checksum is non-zero,
   the port MUST verify the checksum before accepting the packet.  By
   default, a TRILL over IP transport port SHOULD accept UDP packets
   with a zero checksum.  A node MAY be configured to disallow zero
   checksums per [RFC1122]; this may be done selectively, for instance,
   disallowing zero checksums from certain adjacent ports that are known
   to be sending over paths subject to packet corruption.  If
   verification of a non-zero checksum fails, a port lacks the
   capability to verify a non-zero checksum, or a packet with a zero
   checksum was received and the port is configured to disallow, the
   packet MUST be dropped and an event MAY be logged.



5.4.2 IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations

   For UDP in IPv6, the UDP checksum MUST be processed as specified in
   [RFC0768] and [RFC8200] for both transmit and receive.

   When UDP is used over IPv6, the UDP checksum is relied upon to


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 21]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   protect both the IPv6 and UDP headers from corruption.  As such, a
   default TRILL over IP transport port MUST perform UDP checksum; a
   traffic-managed controlled environment (TMCE) TRILL over IP transport
   port MAY be configured with UDP zero-checksum mode if the TMCE or a
   set of closely cooperating TMCEs (such as by network operators who
   have agreed to work together in order to jointly provide specific
   services) meet at least one of the following conditions:

      a. It is known (perhaps through knowledge of equipment types and
         lower-layer checks) that packet corruption is exceptionally
         unlikely and where the operator is willing to take the risk of
         undetected packet corruption.

      b. It is judged through observational measurements (perhaps of
         historic or current traffic flows that use a non-zero checksum)
         that the level of packet corruption is tolerably low and where
         the operator is willing to take the risk of undetected packet
         corruption.

      c. Carrying applications that are tolerant of misdelivered or
         corrupted packets (perhaps through higher-layer checksum,
         validation, and retransmission or transmission redundancy)
         where the operator is willing to rely on the applications using
         the tunnel to survive any corrupt packets.

   The following requirements apply to a TMCE TRILL over IP transport
   port that uses UDP zero-checksum mode:

      a. Use of the UDP checksum MUST be the default configuration of
         all IPv6 TRILL over IP transport ports.

      b. The port implementation MUST comply with all requirements
         specified in Section 4 of [RFC6936] and with requirement 1
         specified in Section 5 of [RFC6936].

      c. A receiving TRILL over IP transport port SHOULD only allow the
         use of UDP zero checksum mode for IPv6 that is sent to one of
         the two TRILL over IP UDP Destination Port numbers (see Section
         11.1).  The motivation for this requirement is possible
         corruption of the UDP Destination Port, which may cause packet
         delivery to the wrong UDP port.  If that other UDP port
         requires the UDP checksum, the misdelivered packet will be
         discarded.

      d. It is RECOMMENDED that the UDP zero-checksum mode for IPv6 only
         be enabled for TRILL over IP transport ports with a configured
         set of possible adjacencies.  Because TRILL data is discarded
         unless it is received from a source address with which an
         adjacency exists, the receiving TRILL over IP transport port
         will check the source IPv6 address and MUST check that the


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 22]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


         destination IPv6 address is appropriate if UDP zero-checksum is
         being used and discard any packet for which these checks fails.

      f. No middleboxes are allowed in the TRILL over IP transport link
         because Middlebox support is beyond the scope of this document.

      h. Measures SHOULD be taken to prevent IPv6 traffic with zero UDP
         checksums from "escaping" to the general Internet.

      i. IPv6 traffic with zero UDP checksums MUST be actively monitored
         for errors by the network operator.  For example, the operator
         may monitor Ethernet-layer packet error rates.

      j. If a packet with a non-zero checksum is received, the checksum
         MUST be verified before accepting the packet regardless of port
         configuration to use UDP zero-checksum mode.

   The above requirements do not change either the requirements
   specified in [RFC8200] or the requirements specified in [RFC6936].

   The requirements to check the source and destination IPv6 addresses
   provide some mitigation for the absence of UDP checksum coverage of
   the IPv6 header.  A TMCE that satisfies at least one of three
   conditions listed at the beginning of this section provides
   additional assurance.

   TRILL over IP/UDP is suitable for transmission over lower layers in
   TMCEs that are allowed by the exceptions stated above. The rate of
   corruption of the inner IP packet on such networks is not expected to
   increase by comparison to TRILL traffic that is not encapsulated in
   UDP. Typically lower layers do provide some integrity checking such
   as the FCS (Frame Check Sequence) at the end of Ethernet packets.
   This design is in accordance with requirements 2, 3, and 5 specified
   in Section 5 of [RFC6936].

   TRILL over IP/UDP does not accumulate incorrect transport-layer state
   as a consequence of IP/UDP header corruption.  Such corruption may
   result in either packet discard or packet forwarding but the IP/UDP
   header is stripped at the end of each TRILL over IP transport hop
   between RBridges so errors cannot accumulate.  Active monitoring of
   TRILL over IP/UDP traffic for errors is REQUIRED, as the occurrence
   of errors will result in some accumulation of error information
   outside the protocol for operational and management purposes.  This
   design is in accordance with requirement 4 specified in Section 5 of
   [RFC6936].

   The remaining requirements specified in Section 5 of [RFC6936] are
   not applicable to TRILL over IP/UDP.  Requirements 6 and 7 do not
   apply because TRILL over IP/UDP does not include a control feedback
   mechanism.  Requirements 8-10 are middlebox requirements that do not


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 23]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   apply to TRILL over IP/UDP ports and, in any case, middleboxes are
   out of scope for this document.

