Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping
draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping
TRILL Working Group Radia Perlman
INTERNET-DRAFT Intel Labs
Intended status: Proposed Standard Anil Rijhsinghani
HP Networking
Donald Eastlake
Huawei
Ayan Banerjee
Insieme
Dinesh Dutt
Cumulus
Expires July 3, 2014 January 4, 2014
TRILL: Campus Label and Priority Regions
<draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-10.txt>
Abstract
Within a TRILL campus, the data label (VLAN or Fine Grained Label)
and priority of TRILL encapsulated frames is preserved. However, in
some cases it may be desired that data label and/or priority be
mapped at the boundary between regions of such a campus. This
document describes an optional TRILL switch feature to provide this
function.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
to the TRILL working group mailing list.
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.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................3
1.1 TRILL Campus Regions...................................4
1.2 Terminology............................................5
2. Internal and Cut Set Configuration and Mappings.........6
2.1 Multiple Crossings.....................................7
2.2 Native Frame Considerations............................8
2.3 More than Two Regions..................................8
2.4 Mapping Implementation.................................9
3. End Node Address Learning Between Regions..............11
4. Cut Set Attraction of Labels and Multicast.............12
5. Advertisement of Label and Priority Mappings...........13
6. IANA Considerations....................................13
7. Security Considerations................................13
8. Normative References...................................14
9. Informative References.................................14
Appendix Z: Change Summary................................15
Authors' Addresses........................................18
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
1. Introduction
The IETF TRILL protocol provides transparent forwarding, with a
number of additional features, by use of link state routing and
encapsulation with a hop count as specified in [RFC6325] [RFC6327bis]
[RFCclear] and [RFCfgl].
Devices implementing the TRILL protocol are called TRILL switches or
RBridges (Routing Bridges). A TRILL campus is an area of TRILL
switches and possibly bridges bounded by and interconnecting end
stations and Layer 3 routers, analogous to a customer bridge LAN
(which is an area of bridges interconnecting end stations, Layer 3
routers, and TRILL switches). In a TRILL campus, native frames (as
defined in [RFC6325]), when they arrive at their first or ingress
RBridge, are encapsulated, routed in encapsulated form via zero or
more transit TRILL switches, and finally decapsulated and delivered
by their egress TRILL switch or switches.
TRILL switch ports have some features specified in IEEE 802.1Q as
described in [RFC6325], with TRILL being implemented above those
ports. Such ports provide for the association of incoming frames with
a particular frame priority and customer VLAN (see Appendix D of
[RFC6325]) or, in TRILL, 24-bit Fine Grained Label [RFCfgl].
Bridge ports can map frame priorities, a process called "priority
regeneration" in IEEE 802.1. In addition, some bridge ports/products
provide a feature to map the customer VLAN of incoming VLAN tagged
frames, a process of the type called "VLAN ID translation" in IEEE
802.1.
Using such port features, it is possible to configure RBridge ports
to map the priority and/or VLAN of native frames being received for
ingress or to map the priority and/or VLAN of the frame inside a
TRILL Data packet after it has been decapsulated for egress through
an output port. But priority and/or VLAN mapping of the outer
priority and VLAN (Outer.VLAN) of a TRILL Data packet on Ethernet
links has no effect on the Data Label (Inner.VLAN or Inner.FGL
[RFCfgl]) in the encapsulated frame. In TRILL, the Data Label gives
the real label and priority of the data and these are unaffected by
any Ethernet port features that change only the Outer.VLAN priority
or VLAN ID.
(Note: VLAN mapping is also referred to in [RFC6325]. However, that
reference concerns Outer.VLAN mapping within an Ethernet link between
neighbor TRILL switches, a condition that may require the TRILL
switches connected to such a link to take precautions as described in
Section 4.4.5 of [RFC6325].)
