Internet DRAFT - draft-hao-trill-irb
draft-hao-trill-irb
TRILL Weiguo Hao
Yizhou Li
Donald Eastlake
Liang Xia
Internet Draft Huawei
Andrew Qu
MediaTec
Muhammad Durrani
Brocade
Ponkarthick S.
IP Infusion
Intended status: Standards Track October 15, 2014
Expires: March 2015
TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway
draft-hao-trill-irb-05.txt
Abstract
Currently TRILL protocol provides optimal pair-wise data frame forwarding for
layer 2 intra-subnet traffic but not for layer 3 inter-subnet traffic. A
centralized gateway solution is typically used for layer 3 inter-subnet traffic
forwarding but has following issues:
1. Sub-optimum forwarding path for inter-subnet traffic.
2. Huge number of gateway interfaces, 16 million in extreme case, need to be
supported on the centralized gateway.
3. Traffic bottleneck at the gateway.
An optional TRILL distributed gateway solution that resolves these centralized
gateway issues is specified in this document.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
Hao & Li Expires December 15, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
be created, except to publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages
other than English.
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 March 15, 2015.
Copyright Notice
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document............................ 3
3. Problem Statement ........................................... 4
4. Layer 3 Traffic Forwarding Model............................. 6
5. Distributed Gateway Solution Overview........................ 6
5.1. Local routing information............................... 7
5.2. Local routing information synchronization............... 8
5.3. Data traffic forwarding process......................... 8
6. Distributed Layer 3 Gateway Process Example.................. 9
6.1. Control plane process.................................. 10
6.2. Data plane process..................................... 11
7. TRILL Protocol Extensions................................... 12
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
7.1. The tenant gateway MAC APPsub-TLV...................... 12
7.2. The tenant Label APPsub-TLV............................ 13
7.3. The IPv4 Prefix APPsub-TLV............................. 14
7.4. The IPv6 Prefix APPsub-TLV............................. 15
8. Security Considerations..................................... 15
9. IANA Considerations ........................................ 16
10. Normative References....................................... 16
11. Informative References..................................... 16
12. Acknowledgments ........................................... 17
1. Introduction
The IETF has standardized the TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol [RFC6325] that provides a solution for least cost transparent routing in
multi-hop networks with arbitrary topologies and link technologies, using [IS-IS]
[RFC7176] link-state routing and a hop count. TRILL switches are sometimes called
RBridges (Routing Bridges).
Currently, TRILL provides optimal unicast forwarding for Layer 2 intra-subnet
traffic but not for Layer 3 inter-subnet traffic. In this document, an optional
TRILL-based distributed Layer 3 gateway solution is specified to provide optimal
unicast forwarding for Layer 3 inter-subnet traffic. With distributed gateway
support an edge RBridge provides both routing based on Layer 2 identity (address
and virtual network (VN)) among end stations (ESs) that belong to same subnet and
routing based on Layer 3 identity among ESs that belong to different subnets of
the same routing domain. An edge RBridge needs to provide routing instances and
Layer 3 gateway interfaces for local connected ESs. The routing instances are for
IP address isolation between tenants. In the TRILL distributed Layer 3 gateway
solution, inter-subnet traffic can be fully dispersed among edge RBridges, so
there is no single bottleneck.
This document is organized as follows: Section 3 describes why a distributed
gateway solution is beneficial. Section 4 gives the Layer 3 traffic forwarding
model. Section 5 provides a distributed gateway solution overview. Section 6 gives
a distributed gateway example. And Section 7 describes the TRILL protocol
extensions needed to support this distributed gateway solution.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
The terms and acronyms in [RFC6325] are used with the following additions:
Data Label: VLAN or FGL [RFC7172].
DCN: Data Center Network.
ES: End Station. VM (Virtual Machine) or physical server, whose address is
either the destination or source of a data frame.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
GW: Gateway.