   It is worth mentioning that the use of a zero UDP checksum should
   present the equivalent risk of undetected packet corruption when
   sending a similar packet using unlerlying Layer 2 link protocols in
   the cases where those protocols do not have a checksum.

   In summary, a TMCE TRILL over IP/UDP is allowed to use UDP zero-
   checksum mode for IPv6 when the conditions and requirements stated
   above are met.  Otherwise, the UDP checksum needs to be used for IPv6
   as specified in [RFC0768] and [RFC8200].



5.5 VXLAN Encapsulation

   VXLAN [RFC7348] IP encapsulation of TRILL looks, on the wire, like
   TRILL over Ethernet over VXLAN over UDP over IP.

            +--------+--------+--------+----------+-----------+
            | IP     | UDP    | VXLAN  | Ethernet | TRILL     |
            | Header | Header | Header | Header   | Payload   |
            +--------+--------+--------+----------+-----------+

   The outer UDP uses a destination port number indicating VXLAN and the
   outer UDP source port MAY be used for entropy as with native
   encapsulation (see Section 8.3). UDP checksum considerations are the
   same as in Section 5.4.

   The VXLAN header after the outer UDP header adds a 24 bit Virtual
   Network Identifier (VNI). The Ethernet header after the VXLAN header
   and before the TRILL header consists of source MAC address,
   destination MAC address, and Ethertype. The Ethertype distinguishes
   TRILL Data from TRILL IS-IS. The destination and source MAC addresses
   in this Ethernet header are not used.

   A TRILL over IP port using VXLAN encapsulation by default uses a VNI
   of 1 for TRILL IS-IS traffic and a VNI of 2 for TRILL data traffic
   but can be configured as described in Section 9.2.3.1 to use some
   other fixed VNIs or to map from VLAN/FGL to VNI for data traffic.



5.6 TCP Enacpulstion

   TCP [RFC0793] may be used for TRILL over IP transport as specified
   below. Use of TCP is convenient to provide congestion control (see
   Section 8.1) and reduced packet loss but is likely to cause
   substantial additional jitter and delay compared with a UDP based


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 24]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   encapsulation.

   TCP supports only unicast communication. Thus, when TCP encapsulation
   is being used, multi-destination packets must be sent by serial
   unicast.  Neighbor discovery cannot be done with TCP, so if discovery
   is to be supported at a TRILL over IP transport port (i.e., the set
   of potential adjacencies is not configured), Hellos must be sent with
   UDP native encapsulation. If a TRILL over IP transport port is
   configured to use TCP encapsulation for all trafic, a list of IP
   addresses that port might communicate with must be configured for the
   port (see Section 9).

   All packets in a particular TCP stream MUST use the same DSCP
   codepoint as discussed in [RFC7657]. Therefore a TCP connection is
   needed per QoS to be provided between TRILL switches. Contiguous sets
   of priority levels MAY be mapped into a single TCP connection with a
   single DSCP code point. Lower priority traffic MUST NOT be given
   preference over higher priority traffic. It is RECOMMEDED that at
   least two TCP connections be provided, for example one for priority 6
   and 7 traffic and one for priority 0 through 5 taffice, in order to
   insure that urgent control traffic, including control traffic related
   to establishing and maintaining adjacency, is not significantly
   delayed by lower priority traffic.

   TCP is a stream protocol, not a record oriented protocol, so a TRILL
   data packet with its header or a TRILL IS-IS packet might be split
   across multiple TCP packet payloads or a single TCP packet payload
   could include multiple TRILL packets or the like. Thus a framing
   mechanism is needed, as specified below, so that a received TRILL
   stream can be parsed into TRILL packets.

   In the TCP header, the source and destination port fields are as
   follows:

      Source Port - along with Source IP, Destination IP, and
         Destination Port, idetifies a TCP flow.

      Destination Port - indicates TRILL Data or IS-IS, see Section
         11.1.

   TRILL packets are framed for transmission over TCP as shown below.

      +--------+-------- // ----+
      | Length | TRILL packet   |
      +--------+----- // -------+

      Length - the length of the TRILL packet in bytes as a 2-byte
         unsigned integer in network order.

      TRILL packet - The TRILL packet within framing starts with the


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 25]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


         TRILL or the L2-IS-IS Ethertype (0x22F3 or 0x22F4). If the
         initial 2 bytes of the TRILL packet are not the correct
         Ethertype based on the Destination Port, then the receiver
         assumes that framing synchronization has been lost and MUST
         close that TCP connection. Note that the Hamming distance
         between these Ethertypes is 2 so that a single bit error cannot
         convert one into the other.

   The sequence of framd TRILL packets is sliced as necessary into TCP
   packet payloads.

   Depending on performance requirements, in many cases consideration
   should be given to tuning TCP. Methods for doing this are out of
   scope for this document. See [RFC7323].



5.6.1 TCP Connection Establishment

   If a TRILL over IP transport port is configured to always use TCP it
   will also be configured with a list of IP addresses and MUST try to
   establish a TCP connections to each of them. It also MUST accept TCP
   connections from each of that list of IP addresses.

   If a TRILL over IP port supports TCP but is using UDP for neighbor
   discovery and encapsulation negotiation, then it MUST try to
   establish a TCP connection to any adjacent port in the Report state
   (see [RFC7177] and Section 5.2) when TCP has been neogtiated with
   that port. It also MUST accept TCP connections from each such
   adjacent port.