The default for TRILL is to provide connectivity between all end
station and Layer 3 router ports in the same Data Lable. However,
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
there are cases where it may be desirable to have the same Data Label
in different regions of a TRILL campus mean different things. In that
case, it would be necessary for end stations or Layer 3 routers in
that label not to be connected if they are in different regions. It
might also be desirable to have connectivity between end stations in
different regions that are in different Data Labels if those
different labels in their different regions actually indicate
membership in the same Layer 2 community. Similar circumstances can
arise for priority. This document describes how to achieve this
though an optional TRILL switch feature.
An example of where this feature might be useful would be the merger
of two organizations which previously had separate networks. They
might desire to combine these networks into a new unified network
under unified control; however, for some period of time, there might
be disagreements between the previously separate networks as to Data
Label and/or priority assignments requiring mapping at any points of
interconnection. If these were Layer 2 networks, and particularly if
they were TRILL campuses, combination into a single unified TRILL
campus would be natural; but, this would probably require mapping
facilities, such as those specified herein, between the regions of
the new unified campus that had previously been separate networks.
Considerations related to service or S-VLANs are beyond the scope of
this document but are an obvious extension.
1.1 TRILL Campus Regions
The set of TRILL switches interconnecting different regions of a
TRILL campus are known as the "cut set", meaning that if that set of
switches is removed, the regions are disconnected from each other.
TRILL switches in the cut set can be optionally configured to
translate some set of Data Labels in one region to different Data
Labels when forwarding from that region to another region and/or to
block TRILL data packets with certain labels. They can be similarly
configured for priority.
This feature is accomplished solely by configuring TRILL switches in
the cut set. No other TRILL switches need even be aware that the
feature is in use. In particular, use of this feature has no effect
on the path (sequence of RBridges) followed by TRILL Data packets
(except that for multi-destination packets, tree pruning may be
affected). The TRILL features of optimum routing and of optional
multi-pathing of both unicast and multi-destination frames are
unaffected.
This document explains how to implement this feature in TRILL
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
switches (RBridges). We will usually assume there are two regions,
"East" and "West", and RBridges RB1, RB2, and RB3 that interconnect
the two regions and constitute the cut set as shown in Figure 1.
Extension to more than two regions is straightforward and will also
be briefly described.
. . . +-----+ . . .
. . . + - - - - + RB1 + - - - - + . . .
. W . +-----+ . . E .
. e . . . a .
. s . +-----+ . s . .
. t . .+ - - - - -+ RB2 + - - - - - - +. t .
. . . -+-+---+ . . .
. R . . / | _ _ _ _ _ _+. R . .
e . + - - - | / . e . .
. g . . +-+---+ . g . .
. i . .+ - - - -+ RB3 + - - - - - - - +. i . .
. o . . +-----+ o . .
. n . . . n . .
Figure 1.
General familiarity with the TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325]
and with Fine Grained Labels [RFCfgl] is assumed in this document.
1.2 Terminology
The same terminology and acronyms are used in this document as in
[RFC6325] and [RFCfgl] with the following additions.
"Cut set" is defined in Section 1.1.
"Data Label" means VLAN or FGL.
"FGL" means Fine Grained Label [RFCfgl].
"Internal RBridges" are TRILL switches other than the "cut set".
"label" means "Data Label" unless the context requires some other
meaning.
RBridge - an alternative name for a TRILL Switch.
TRILL Switch - a device which implements the TRILL protocol.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
2. Internal and Cut Set Configuration and Mappings
Internal RBridges will not be aware that label and priority mapping
is going on and require no configuration. They will behave exactly
as they would without mapping. The only evidence they might have of
label or priority mapping is the existence of an optional
informational sub-TLV that a cut set RBridge, RB1, MAY include in its
LSP, listing the mappings that RB1 is configured to be performing.
Internal RBridges will ignore this information field. It is there for
detection of misconfiguration.
Cut set RBridges are configured as follows:
If label A in region "East" is to be translated into label B in
region "West", each cut set RBridge MUST be configured, for every
port, as to whether that port is in East or West, and configured with
label mappings, such as:
"East/Label A -----> West/Label B"
That mapping means that a TRILL Data frame with an Data Label of A
received by RB1 on a port configured to be in East and forwarded to a
port configured to be in West is forwarded with the Data Label
changed to B. It is possible to configure asymmetric mappings;
however, such asymmetric mappings have negative consequences as
described below. For the above mapping to be symmetrically
configured, it would be necessary to also configure the cut set
RBridge in question so that frames arriving from West in Data Label B
would also be mapped to label A if they are destined for East, that
is
"West/Label B <-----> East/Label A"
Figure 2.
