Internet DRAFT - draft-mme-trill-fcoe

draft-mme-trill-fcoe



Network Working Group                                       David Melman
Internet Draft                                               Tal Mizrahi
Intended status: Informational                                   Marvell
Expires: May 2013                                        Donald Eastlake
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        November 7, 2012

                              FCoE over TRILL
                        draft-mme-trill-fcoe-05.txt


Abstract

   Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) and TRILL are two emerging
   standards in the data center environment. While these two protocols
   are seemingly unrelated, they have a very similar behavior in the
   forwarding plane, as both perform hop-by-hop forwarding over
   Ethernet, modifying the packet's MAC addresses at each hop. This
   document describes an architecture for the integrated deployment of
   these two protocols.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.



Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................. 2
   2. Abbreviations ................................................ 3
   3. FCoE over TRILL .............................................. 4
      3.1. FCoE over a TRILL Cloud ................................. 4
      3.2. FCoE over RBridge ....................................... 6
         3.2.1. FCRB ............................................... 6
         3.2.2. Topology ........................................... 8
         3.2.3. The FCRB Flow ..................................... 10
            3.2.3.1. Example - ENode to ENode ..................... 10
               3.2.3.1.1. Forwarding from A to C - Dense Mode ..... 10
               3.2.3.1.2. Forwarding from A to C - Sparse Mode .... 11
            3.2.3.2. Example - ENode to Native FC Node ............ 12
            3.2.3.3. Example - ENode to ENode with non-FCRB EoR ... 12
            3.2.3.4. Example - FCoE Control Traffic through an FCRB 13
   4. Security Considerations ..................................... 14
   5. IANA Considerations ......................................... 14
   6. Acknowledgments ............................................. 14
   7. References .................................................. 15
      7.1. Normative References ................................... 15
      7.2. Informative References ................................. 15


1. Introduction

   Data center networks are rapidly evolving towards a consolidated
   approach, where Ethernet is used as the common infrastructure for all
   types of traffic. Storage traffic was traditionally dominated by the
   Fibre Channel (FC) protocol suite. At the intersection between these
   two technologies a new technology was born, Fibre Channel over
   Ethernet (FCoE), where native Fibre Channel (FC) packets are
   encapsulated with an FCoE encapsulation over an Ethernet header. FCoE
   is specified in [FC-BB-5] (A future version of FCoE is under
   development and is expected to be specified in a document to be
   referred to as FC-BB-6; however, this is a work in progress and
   beyond the scope of this document.)


Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


   Traffic between two FCoE end nodes (ENodes) is forwarded through one
   or more FCoE Forwarders (FCF). An FCF takes a forwarding decision
   based on the Fibre Channel destination ID (D_ID), and enforces
   security policies between ENodes, also known as zoning. Once an FCF
   takes a forwarding decision, it modifies the source and destination
   MAC addresses of the packet, to reflect the path to the next hop FCF
   or ENode. An FCoE virtual link is an Ethernet link between an ENode
   and an FCF, or between two FCFs. An FCoE virtual link may traverse
   one or more Layer 2 bridges. FCFs use a routing protocol called
   Fabric Shortest Path First (FSPF) to find the optimal path to each
   destination. An FCF typically has one or more native Fibre Channel
   interfaces, allowing it to communicate with native Fibre Channel
   devices, e.g., storage arrays.

   TRILL [RFCTRILL] is a protocol for transparent least cost routing,
   where RBridges forward traffic to their destination based on a least
   cost route, using a TRILL encapsulation header. RBridges route TRILL-
   encapsulated packets based on the Egress RBridge Nickname in the
   TRILL header. An RBridge routes a TRILL-encapsulated packet after
   modifying its MAC addresses to reflect the path to the next-hop
   RBridge, and decrementing a Hop Count field.

   TRILL and FCoE bear a strong resemblance in their forwarding planes.
   Both protocols take a routing decision based on protocol addresses
   above Layer 2, and modify the Ethernet MAC addresses on a per-hop
   basis. Each of the protocols uses its own routing protocol rather
   than using any type of bridging protocol such as spanning tree
   protocol [802.1Q] or the Shortest Path Bridging protocol [802.1aq].

   FCoE and TRILL are both targeted at the data center environment, and
   their concurrent deployment is self-evident. This document describes
   an architecture for the integrated deployment of these two protocols.