   Establishing a connection actually means to initiate TCP connections
   for each DSCP value that the TRILL over IP port is configured to use
   in TCP communication with the destination separately for TRILL Data
   and TRILL IS-IS as they have different destination ports, unless such
   a connection already exists. For example, port P1 could meet the
   requirements to establish a TCP connection to port P2 and find that
   such a connection already exists having been initiated by P2. A TCP
   connection can be used bi-directionally for TRILL traffic. However
   the timing and implementation details may be such that P! and P2 each
   establish a TCP connection to the other, in which case it might be
   that each of those connections would be used uni-directionally for
   TRILL traffic.

   When a TCP connection is closed or reset, if the conditions are still
   met for that TCP port to establish that connection, it waits a
   configurable length of time that defaults to 80 milliseconds and
   tried to re-establish the connection. See Section 9.2.3.3.




Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 26]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


5.7 Other Encapsulations

   Additional TRILL over IP transport encapsulations may be specified in
   future documents and allocated a link technology specific flag bit as
   per Section 11.3. A primary consideration for whether it is worth the
   effort to specify use of an encapsulation by TRILL over IP transport
   is whether it has good existing or anticipated fast path support.













































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 27]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


6. Handling Multicast

   By default, both TRILL IS-IS packets and multi-destination TRILL Data
   packets are sent to an All-RBridges IPv4 or IPv6 IP multicast address
   as appropriate (see Section 11.2); however, a TRILL over IP transport
   port may be configured (see Section 9) to use a different multicast
   address or to use serial IP unicast with a list of one or more
   unicast IP addresses of other TRILL over IP transport ports to which
   multi-destination packets are sent. In the serial unicast case the
   outer IP header of each copy of the a TRILL Data packet sent shows an
   IP unicast destination address even through the TRILL header has the
   M bit set to one to indicate multi-destination. Serial unicast
   configuration is necessary if the TRILL over IP transport port is
   connected to an IP network that does not support IP multicast. In any
   case, unicast TRILL Data packets (those with the M bit in the TRILL
   Header set to zero) are sent by unicast IP. When TCP encapsulation is
   being used (see Section 5.4), serial unicast MUST be used. If a TRILL
   over IP transport port is configured to send all traffic with TCP,
   adjacency and data flow will only be possible with IP addresses in a
   configured list at that port (see Section 9).

   Even if a TRILL over IP transport port is configured to send multi-
   destination packets with serial unicast, it MUST be prepared to
   receive IP multicast TRILL packets.  TRILL over IP transport ports
   default to periodically transmitting appropriate IGMP (IPv4
   [RFC3376]) or MLD (IPv6 [RFC2710]) packets, so that the TRILL
   multicast IP traffic can be sent to them, but MAY be configured not
   to do so.

   Although TRILL fully supports broadcast links with more than 2
   RBridge ports connected to the link, there may be good reasons for
   configuring TRILL over IP transport ports to use serial unicast even
   where native IP multicast is available. Use of serial unicast
   provides the network manager with more precise control over
   adjacencies and how TRILL over IP transport links will be formed in
   an IP network. In some networks, unicast is more reliable than
   multicast. If multiple point-to-point TRILL over IP transport
   connections between two parts of a TRILL campus are configured, TRILL
   will in any case spread traffic across them, treating them as
   parallel links, and appropriately fail over traffic if a link fails
   or incorporate a new link that comes up.











Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 28]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


7. Use of IPsec and IKEv2

   All TRILL ports that support TRILL over IP transport MUST implement
   IPsec [RFC4301] and support the use of IPsec Encapsulating Security
   Protocol (ESP [RFC4303]) in tunnel mode to secure both TRILL IS-IS
   and TRILL Data packets. When IPsec is used to secure a TRILL over IP
   transport link and no IS-IS security is enabled, the IPsec session
   MUST be fully established before any TRILL IS-IS or data packets are
   exchanged. When there is IS-IS security [RFC5310] provided,
   implementers SHOULD use IS-IS security to protect TRILL IS-IS
   packets. However, in this case, the IPsec session still MUST be fully
   established before any TRILL Data packets transmission, since IS-IS
   security does not provide any protection to data packets, and the
   IPsec session SHOULD be fully established before any TRILL IS-IS
   packet transmission other than IS-IS Hello or MTU PDUs.

   All RBridges that support TRILL over IP transport MUST implement the
   Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) for automated key
   management.



7.1 Keying

   The following subsections discuss pairwise and group keying for TRILL
   over IP IPsec.



7.1.1 Pairwise Keying

   When IS-IS security is in use, IKEv2 SHOULD use a pre-shared key that
   incorporates the IS-IS shared key in order to bind the TRILL data
   session to the IS-IS session.  The pre-shared key that will be used
   for IKEv2 exchanges for TRILL over IP is determined as follows:

      HKDF-Expand-SHA256 ( IS-IS-key,
         "TRILL IP" | P1-System-ID | P1-Port | P2-System-ID | P2-Port )

   In the above "|" indicates concatenation, HKDF is as in [RFC5869],
   SHA256 is as in [RFC6234], and "TRILL IP" is the eight byte US ASCII
   [RFC0020] string indicated. "IS-IS-key" is an IS-IS key usable for
   IS-IS security of link local IS-IS PDUs such as Hello, CSNP, and
   PSNP. This SHOULD be a link scope IS-IS key. P1-System-ID and
   P2-System ID are the six byte System IDs of the two TRILL RBridges,
   and P1-Port and P2-Port are the TRILL Port IDs [RFC6325] of the ports
   in use on each end. System IDs are guaranteed to be unique within the
   TRILL campus.  Both of the RBridges involved treat the larger
   magnitude System ID, comparing System IDs as unsigned integers, as P1
   and the smaller as P2 so both will derive the same key.