Data Labels A and B may be both VLAN IDs, both FGLs, or one a VLAN ID
and one an FGL.
Mappings of the inner priority of TRILL Data packets are configured
in the same way.
The requirement that every port of a cut set RBridge MUST be
configured as to which region it is in applies even to ports for a
link between cut set RBridges such as the link between RB2 and RB3 in
Figure 1. The TRILL Data packets on that link have a normal Data
Label and priority. In a campus with multiple regions, a label and
priority are, in general, meaningless unless you know the region in
which they occurs. So some specific region must be chosen for such a
link.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
All cut set RBridges between a pair of regions SHOULD be configured
similarly if, as is normally the case, it is desired that the mapping
of a TRILL Data packet going between those regions will be
independent of which cut set RBridge the packet traverses.
The default Data Label and priority mapping is the mapping that
leaves labels and priorities unchanged. If a mapping has been
specified for both the label and priority of a frame, both mappings
are applied.
2.1 Multiple Crossings
Under some circumstances, a TRILL Data packet could pass through cut
set RBridges between a pair of regions more than once and thus have
its Data Label and priority mapped more than one. This is true of
both known unicast and multi-destination packets. For example, in
Figure 3, if the link between RBwest1 and RBwest2 fails, then the
shortest path from RBwest1 to RBwest2 may be through RBcut1, RBeast1,
and RBcut2. In addition, multi-destination packets are sent via a
distribution tree which might constrain such packets going between
RBwest1 and RBwest2 to be routed through RBeast1.
---+
| |
+--+------+ +--------+ |
---+ RBwest1 +------+ RBcut1 +-------+ | +---
+-+---+---+ +--------+ | | |
| | +-+--+--+-+
---+ | | RBeast1 +---
| +-+--+--+-+
+-----+---+ +--------+ | | |
---+ RBwest2 +------+ RBcut2 +-------+ | +---
+--+------+ +--------+ |
| |
---+
Figure 3.
If all of the mappings at RBcut1 and RBcut2 are symmetric then the
label and/or priority of such packets going from west to west via
east might get mapped twice but the second mapping would restore them
to their original value. Symmetric means, for example, that if RB1 is
translating from "label A" to "label B" when forwarding from East to
West, it will translate "label B" to "label A" when forwarding from
West to East (see Figure 2).
However, assume that RBcut1 and RBcut2 are configured with asymmetric
mappings. Then multiple cut set transit may cause problems. For
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
example, if label A in west is mapped to label B in east and label B
in east is mapped to label C in west, then the above scenario could
lead to frames in label A from west to west being unexpectedly mapped
to label C causing connectivity between labels A and C in west and
failure to deliver the frame as intended. Similar considerations
apply to priority mappings. The probability of such situations can
be minimized by providing rich interconnectivity within each region
and increasing the cost of links to cut set RBridges, so that packets
internal to a regions will be routed internally to that region except
in cases of low probability multiple failures. It is generally safest
to configure symmetric mappings.
2.2 Native Frame Considerations
If the processing model described in [RFC6325] is followed, then no
special handling is necessary for the case where a cut set RBridge
receives or transmits a native data frame, that is, where the cut set
RBridge is also an ingress or egress RBridge. In particular, the
processing model used in [RFC6325] provides that an ingressed native
frame is always encapsulated, even if it is to be immediately
decapsulated and delivered out a different port of the same RBridge
in native form. (Of course, implementers are free to handle this in
other ways provided the external behavior is the same.) Thus,
following this processing model, no changes are needed in an
implementation model of Data Label and priority mapping described
entirely in terms of the manipulation of the Data Label and priority
of TRILL data packets.