2. Abbreviations

   DCB     Data Center Bridging

   ENode   FCoE Node such as server or storage array

   EoR     End of Row

   FC      Fibre Channel

   FCF     Fibre Channel Forwarder

   FCoE    Fibre Channel over Ethernet



Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


   FCRB    Fibre Channel forwarder over RBridge

   FIP     FCoE Initialization Protocol

   FSPF    Fabric Shortest Path First

   LAN     Local Area Network

   RBridge Routing Bridge

   SAN     Storage Area Network

   ToR     Top of Rack

   TRILL   Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links

   WAN     Wide Area Network

3. FCoE over TRILL

3.1. FCoE over a TRILL Cloud

   The simplest approach for running FCoE traffic over a TRILL network
   is presented in Figure 1. The figure illustrates a TRILL-enabled
   network, where FCoE traffic is transparently forwarded over the TRILL
   cloud. The figure illustrates two ENodes, a Server and an FCoE
   Storage Array, an FCF, and a native Fibre Channel SAN connected to
   the FCF.

   FCoE traffic between the two ENodes is sent from the first ENode over
   the TRILL cloud to the FCF, and then back through the TRILL cloud to
   the second ENode.
















Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


            +---+
            |   |_________
            |   |         \  ___   _
            +---+          \/   \_/ \__                  _   __
         FCoE Storage     _/           \                / \_/  \_
            Array        /    TRILL    /       +---+    \_       \
          (ENode A)      \_   Cloud   /________|   |____/  SAN  _/
                          /           \        |   |    \__   _/
                          \__/\_   ___/        +---+       \_/
            +---+         /     \_/             FCF
            |   |________/
            |   |
            +---+
            Server
          (ENode B)
                  Figure 1 The "Separate Cloud" Approach

   The configuration in Figure 1 separates the TRILL cloud(s) and the
   FCoE cloud(s). The TRILL cloud routes FCoE traffic as standard
   Ethernet traffic, and appears to the ENodes and FCF as an Ethernet
   LAN. FCoE traffic routed over the TRILL cloud includes FCoE data
   frames, as well as FCoE control traffic, including FCoE
   Initialization Protocol (FIP) frames. To eliminate frame loss due to
   queue overflow, the switches in any TRILL Cloud used with FCoE would
   likely implement and use the relevant DCB protocols [TRILLDCB].

   The main drawback of the Separate Cloud approach is that RBridges and
   FCFs are separate nodes in the network, resulting in more cabling and
   boxes, and communication between ENodes usually requires two TRILL
   cloud traversals with twice as many hops. As mentioned above, data
   center networking is converging towards a consolidated and cost
   effective approach, where the same infrastructure and equipment is
   used for both data and storage traffic, and where high efficiency and
   minimal number of hops are important factors when designing the
   network topology.

   The Separate Cloud approach is presented as a background and
   motivation. The next section introduces an alternative approach with
   a higher level of integration.








Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


3.2. FCoE over RBridge

3.2.1. FCRB

   Rather than the Separate Cloud approach discussed in the previous
   subsection, an alternate approach is presented, where each switch
   incorporates both an FCF entity and an RBridge entity. This
   consolidated entity is referred to as FCoE-forwarder-over-RBridge
   (FCRB).

   Figure 2 illustrates an FCRB, and its main building blocks. An FCRB
   can be functionally viewed as two independent entities:

   o An FCoE Forwarder (FCF) entity.

   o An RBridge entity.

   The FCF entity is connected to one of the ports of the RBridge, and
   appears to the RBridge as a native Ethernet host. A detailed
   description of the interaction between the layers is presented in
   Section 3.2.3.

   Note: the term "FCF" is used in this document slightly differently
   than defined in [FC-BB-5], to emphasize the concept that an FCRB is
   logically similar to an RBridge cascaded to an FCF. In the [FC-BB-5]
   terminology, an FCRB would be referred to as an FCF, and the "FCF"
   building block in Figure 2 would be referred to as a FC switching
   element.




















Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


                          +-------------------+
                          |FCRB               |
                          |   +-----------+   |    Native FC
                          |   |    FCF    |------  Interface
                          |   +-----+-----+   |
                          |         |         |
                          |   +-----+-----+   |
                          |   |  RBridge  |   |
                          |   +-+-+---+-+-+   |
                          |     | |   | |     |
                          +-----|-|---|-|-----+
                 FCoE/          / |   | |
      +---+    Ethernet        /  /   | | FCoE / Ethernet
      |   |___________________/  /    | | over TRILL      ___   _
      |   |                     /     | |                /   \_/ \__
      +---+                    /      | \_____________ _/           \
   FCoE Storage               /       \_______________/    TRILL    /
      Array                  /                        \_   Cloud   /
    (ENode A)               /                          /           \
                           /                           \__/\_   ___/
      +---+               /                                  \_/
      |   |______________/
      |   |
      +---+
      Server
    (ENode B)
                    Figure 2 FCRB Entity in the Network

   The FCRB entity maintains layer independence between the TRILL and
   FCoE protocols, while enabling both protocols on the same network.