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 29]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   With [RFC5310] there could be multiple keys identified with 16-bit
   key IDs. The key ID when an IS-IS key is in use is transmitted in an
   IKEv2 ID_KEY_ID identity field [RFC7296] with Identification Data
   length of 2 bytes (Payload Length 6 bytes). The Key ID of the IS-IS-
   key is used to identify the IKEv2 shared secret derived as above that
   is actually used. ID_KEY_ID identity field(s) of other lengths MAY
   occur but their use is beyond the scope of this document.

   The IS-IS-shared key from which the IKEv2 shared secret is derived
   might expire and be updated as described in [RFC5310].  The IKEv2
   pre-shared keys derived from an IS-IS shared key MUST expire within a
   lifetime no longer than the IS-IS-shared key from which they were
   derived.  When the IKEv2 shared secret key expires, or earlier, the
   IKEv2 Security Association must be rekeyed using a new shared secret
   derived from a new IS-IS shared key.

   IKEv2 with certificate based security MAY be used but details of
   certificate contents and use policy for this application of IKEv2 are
   beyond the scope of this document.



7.1.2 Group Keying

   In the case of a TRILL over IP transport port configured as point-to-
   point (see Section 4.2.4.1 of [RFC6325]), there is no group keying
   and the pairwise keying determined as provided in Section 7.1.1 is
   used for multi-destination TRILL traffic, which is unicast across the
   link.

   In the case of a TRILL over IP transport port configured as broadcast
   but where the port is configured to use serial unicast (see Section
   8), there is no group keying and the pairwise keying determined as in
   Section 7.1.1 is used for multi-destination TRILL traffic, which is
   unicast across the link.

   The case of a TRILL over IP transport port configured as broadcast
   and using native multicast is beyond the scope of this document and
   is expected to be covered in a future document [SGKPuses]. For
   security as provided in this document, multicast is handled via
   serial unicast.



7.2 Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms

   All RBridges that support TRILL over IP transport MUST implement
   IPsec ESP [RFC4303] in tunnel mode. The implementation requirements
   for ESP cryptographic algorithms are as specified for IPsec. That
   specification is currently [RFC8221].


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 30]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


8. Transport Considerations

   This section discusses a variety of important transport
   considerations. NAT traversal is out of scope for this document.



8.1 Congestion Considerations

   This subsection discusses TRILL over UDP congestion considerations.
   These are applicable to the UDP based TRILL over IP transport
   encapsulation headers specified in detail in this document. Other
   encapsulations would likely have different congestion considerations
   and, in particlar, the TCP encapsulation specified in Section 5.6
   does not need congestion control beyond that provided by TCP.
   Congestion considerations for additional TRILL encapsulations will be
   provided in the document specifying the encapsulation.

   One motivation for including UDP or TCP as the outermost part of a
   TRILL over IP encapsulation header is to improve the use of multipath
   such as Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) in cases where traffic is to
   traverse routers that are able to hash on Port and IP address through
   addition of entropy in the source port (see Section 8.3). In many
   cases this may reduce the occurrence of congestion and improve usage
   of available network capacity. However, it is also necessary to
   ensure that the network, including applications that use the network,
   responds appropriately in more difficult cases, such as when link or
   equipment failures have reduced the available capacity.

   Section 3.1.11 of [RFC8085] discusses the congestion considerations
   for design and use of UDP tunnels; this is important because other
   flows could share the path with one or more UDP tunnels,
   necessitating congestion control [RFC2914] to avoid destructive
   interference.

   The default initial determination of the TRILL over IP transport
   encapsulation to be used is through the exchange of TRILL IS-IS
   Hellos. This is a low bandwidth process. Hellos are not permitted to
   be sent any more often than once per second, and so are very unlikely
   to cause congestion.  Thus no additional controls are needed for
   Hellos even if sent, as is the default, over UDP.

   Congestion has potential impacts both on the rest of the network
   containing a UDP flow and on the traffic flows using the UDP
   encapsulation.  These impacts depend upon what sort of traffic is
   carried in UDP, as well as the path it follows.  The UDP based TRILL
   over IP transport encapsulations specified in this document do not
   provide any congestion control and are transmitted as regular UDP
   packets.



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 31]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   The use of serial unicast, where the transmission of a multi-
   destination TRILL packet is executed as multiple unicast
   transmission, potentially increases link load and could thus increase
   congestion. Rate limiting of multi-destination traffic that is to be
   transmitted in this fashion should be considered.

   The subsections below discuss congestion for TRILL over IP transport
   traffic with UDP based encapsulation headers in traffic-managed
   controlled environments (TMCE, see [RFC8086]) and other environments.



8.1.1 Within a TMCE

   Within a TMCE, that is, an IP network that is traffic-engineered
   and/or otherwise managed, for example via use of traffic rate
   limiters, to avoid congestion, UDP based TRILL over IP encapsulation
   headers are appropriate for carrying traffic that is not known to be
   congestion controlled. in such cases, operators of TMCE networks
   avoid congestion by careful provisioning of their networks, rate-
   limiting of user data traffic, and traffic engineering according to
   path capacity.

   When TRILL over IP transport using a UDP based encapsulation header
   carries traffic that is not known to be congestion controlled in a
   TMCE network, the traffic path MUST be entirely within that network,
   and measures SHOULD be taken to prevent the traffic from "escaping"
   the network to the general Internet.  Examples of such measures are:

      o  physical or logical isolation of the links carrying the traffic
         from the general Internet and

      o  deployment of packet filters that block the UDP ports assigned
         for TRILL over IP transport.