On the other hand, if there are no internal RBridges in a region, say
region West in Figure 1, then all frames will arrive from that region
at the cut set RBridges as native frames and all native frames sent
into that region will be unencapsulated. Under these limited
circumstances, traditional bridge port VLAN and priority mapping
could work to assist in performing the inter-regional mappings
described in this document.
2.3 More than Two Regions
A TRILL campus may have more than two regions. An RBridge is in the
cut set between any pair of such regions if and only if it has at
least one port in each of the regions. There may be pairs of regions
that, because of other intervening regions, have no cut set RBridges
connected to them both.
Every RBridge that is in any cut set MUST have every port configured
as to which region that port is in. Every RBridge port on a link
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
between two or more cut set RBridges, such as that shown between RB2
and RB3 in Figure 1, SHOULD be configured to be in the same region.
The mappings performed on TRILL Data packets transiting a cut set
RBridge that has ports in three or more regions depend only on the
region of that packet's input and output ports and are unaffected by
what region any other ports of that RBridge might be connected to.
It is RECOMMENDED that not only should any mappings be symmetric at
every cut set RBridge in a campus that implements the label and
priority mapping feature but that all cut set RBridges in the campus
should be configured so as to be transitively symmetric and similar.
That is, the mapping of the label and priority in a packet going from
region A to region Z should be independent of the path that frame
follows in the campus and symmetric with the mapping to which any
packet going from region Z to region A would be subjected.
2.4 Mapping Implementation
If RB1 is configured to believe port X is in "East" and port Y is in
"West", and RB1 is configured such that "East/Label A ---->
West/Label B", then when RB1 forwards data packets from port X to
port Y, if the received packet from port X has Data Label A, then RB1
changes that from label A to label B before it forwards out port Y.
Similarly, if priority mapping has been configured, the inner
priority field is mapped. In the case of FGL, the first priority, the
priority which affects the packets propagation through the campus, is
mapped. The second priority field, which is restored on egress, is
unaffected.
This mapping is performed whether RB1 is the appointed forwarder on
port X for VLAN A and the frame arrives unencapsulated, or whether
the traffic has arrived already in TRILL Data packet form. Likewise,
RB1 performs the same label and priority mapping, depending on input
and output port, whether the packet is to a known unicast address or
is multi-destination.
RBridges may implement campus region label and priority mapping in
any way desired so long as the externally visible behavior matches
this specification. Two example models of processing, forwarding-
oriented and port-oriented, are described below.
In the forwarding-oriented model, label and priority mappings
occur once as part of the inter-port forwarding process within a
TRILL switch and depend on the ordered pair { input-port-region,
output-port-region }.
In the port-oriented model, label and priority mappings occur once
or twice associated with input and/or output port. For example,
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
for Data Labels, each input port of a cut set RBridge could (after
encapsulation in the case of a native frame) map the Data Label to
a value in an RBridge specific generic label space, with the
mapping dependent only on the region to which that input port was
assigned. Then, the output port through which the packet was sent
would map from that generic label space to a specific Data Label
with the mapping depending only on the region to which the output
port was assigned. Either mapping could be the mapping that did
not change the label. A similar model could be used for priority
mapping with similar considerations.
These two processing models are logically interchangeable.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
3. End Node Address Learning Between Regions
TRILL switches by default learn end node MAC addresses and labels
from the observation of ingressed native frames and the decapsulation
of native frames at egress, as described in [RFC6325] and [RFCfgl].
This process requires no modification at internal RBridges to
accommodate Data Label mapping as described herein as the label will
be appropriate for the region where it is observed.
For a cut set RBridge, each port is specified to be in a particular
region. For such an RBridge, the Data Label portion of the addresses
learned at a port providing direct end station service will be that
label in the region to which the cut set RBridge has assigned the
port. Care must be taken within a cut set RBridge when using such
learned information. For example, if a native frame is received in
label X from region Y destined for MAC address Z, then address Z can
be looked up in the address information learned for other regions
only after applying any mapping for label X to that region.