   It is noted that FCoE traffic is always forwarded through an FCF, and
   cannot be forwarded directly between two ENodes. Thus, FCoE traffic
   between ENodes A and B in the topology in Figure 1 is forwarded
   through the path

   ENode A-->TRILL cloud-->FCF-->TRILL cloud-->ENode B

   As opposed to the topology in Figure 1, the FCF in Figure 2 is
   adjacent to ENodes A and B. In Figure 2 the FCRB is connected to
   ENodes A and B, and functions as the edge RBridge that connects these
   two nodes to the TRILL cloud, as well as the FCF that forwards



Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


   traffic between these two nodes. Thus, traffic between A and B in the
   topology in Figure 2 is forwarded through the path

   ENode A-->FCRB-->ENode B

   Hence, the usage of FCRB entities allows TRILL and FCoE to use common
   infrastructure and equipment, as opposed to the Separate Cloud
   topology presented in Figure 1.

3.2.2. Topology

   The network configuration illustrated in Figure 3 shows a typical
   topology of a data center network. Servers are hierarchically
   connected through Top-of-Rack (ToR) switches, also known as access
   switches, and each set of racks is aggregated through an End-of-Row
   (EoR) switch. The EoR switches are aggregated to the Core switches,
   which may be connected to other clouds, such as an external WAN or a
   native FC SAN.






























Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


                        _   __               _   __
                       / \_/  \_            / \_/  \_
                       \_       \           \_       \ ....
                       /  SAN  _/           /  WAN  _/
                       \__   _/             \__   _/
                          \_/                  \_/
                           |                    |
                           |                    |
                           |                    |
                        +------+            +------+
       Core             |      |            |      |
       FCoE over        |      |            |      |
       RBridge          |      |            |      |
       (FCRB)           +------+            +------+
                           |    \___    ___/     |
                           |        \  /         |
                           |         \/          |
       EoR              +----+_______/\_______+----+
       FCoE over        |    |                |    |
       RBridge          |    |                |    |
       (FCRB)           +----+                +----+
                        /    \                /    \
                       /      \              /      \
       ToR         +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+
       FCoE over   |   |      |   |      |   |      |   |
       RBridge     |   |      |   |      |   |      |   |
       (FCRB)      +---+      +---+      +---+      +---+
                    / \        / \        / \        / \
                   /   \      /   \      /   \      /   \
                 +-+   +-+  +-+   +-+  +-+   +-+  +-+   +-+
       Servers/  | |   | |  | |   | |  | |   | |  | |   | |
       ENodes    +-+   +-+  +-+   +-+  +-+   +-+  +-+   +-+
                  A     B    C     D    E     F    G     H

                    Figure 3 FCoE over RBridge Topology

   Note that in the example in Figure 3 all the ToR, EoR and core
   switches are FCRB entities, but it is also possible for some of the
   network nodes to be pure RBridges, creating a topology where FCRBs
   are interconnected through TRILL clouds.




Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


3.2.3. The FCRB Flow

3.2.3.1. Example - ENode to ENode

   FCoE traffic sent between two ENodes, A and B in Figure 3, is
   transmitted through the ToR FCRB, since A and B are connected to the
   same ToR. Traffic between A and C must be forwarded through the EoR
   FCRB.

   The FCoE jargon distinguishes between two deployment modes:

   o Sparse mode: an FCoE packet sent between two FCFs may be forwarded
      over several hops of a Layer 2 network, allowing the underlying
      Layer 2 network to determine the path between the two FCFs.

   o Dense mode: each node along the path between two FCFs is also an
      FCF, and the network is configured such that the forwarding
      decision at each hop is taken at the FCF layer, allowing the path
      between the two FCFs to be based on the FSPF routing protocol.

   Figure 4 illustrates the traffic between ENodes A and C that are not
   connected to the same ToR. The following two subsections describe the
   forwarding procedure in the Dense mode and in the Sparse mode,
   respectively.