8.1.2 In Other Environments

   Where UDP based encapsulation headers are used in TRILL over IP
   transport in environments other than those discussed in Section
   8.1.1, specific congestion control mechanisms such as rate limiting
   are commonly needed.  However, if the traffic being carried by the
   TRILL over IP transport link is already congestion controlled and the
   size and volatility of the TRILL IS-IS link state database is
   limited, then specific congestion control may not be needed. See
   [RFC8085] Section 3.1.11 for further guidance.





Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 32]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


8.2 Recursive Ingress

   TRILL is specified to transport data to and from end stations over
   Ethernet and IP is frequently transported over Ethernet. Thus, an end
   station native data Ethernet frame "EF" might get TRILL ingressed to
   a TRILL(EF) packet that was subsequently sent to a next hop RBridge
   out a TRILL over IP transport over Ethernet port resulting in a
   packet on the wire of the form Ethernet(IP(TRILL(EF))).  There is a
   risk of such a packet being re-ingressed by the same TRILL campus,
   due to physical or logical misconfiguration, looping around, being
   further re-ingressed, and so on. (Or this might occur through a cycle
   of TRILL different campuses.)  The packet would get discarded if it
   got too large unless fragmentation is enabled, in which case it would
   just keep getting split into fragments that would continue to loop
   and grow and re-fragment until the path was saturated with junk and
   packets were being discarded due to queue overflow. The TRILL Header
   TTL would provide no protection because each TRILL ingress adds a new
   TRILL header with a new TTL.

   To protect against this scenario, a TRILL over IP transport port
   MUST, by default, test whether a TRILL packet it is about to transmit
   appears to be a TRILL ingress of a TRILL over IP transport over
   Ethernet packet. That is, is it of the form
   TRILL(Ethernet(IP(TRILL(...)))? If so, the default action of the
   TRILL over IP output port is to discard the packet rather than
   transmit it. However, there are cases where some level of nested
   ingress is desired so it MUST be possible to configure the port to
   allow such packets.



8.3 Fat Flows

   For the purpose of load balancing, it is worthwhile to consider how
   to transport TRILL packets over any Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs)
   existing internal to the IP path between TRILL over IP transport
   ports.

   The ECMP election for the IP traffic could be based, for example with
   IPv4, on the quintuple of the outer IP header { Source IP,
   Destination IP, Source Port, Destination Port, and IP protocol }.
   Such tuples, however, could be exactly the same for all TRILL Data
   packets between two RBridge ports, even if there is a huge amount of
   data being sent between a variety of ingress and egress RBridges. One
   solution to this is to use the UDP Source Port as an entropy field.
   (This idea is also introduced in [RFC8086].) For example, for TRILL
   Data, this entropy field could be based on some hash of the
   Inner.MacDA, Inner.MacSA, and Inner.VLAN or Inner.Label. These are
   fields from the TRILL data payload which looks like an Ethernet frame
   (see [RFC7172] Figures 1 and 2).


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 33]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


8.4 MTU Considerations

   In TRILL each RBridge advertises in its LSP number zero the largest
   LSP frame it can accept (but not less than 1,470 bytes) on any of its
   interfaces (at least those interfaces with adjacencies to other TRILL
   switches in the campus) through the originatingLSPBufferSize TLV
   [RFC6325] [RFC7177]. The campus minimum MTU (Maximum Transmission
   Unit), denoted Sz, is then established by taking the minimum of this
   advertised MTU for all RBridges in the campus. Links that cannot
   support the Sz MTU are not included in the routing topology. This
   protects the operation of IS-IS from links that would be unable to
   accommodate the largest LSPs.

   A method of determining originatingLSPBufferSize for an RBridge is
   described in [RFC7780]. If that RBridge has a TRILL over IP transport
   port that either (1) can accommodate jumbo frames, (2) is a link on
   which IP fragmentation is enabled and acceptable, or (3) is configure
   to use TCP encapsulation for all packets, then it is unlikely that
   the port will be a constraint on the originatingLSPBufferSize of the
   RBridge. On the other hand, if the TRILL over port can only handle
   smaller frames, a UDP encapsulaton is in use at least for Hellos, and
   fragmentation is to be avoided when possible, a TRILL over IP
   transport port might have an MTU that contrained the RBridge's
   originatingLSPBufferSize.

   Because TRILL sets the minimum value of Sz at 1,470 bytes, RBridges
   will not constrain LSPs or other TRILL IS-IS PDUs to a size smaller
   than that. Therefore there may be TRILL over IP transport ports that
   require that either fragmentation be enabled or that TCP based
   encapsultion for all TRILL packet be used if TRILL communication over
   that IP port is desired. When fragmentation is enabled or TCP is in
   use, the effective link MTU from the TRILL point of view is larger
   than the RBridge port to RBridge port path MTU from the IP point of
   view.

   TRILL IS-IS MTU PDUs, as specified in Section 5 of [RFC6325] and in
   [RFC7177], MUST NOT be fragmented and can be used to obtain added
   assurance of the MTU of a link. The algorithm discussed in [RFC8249]
   should be useful in determining the IP MTU between a pair of RBridge
   ports that have IP connectivity with each other. See also [RFC4821].

   An appropriate time to confirm MTU, or re-discover it if it has
   changed, is when an RBridge notices topology changes in a path
   between RBridge ports that is in use for TRILL over IP transport;
   however, MTU can change at other times.  For example, if two RBridge
   ports are connected by a bridged LAN, topology or configuration
   changes within that bridged LAN could change the MTU between those
   RBridge ports.

   For further discussion of these issues, see [IntareaTunnels].


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 34]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


9. TRILL over IP Transport Port Configuration

   This section specifies the configuration information needed at a
   TRILL over IP transport port beyond that needed for a general RBridge
   port.