TRILL also allows RBridges to optionally advertise attached end
nodes. This end node advertisement uses the TRILL ESADI (End System
Address Distribution Information) protocol [RFCesadi]. Because TRILL
ESADI packets do not include the label to which they are applicable
anywhere except in their Data Label and ESADI packets are forwarded
just like ordinary multi-destination TRILL Data packets, the label
mapping described above works for ESADI learning. Because of this,
any future ESADI extensions MUST NOT require label fields inside the
ESADI packet payload.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
4. Cut Set Attraction of Labels and Multicast
The above described mechanisms are all that is required for Data
Label and priority mapping of frames sent to known unicast addresses.
However, to correctly handle multi-destination traffic, additional
steps are required. In particular, unless cut-set RBridges take
additional action, multi-destination packets that they need to
forward from one region to another might not reach the cut set
RBridge due to the optional pruning of distribution trees by internal
RBridges.
If RB1 is configured to translate Data Label A in East to label B in
West, then RB1 MUST report, in its LSP, that it is interested in both
label A and label B data, even if RB1 does not actually have a port
for which it is ingressing to or egressing from either either label A
or label B. If it did not do this, a multi-destination frame in
label A in East might be pruned before reaching RB1 and not mapped to
label B and forwarded to West as it should.
If RB1 is configured to translate label A in East to label B in West,
then RB1 MUST take steps to ensure that a multicast packet for group
G in label A will not be filtered inside the East region. To solve
this problem RB1 MUST report that it is connected in label A to an
IPv4 and IPv6 multicast router so it will get all multi-cast traffic
in label A and can forward appropriate multicast frames mapped to
label B. While this increases traffic to cut set RBridges, it does so
to an extent no worse that an RBridge connected to an actual Layer 3
multicast router or routers.
Because all the regions operate as a single TRILL campus with a
unified IS-IS link state database, it is not possible to confine the
above required announcements to a subset of the RBridges in the
campus.
Cut set RBridges and the links connecting them to the rest of the
network should be appropriately engineered for any additional traffic
load these requirements impose.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
5. Advertisement of Label and Priority Mappings
To help detect misconfiguration, a cut set RBridge RB1 MAY advertise
its label and priority mappings in its LSP. To enable this, a 16-bit
unsigned ID is assigned to each of the regions by manual
configuration. All cut set RBridges SHOULD be configured with the
same IDs for the regions but means of accomplishing this are outside
of the scope of this document. So, in our example Figure 1, if
"East" is "1" and "West" is "2", and Data Label A in East is mapped
to Data Label B in West, and vice versa to be symmetric, the LSP
would report a set of mappings, including:
{label: (1:A,2:B), (2:B,1:A)}
Data Labels must include the type such as VLAN-42 or FGL-1234.
Illegal VLAN IDs (VLAN-0 or VLAN-4095 (0xFFF)) should never appear as
a Data Label in an LSP advertising label mappings but if they do, the
mapping where they appear are ignored for consistency checking.
Priority mappings can be similalry advertised.
The actual encoding of this information and the Type or sub-Type
values for any new TLV or sub-TLV data elements are specified in a
separate document
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please delete
this section before publication.
7. Security Considerations
See [RFC6325] for general TRILL Security Considerations and [RFCfgl]
for Fine Grained Label Security Considerations
If cut set RBridges have misconfigured Data Label mappings, labels
may be inadvertently partitioned or inadvertently merged and frames
may be delivered in the wrong label, which could violate security
policies. However, misconfiguration of label or priority mappings
cannot cause loops because mappings of labels and/or priority have no
effect on unicast frame routing, shortest path calculations,
distribution tree construction or selection, or the like.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6325] - Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.
[RFCfgl] - D. Eastlake, M. Zhang, P. Agarwal, R. Perlman, D. Dutt,
"TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): Fine-
Grained Labeling", draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling, in RFC
Editor's queue.
9. Informative References
[RFC6327bis] - Eastlake, D., R. Perlman, A. Ghanwani, H. Yang, V.
Manral, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Adjacency", draft-ietf-
trill-rfc6327bis, work in progress.
[RFCclear] - D. Eastlake, M. Zhang, A. Ghanwani, V. Manral, A.
Banerjee, draft-ietf-trill-clear-correct, in RFC Editor's
queue.