+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
| FCoE   |.....|  FCF   |.....|  FCF   |.....|  FCF   |.....| FCoE   |
| ENode  |     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     | ENode  |
|        |     |RBridge |.....|RBridge |.....|RBridge |     |        |
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
  Server          ToR 1          EoR            ToR 2      FCoE Storage
  ENode A         FCRB           FCRB           FCRB          Array
                                                             ENode C
               Figure 4 Traffic between two ENodes - Example

3.2.3.1.1. Forwarding from A to C - Dense Mode

   o FCoE traffic from A is sent to the ToR over the Ethernet
      interface. The destination MAC address is the address of the FCF
      entity at the ToR.

   o ToR 1:



Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


         o The packet is forwarded to the FCF entity at the ToR. Thus,
           forwarding between A and the FCF at the ToR is analogous to
           forwarding between two Ethernet hosts.

         o The FCF entity at the ToR takes a forwarding decision based
           on the FC addresses. This decision is based on the FSPF
           routing protocol at the FCF layer, forwarding the packet to
           the FCF entity in the EoR.

         o The FCF then updates the destination MAC address of the
           packet to the address of the EoR FCF.

         o The packet is forwarded to the RBridge entity, where it is
           encapsulated in a TRILL header, and sent to the RBridge at
           the EoR over a single hop of the TRILL network.

   o The RBridge entity in the EoR FCRB, acting as the egress RBridge,
      decapsulates the TRILL header and forwards the FCoE packet to the
      FCF entity. From this point the forwarding process is similar to
      the one described above for the ToR.

   o A similar forwarding process takes place at the next hop ToR FCRB,
      where the FCRB finally forwards the FCoE packet to the target
      ENode C.

3.2.3.1.2. Forwarding from A to C - Sparse Mode

   o Traffic is forwarded to ToR 1, as described in Section 3.2.3.1.1.

   o The FCF in ToR 1, based on an FSPF forwarding decision, forwards
      the packet to the FCF in ToR 2. The destination MAC address of the
      FCoE packet is updated, reflecting the FCF in ToR 2. The RBridge
      entity in ToR 2 adds a TRILL encapsulation, with an egress RBridge
      nickname representing ToR 2.

   o The packet reaches the EoR. The RBridge entity in the EoR routes
      the packet to the RBridge entity in ToR 2.

   o The packet reaches ToR 2, and from this point on the process is
      identical to the one described in Section 3.2.3.1.1.








Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


3.2.3.2. Example - ENode to Native FC Node

+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +---------+     +--------+
|  FCoE  |.....|  FCF   |.....|  FCF   |.....|   FCF   |.....|   FC   |
|  ENode |     +--------+     +--------+     +----+----+     |protocol|
|        |     |RBridge |.....|RBridge |.....| RB |    |     | stack  |
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +----+ FC |     |        |
|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Eth |    |<===>|        |
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +----+----+     +--------+
  Server          ToR            EoR            Core          Native FC
  ENode           FCRB           FCRB           FCRB       Storage Array

      Figure 5 Example Traffic between ENode & Native FC Storage Array

   Figure 5 illustrates a second example, where traffic is sent between
   an ENode and an FC Storage Array, following the network topology in
   Figure 3.

   o FCoE traffic from the ENode is sent to the ToR over the Ethernet
      interface. The forwarding process through the ToR FCRB and through
      the EoR is similar to the corresponding steps in Section 3.2.3.1.

   o When the packet reaches the core FCRB, the egress RBridge entity
      decapsulates the TRILL header and forwards the FCoE packet to the
      FCF entity. The packet is then forwarded as a native FC packet
      through the FC interface to the native FC node.

3.2.3.3. Example - ENode to ENode with non-FCRB EoR

   The example illustrated in Figure 6 is similar to the one shown in
   Figure 4, except that the EoR is an RBridge rather than an FCRB.
















Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


+--------+     +--------+                    +--------+     +--------+
| FCoE   |.....|  FCF   |....................|  FCF   |.....| FCoE   |
| ENode  |     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     | ENode  |
|        |     |RBridge |.....|RBridge |.....|RBridge |     |        |
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|<===>|Ethernet|
+--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+     +--------+
  Server          ToR 1          EoR            ToR 2      FCoE Storage
  ENode A         FCRB           FCRB           FCRB          Array
                                                             ENode C
               Figure 6 Traffic between two ENodes - Example

   An FCoE packet sent from A to C is forwarded as follows:

   o The packet is sent to the FCF in ToR 1, as in the previous
      example.

   o The FCF in ToR 1 takes a forwarding decision based on the FC
      addresses, and forwards the packet to the next hop FCF, which
      resides in ToR 2. This forwarding decision is taken at the FCF
      layer, and is based on the FSPF routing protocol.

   o The packet is then forwarded to the RBridge entity in ToR 1, where
      it is encapsulated in a TRILL encapsulation, and forwarded to the
      RBridge at ToR 2. The packet is routed over the TRILL cloud
      through the RBridge at the EoR. The path through the TRILL cloud
      is determined by TRILL's IS-IS routing protocol.

   o Once the packet reaches ToR 2, it is forwarded in a similar manner
      to the description in Section 3.2.3.1.

   This example demonstrates that it is possible to have a hybrid
   network, where some of the nodes are FCRBs, and some of the nodes are
   RBridges. The forwarding procedure in this example is somewhat
   similar to the sparse-mode forwarding described in Section 3.2.3.1.2.

3.2.3.4. Example - FCoE Control Traffic through an FCRB

   The previous subsections focused on the data plane, i.e., storage
   data exchanges transported over an FCoE encapsulation. FCoE also
   requires control and management traffic that is used for initializing
   sessions (FIP), distributing routing information (FSPF), and fabric
   administration and management.




Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


   The FCoE Initialization Protocol (FIP) uses Ethernet frames with a
   dedicated Ethertype, allowing the FCF to distinguish it from other
   traffic. FIP uses both unicast and multicast traffic. The following
   example describes the forwarding scheme of a multicast FIP packet
   sent through the network depicted in Figure 4:

   o ENode A generates a multicast frame to a multicast MAC address
      representing all the FCFs (All-FCF-MAC).

   o The packet is forwarded to the ToR FCRB node. The RBridge entity
      forwards a copy of the packet to its FCF entity, and also sends
      the packet through the TRILL cloud as a multicast TRILL
      encapsulated packet.

   o Each of the FCRBs in turn receives the packet, forwards a copy to
      its FCF entity, as well as forwarding the packet through the TRILL
      network, allowing all the FCFs to receive the packet.

   While FIP packets have a dedicated Ethertype and frame format, other
   types of FCoE control and management frames use the same FCoE
   encapsulation as FCoE data traffic. Thus, the forwarding scheme for
   such control traffic is similar to the examples described in the
   previous subsections, with the exception that these frames can be
   sent between ENodes, between FCFs, or between ENodes and FCFs.

4. Security Considerations

   For general TRILL Security Considerations see [RFCTRILL].

   For general FCoE Security Consideration see Annex D of [FC-BB-5].

   There are no additional security implications imposed by this
   document.

5. IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA actions required by this document.

   RFC Editor: please delete this section before publication.

6. Acknowledgments

   The authors gratefully acknowledge Ayandeh Siamack and David Black
   for their helpful comments. The authors also thank the T11 committee
   for reviewing the document, and in particular Pat Thaler and Joe
   White for their useful inputs.



Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


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

7. References

7.1. Normative References

   [RFCTRILL]    Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S.,
                 Ghanwani, A., "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base
                 Protocol Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011.

   [FC-BB-5]     ANSI INCITS 462: Information Technology - Fibre
                 Channel - Backbone - 5 (FC-BB-5).

7.2. Informative References

   [802.1Q]      "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
                 networks - Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks", IEEE
                 Std 802.1Q-2011, May 2011.

   [802.1aq]     "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area
                 networks - Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and
                 Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks - Shortest Path
                 Bridging", IEEE Std 802.1aq-2012, June 2012.

   [TRILLDCB]    Eastlake, D., Wadekar, M., Ghanwani, A., Agarwal, P.,
                 Mizrahi, T., "TRILL: Support of IEEE 802.1Qbb,
                 802.1Qaz, and Congestion Notification", draft-
                 eastlake-trill-rbridge-dcb, work in progress, 2012.



Authors' Addresses

   David Melman
   Marvell
   6 Hamada St.
   Yokneam, 20692 Israel

   Email: davidme@marvell.com










Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             FCoE over TRILL               November 2012


   Tal Mizrahi
   Marvell
   6 Hamada St.
   Yokneam, 20692 Israel

   Email: talmi@marvell.com


   Donald Eastlake 3rd
   Huawei USA R&D
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA 01757 USA

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

































Melman, et al.           Expires May 7, 2013                 [Page 16]