9.1 Per IP Port Configuration

   Each RBridge port used for a TRILL over IP transport link should have
   at least one IP (v4 or v6) address. If no IP address is associated
   with the port, perhaps as a transient condition during re-
   configuration, the port is disabled. Implementations MAY allow a
   single port to operate as multiple IPv4 and/or IPv6 logical ports.
   Each IP address constitutes a different logical port and the RBridge
   with those ports MUST associate a different Port ID (see Section
   4.4.2 of [RFC6325]) with each logical port.

   By default a TRILL over IP transport port discards output packets
   that fail the possible recursive ingress test (see Section 10.1)
   unless configured to disable that test.



9.2 Additional per IP Address Configuration

   The configuration information specified below is per TRILL over IP
   transport port IP address.

   The mapping from TRILL packet priority to TRILL over IP transport
   Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP [RFC2474]) can be
   configured. If supported, mapping from an inner DSCP code point, when
   the TRILL payload is IP, to the outer TRILL over IP transport DSCP
   can be configured. (See Section 4.3.)

   Each TRILL over IP transport port has a list of acceptable
   encapsulations it will use as the basis of adjacency. By default this
   list consists of one entry for native encapsulation (see Section 7).
   Additional encapsulations MAY be configured and native encapsulation
   MAY be removed from this list by configuration. Additional
   configuration can be required or possible for specific encapsulations
   as described in Section 9.2.3.

   Each IP address at a TRILL over IP transport port uses native IP
   multicast by default but may be configured whether to use serial IP
   unicast (Section 9.2.2) or native IP multicast (Section 9.2.1). Each
   IP address at a TRILL over IP transport port is configured whether or
   not to use IPsec (Section 9.2.4).



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 35]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   Regardless of whether they will send IP multicast, TRILL over IP
   transport ports emit appropriate IGMP (IPv4 [RFC3376]) or MLD (IPv6
   [RFC2710]) packets unless configured not to do so. These are sent for
   the IP multicast group the port would use if it sent IP multicast.



9.2.1 Native Multicast Configuration

   If a TRILL over IP transport port address is using native IP
   multicast for multi-destination TRILL packets (IS-IS and data), by
   default transmissions from that IP address use the IP multicast
   address (IPv4 or IPv6) specified in Section 11.2. The TRILL over IP
   transport port may be configured to use a different IP multicast
   address for multicasting packets.



9.2.2 Serial Unicast Configuration

   If a TRILL over IP transport port address has been configured to use
   serial unicast for multi-destination packets (IS-IS and data), it has
   associated with it a non-empty list of unicast IP destination
   addresses with the same IP version as the version of the port's IP
   address (IPv4 or IPv6). Multi-destination TRILL packets are serially
   unicast to the addresses in this list. Such a TRILL over IP transport
   port will only be able to form adjacencies [RFC7177] with the
   RBridges at the addresses in this list as those are the only RBridges
   to which it will send TRILL Hellos. IP packets received from a source
   IP address not on the list are discarded.

   If this list of destination IP addresses is empty, the port is
   disabled.



9.2.3 Encapsulation Specific Configuration

   Specific TRILL over IP transport encapsulation methods may provide
   for further configuration as specified below.



9.2.3.1 UDP Source Port

   As discussed above, the UDP based encapsulations (Sections 5.4 and
   5.5) start with a header containing a source port number that can be
   used for entropy (Section 8.3). The range of source port values used
   defaults to the ephemeral port range (49152-65535) but can be
   configured to any other range.


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 36]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


9.2.3.2 VXLAN Configuration

   A TRILL over IP transport port using VXLAN encapsulation can be
   configured with non-default VXLAN Network Identifiers (VNIs) that are
   used in that field of the VXLAN header for all TRILL IS-IS and TRILL
   Data packets sent using the encapsulation and required in those
   received using the encapsulation. The default VNI is 1 for TRILL IS-
   IS and 2 for TRILL Data. A TRILL packet received with the an unknown
   VNI is discarded.

   A TRILL over IP transport port using VXLAN encapsulation can also be
   configured to map the Inner.VLAN of a TRILL Data packet being
   transported to the value it places in the VNI field and/or to copy or
   map the Inner.FGL [RFC7172] of a TRILL Data packet to the VNI field.



9.2.3.3 TCP Configuration

   A TRILL over IP transport port using TCP encapsulation is
   configurable as to the connection re-establishment delay in the range
   of 1 to 10,000 milliseconds that defaults to 80 milliseconds. See
   Section 5.6.1.



9.2.3.4 Other Encapsulation Configuration

   Additional encapsulation methods, beyond those specified in this
   document, are expected to be specified in future documents and may
   require further configuration.



9.2.4 Security Configuration

   A TRILL over IP transport port can be configured, for the case where
   IS-IS security [RFC5310] is in use, as to whether or not IPsec must
   be fully established and used for any TRILL IS-IS transmissions other
   than IS-IS Hello or MTU PDUs (see Section 7). There may also be
   configuration whose details are outside the scope of this document
   concerning certificate based IPsec or use of shared keys other than
   IS-IS based shared key or how to select the IS-IS based shared key to
   use.








Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 37]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


10. Security Considerations

   TRILL over IP transport is subject to all of the security
   considerations for the base TRILL protocol [RFC6325]. In addition,
   there are specific security requirements for different TRILL
   deployment scenarios, as discussed in the "Use Cases for TRILL over
   IP", Section 3 above.

   For communication between end stations in a TRILL campus, security
   may be possible at three levels: end-to-end security between those
   end stations, edge-to-edge security between ingress and egress
   RBridges, and link security to protect a TRILL hop. Any combination
   of these can be used, including all three.