[RFCesadi] - H. Zhai, F. Hu, R. Perlman, D. Eastlake, O. Stokes,
"TRILL: ESADI Protocol", draft-ietf-trill-esadi, work in
progress.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
Appendix Z: Change Summary
RFC Editor Note: Please delete this Appendix Z on publication.
Changes from -00 to -01
1. Because RBridges cannot tell what cloud other RBridges are in,
drop the "optimized" option for advertising multicast listeners
and require the advertisement of multicast router connectivity.
2. Specify that the cloud connectivity must be specified for all cut
set RBridges and that cloud IDs are manually configured and are 16
bit.
3. Expand rules for VLAN ID mapping/handling at a cut set RBridge so
as to drop frames that are for a VLAN ID to which another VLAN ID
is being mapped. (See Section 3.)
4. Add mention of "VLAN ID translation", the 802.1 name for VLAN
mapping.
5. Minor editing changes.
Changes from -01 to -02
1. Remove previous confused text about VLAN mapping (point 3 in
changes from -00 to -01).
2. Add text allowing mapping to zero to indicate frames should be
dropped. Add text and diagram explaining that this can lead to
VLAN partition.
3. Add normative reference to draft-ietf-isis-layer2.
4. Minor editing changes.
Changes from -02 to -03
This was a substantial re-write of the draft but there was no
fundamental conceptual change in the mapping mechanism.
1. Replace "cloud" with "region".
2. Introductory material was re-written to primarily reference
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
RBridge campuses and reduce references to 802.1 bridges.
3. Mapping of priority was added to mapping of VLANs.
4. Two different models are now described for implementation of
mappings, one in the forwarding mechanism as before and one
associated with the RBridge ports.
5. Add the specification of the TRILL GenApp TLV. Switch to using
TRILL GenApp TLV sub-TLVs to advertise VLAN and priority mappings.
Add specification of those sub-TLVs. Remove reference to draft-
ietf-isis-layer2.
6. The IANA considerations section calls for the allocation of a
GenApp TLV code for TRILL and provides for sub-TLVs under that
code where the LSP advertisement of VLAN and priority mappings was
moved. Set up IANA registry for TRILL GenApp sub-TLVs.
7. Numerous minor editing changes.
Changes from -03 to -04
1. Because distribution trees for multi-destination frames may cause
frames to cross region boundaries multiple times even to get
between RBridges within a single regions, remove facilities for
dropping frames at region boundaries.
2. Due to questions about the timing of the approval of the IS-IS
GenApp draft, move VLAN/priority mapping informational
advertisement code points and data structures to a separate draft.
3. Numerous minor editing changes.
Changes from -04 to -05
Increment version and update dates. Update author info. One or two
minor editorial changes.
Changes from -05 to -06
Update draft reference to [RFC6325]. Increment version and update
dates.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
Changes from -06 to -07
Update author information, increment version, and update dates.
Changes from -07 to -08
Minor editorial changes, update author information, increment
version, and update dates.
Changes from -08 to -09
Extend to cover Fine Grained Labeling.
Update author information, increment version, and update dates.
Changes from -09 to -10
Update RFC 6327 reference to draft-ietf-trill-rfc6327bis.
Editorial changes, increment version, and update dates.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
Authors' Addresses
Radia Perlman
Intel Labs
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549 USA
Phone: +1-408-765-8080
Email: Radia@alum.mit.edu
Anil Rijhsinghani
HP Networking
350 Campus Drive
Marlboro, MA 01752-3082 USA
Phone: +1-508-323-1251
Email: anil.rijhsinghani@hp.com
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Tel: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Ayan Banerjee
Insieme Networks
210 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Email: ayabaner@gmail.com
Dinesh G. Dutt
Cumulus Networks
1089 West Evelyn Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
Email: ddutt.ietf@hobbesdutt.com
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL: Label and Priority Regions
Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. The definitive version of
an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
including those that are translated into other languages, should not
be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
that are published by third parties, including those that are
translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of
doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such
Contribution.
R. Perlman, et al. [Page 19]