   TRILL over IP transport link security protects the contents of TRILL
      Data and IS-IS packets over a single TRILL hop between RBridge
      ports, including protecting the identities of the end stations for
      data and the identities of the edge RBridges, from observers of
      the link and transit devices within the link such as bridges or IP
      routers, but does not encrypt the link local IP addresses used in
      a packet and does not protect against observation by the RBridges
      on the link.

   Edge-to-edge TRILL security would protect the contents of TRILL data
      packets between the ingress and egress RBridges, including the
      identities of the end stations for data, from transit RBridges but
      does not encrypt the identities of the edge RBridges involved and
      does not protect against observation by those edge RBridges. Edge-
      to-edge TRILL security may be covered in future documents.

   End-to-end security does not protect the identities of the end
      stations or edge RBridge involved but does protect the user data
      content of TRILL data packets from observation by all RBridges or
      other intervening devices between the end stations involved.  End-
      to-end security should always be considered as an added layer of
      security to protect any particularly sensitive information from
      unintended disclosure. Such end-station to end-station security is
      generally outside the scope of TRILL

   If VXLAN encapsulation is used, the unused Ethernet source and
   destination MAC addresses mentioned in Section 5.5, provide a 96 bit
   per packet side channel.



10.1 IPsec

   This document specifies that all RBridges that support TRILL over IP
   transport links MUST implement IPsec for the security of such links,
   and makes it clear that it is both wise and good to use IPsec in all


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 38]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   cases where a TRILL over IP transport link will traverse a network
   that is not under the same administrative control as the rest of the
   TRILL campus or is not secure. IPsec is important, in these cases, to
   protect the privacy and integrity of data traffic. However, in cases
   where IPsec is impractical due to lack of fast path support, use of
   TRILL edge-to-edge security or use by the end stations of end-to-end
   rsecurity can provide significant security.

   Further Security Considerations for IPsec ESP and for the
   cryptographic algorithms used with IPsec can be found in the RFCs
   referenced by this document.



10.2 IS-IS Security

   TRILL over IP transport is compatible with the use of IS-IS Security
   [RFC5310], which can be used to authenticate TRILL switches before
   allowing them to join a TRILL campus. This is sufficient to protect
   against rogue devices impersonating TRILL switches, but is not
   sufficient to protect data packets that may be sent in TRILL over IP
   transport outside of the local network or across the public Internet.
   To protect the privacy and integrity of that traffic, use IPsec.

   In cases were IPsec is used, the use of IS-IS security may not be
   necessary, but there is nothing about this specification that would
   prevent using both IPsec and IS-IS security together.

























Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 39]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


11. IANA Considerations

   IANA considerations are given below.



11.1 Port Assignments

   IANA is requested to assign Ports in the Service Name and Transport
   Protocol Port Number Registry [PortRegistry] for TRILL IS-IS and
   TRILL Data as shown below. It is requested that the Hamming distance
   between the two port number be at least 2, that is, that at least two
   bits differ between the port numbers. For example, they could be an
   odd number and the following even number such that both of the bottom
   two bits would differ between them.

         Service Name: TRILL-IS-IS
         Transport Protocol: udp, tcp
         Assignee: iesg@ietf.org
         Contact: chair@ietf.org
         Description: Transport of TRILL IS-IS control PDUs.
         Reference: [this document]
         Port Number: (TBD1)

         Service Name: TRILL-data
         Transport Protocol: udp, tcp
         Assignee: iesg@ietf.org
         Contact: chair@ietf.org
         Description: Transport of TRILL Data packets.
         Reference: [this document]
         Port Number: (TBD2)



11.2 Multicast Address Assignments

   IANA is requested to assign one IPv4 and one IPv6 multicast address,
   as shown below, which correspond to both the All-RBridges and All-IS-
   IS-RBridges multicast MAC addresses that have been assigned for
   TRILL. Because the low level hardware MAC address dispatch
   considerations for TRILL over Ethernet do not apply to TRILL over IP
   transport, one IP multicast address for each version of IP is
   sufficient.

   (Value recommended to IANA in square brackets)

      Name             IPv4                  IPv6
   ------------     ------------------   --------------------------
   All-RBridges       TBD3                 TBD4[FF0X::BAC1]



Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 40]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   The hex digit "X" in the IPv6 variable scope address indicates the
   scope and defaults to 8. The IPv6 All-RBridges IP address may be used
   with other values of X.



11.3 Encapsulation Method Support Indication

   The existing "RBridge Channel Protocols" registry is re-named and a
   new sub-registry under that registry added as follows:

   The TRILL Parameters registry for "RBridge Channel Protocols" is
   renamed the "RBridge Channel Protocols and Link Technology Specific
   Flags" registry. [this document] is added as a second reference for
   this registry. The first part of the table is changed to the
   following:

         Range      Registration        Note
      -----------   ----------------   ----------------------------
      0x002-0x0FF   Standards Action
      0x100-0xFCF   RFC Required       allocation of a single value
      0x100-0xFCF   IESG Approval      allocation of multiple values
      0xFD0 0xFF7   see Note           link technology dependent,
                                          see subregistry

   In the existing table of RBridge Channel Protocols, the following
   line is changed to two lines as shown:

      OLD
        0x007-0xFF7   Unassigned
      NEW
        0x007-0xFCF   Unassigned
        0xFD0-0xFF7   (link technology dependent, see subregistry)

   A new indented subregistry under the re-named "RBridge Channel
   Protocols and Link Technology Specific Flags" registry is added as
   follows:

      Name: TRILL over IP Transport Link Flags
      Registration Procedure: Expert Review
      Reference: [this document]

          Flag      Meaning                        Reference
      -----------  ------------------------------  ---------
            0xFD0  Native encapsulation supported  [this document]
            0xFD1  VXLAN encapsulation supported   [this document]
            oxFD2  TCP encapsulation supported     [this document]
      0xFD3-0xFF7  Unassigned




Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 41]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Normative References

   [IS-IS] - "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
         information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the
         Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
         (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 2002".

   [RFC0020] - Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80,
         RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc20>.

   [RFC0768] - Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI
         10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC0793] - Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
         793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC1122] - Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
         Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122,
         October 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [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>.

   [RFC2474] - Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
         "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in
         the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, DOI 10.17487/RFC2474,
         December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2710] - Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast
         Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, DOI
         10.17487/RFC2710, October 1999, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc2710>.

   [RFC2914] - Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
         2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc2914>.

   [RFC3168] - Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
         of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI
         10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc3168>.

   [RFC3376] - Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
         Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3",
         RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc3376>.


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 42]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


   [RFC4301] - Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
         Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, December
         2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC4303] - Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
         4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc4303>.  <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

   [RFC5310] - Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
         and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC
         5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 2009, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

   [RFC5869] - Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-
         Expand Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, DOI
         10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc5869>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7175] - Manral, V., Eastlake 3rd, D., Ward, D., and A. Banerjee,
         "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
         Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support", RFC 7175,
         DOI 10.17487/RFC7175, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc7175>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7178] - Eastlake 3rd, D., Manral, V., Li, Y., Aldrin, S., and D.
         Ward, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
         RBridge Channel Support", RFC 7178, DOI 10.17487/RFC7178, May
         2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7178>.

   [RFC7348] - Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
         L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
         eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
         Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks",
         RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, <http://www.rfc-


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 43]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


         editor.org/info/rfc7348>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8174] - Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
         2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May
         2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8221] - Wouters, P., Migault, D., Mattsson, J., Nir, Y., and T.
         Kivinen, "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements
         and Usage Guidance for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
         Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 8221, DOI 10.17487/RFC8221,
         October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8221>.

   [RFC8249] - Zhang, M., Zhang, X., Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., and
         S. Chatterjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
         (TRILL): MTU Negotiation", RFC 8249, DOI 10.17487/RFC8249,
         September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8249>.

   [LEphb] - R. Bless, "A Lower Effort Per-Hop Behavior )LE PHB)",
         draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb, work in progress.



Informative References

   [RFC4821] - Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
         Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.

   [RFC6234] - Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash
         Algorithms (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234, DOI
         10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC6361] - Carlson, J. and D. Eastlake 3rd, "PPP Transparent
         Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol Control
         Protocol", RFC 6361, DOI 10.17487/RFC6361, August 2011,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6361>.

   [RFC6864] - Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
         RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013, <http://www.rfc-


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 44]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


         editor.org/info/rfc6864>.

   [RFC6936] - Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
         for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", RFC
         6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc6936>.

   [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, DOI
         10.17487/RFC7172, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc7172>.

   [RFC7173] - Yong, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Aldrin, S., and J. Hudson,
         "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transport
         Using Pseudowires", RFC 7173, DOI 10.17487/RFC7173, May 2014,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7173>.

   [RFC7296] - Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
         Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
         STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 2014,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.

   [RFC7323] - Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
         Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance", RFC
         7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014, <https://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc7323>.

   [RFC7657] - Black, D., Ed., and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
         (Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657, DOI
         10.17487/RFC7657, November 2015, <https://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc7657>.

   [RFC8085] - Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
         Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, March
         2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8086] - Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
         in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086, March
         2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>.

   [IntareaTunnels] - J. Touch, M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels int he Internet
         Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels, work in progress.

   [TRILLECN] - Eastlake, D., B. Briscoe, "TRILL: ECN (Explicit
         Congestion Notification) Support", draft-ietf-trill-ecn-
         support, work in progress.

   [SGKPuses] - D. Eastlake, D. Zhang, "Simple Group Keying Protocol
         TRILL Use Profiles", draft-ietf-trill-link-gk-profiles, work in


Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 45]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


         progress.

   [PortRegistry] - https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-
         numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml
















































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 46]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Appendix A: IP Security Choice

   This informational appendix discusses the choice of mandatory to
   implement IP security protocol for TRILL over IP transport ports.
   Other security protocols can be used by agreeing TRILL over IP
   transport ports, but one protocol was selected as mandatory to
   implement for interoperability.

   The TRILL WG considerd both DTLS and IPsec as the mandatory to
   implement IP security protocol. Perhaps the most extensive discussion
   occured at the TRILL WG meeting at IETF meeting 91. The WG decided to
   go with IPsec due to better hardware support which was considered an
   important factor for being able to operate at or near line speed.
   Tunnel mode was chosen as there appeared to be better support for it
   in offboard hardware devices.





































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 47]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Acknowledgements

   The following people have provided useful feedback on the contents of
   this document: Sam Hartman, Adrian Farrel, Radia Perlman, Ines
   Robles, Mohammed Umair, Magnus Westerlund, and Lucy Yong.

   Some of the material in this document is derived from [RFC8085] and
   [RFC8086].

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









































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 48]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Authors' Addresses

      Margaret Cullen
      Painless Security
      14 Summer Street, Suite 202
      Malden, MA 02148
      USA

      Phone: +1-781-605-3459
      Email: margaret@painless-security.com
      URI:   http://www.painless-security.com


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

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


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

      EMail: zhangmingui@huawei.com


      Dacheng Zhang
      Huawei Technologies

      Email: dacheng.zhang@huawei.com

















Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 49]


INTERNET-DRAFT                                            TRILL over UDP


Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   Copyright (c) 2018 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.






































Margaret Cullen, et al                                         [Page 50]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/