Gateway interface: Layer 3 virtual interface on gateway aka gateway
interface) terminates layer 2 forwarding and forwards IP traffic to the
destination as per IP forwarding rules. Incoming traffic from a physical port on a
gateway will be distributed to its virtual gateway interface based on Data Label
(VLAN or FGL).
L2: Layer 2.
L3: IP Layer 3.
ND: IPv6's Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861].
RD: Routing Domain.
ToR: Top of Rack.
VN: Virtual Network. In a TRILL campus, each virtual network is identified
by a unique 12-bit VLAN ID or 24-bit Fine Grained Label [RFC7172].
VRF: Virtual Routing and Forwarding. In IP-based computer networks, Virtual
Routing and Forwarding (VRF) is a technology that allows multiple instances of a
routing table to co-exist within the same router at the same time.
3. Problem Statement
------- -------
| GW1 | | GW2 |
------- -------
| |
------- -------
|AGG1 | |AGG2 |
------- -------
| |
-----------------------------------------------------
| -------------|------------------|----------------|
| | | | | | | |
------- ------- ------- -------
|TOR1 | |TOR2 | |TOR3 | |TOR4 |
------- ------- ------- -------
| | | | | | | |
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
|E | |E | |E | |E | |E | |E | |E | |E |
|S1| |S2| |S3| |S4| |S5| |S6| |S7| |S8|
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Figure 1 A typical DC network
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
Figure 1 depicts a Data Center Network (DCN) using TRILL where edge RBridges are
Top of Rack (ToR) switches. Centralized gateway GW1 and GW2 in figure 1 provide
the layer 3 packet forwarding for both north-south traffic and east-west inter-
subnet traffic between ESs.
End stations in one IP subnet expect to send IP traffic for a different subnet to
an IP router. In addition, there is normally a Data Label (VLAN or FGL) associated
with each IP subnet but there is no facility in TRILL to change the Data Label for
traffic between subnets. If two end stations of the same tenant are on two
different subnets and need to communicate with each other, their packets are
typically forwarded all the way to a centralized IP Layer 3 gateway to perform L3
forwarding and, if necessary, change the Data Label. This is generally sub-optimal
because the two end stations may be connected to the same ToR where L3 switching
could have been performed locally. For example, in above Figure 1, assuming ES1
(10.1.1.2 ) and ES2 (20.1.1.2) belong to different subnets of same tenant, the
unicast IP traffic between them has to go through a centralized gateway. It can't
be locally forwarded on TOR1. If an edge RBridge has distributed gateway
capabilities, then it can perform optimum L2 forwarding for intra-subnet traffic
and optimum L3 forwarding for inter-subnet traffic, delivering optimum forwarding
for unicast packets in all important cases.
When Fine Grained Label [RFC7172] is introduced, up to 16 million Layer 2 VN can
be supported in a TRILL campus. To support inter-subnet traffic, up to 16 million
Layer 3 gateway interfaces should be created on a centralized gateway if each VN
corresponds to a subnet. It is a huge burden for the centralized gateway to
support so many interfaces. In addition all inter-subnet traffic will go through
the centralized gateway that may become the traffic bottleneck.
In summary, the centralized gateway has the following issues:
1. Sub-optimum forwarding paths for inter-subnet traffic due to the
requirements to perform IP routing and possibly change Data Labels.
2. Huge number of gateway interfaces, 16 million in the extreme case, need to
be supported on the centralized gateway.
3. Traffic bottleneck at the gateway.
A distributed gateway on edge RBridges addresses these issues.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
4. Layer 3 Traffic Forwarding Model
+---------------------------------------------+
| |
| +-----------+ +-----------+ |
| | Tenant n |---------| VRF n | |
| +------------+ | +------------+ | |
| | +-----+ | | | | | |
| | | VN1 | | | | | | |
| | +-----+ | | | VRF 1 | | |
| | .. +-------+ | | |
| | +-----+ | | | | | |
| | | VNm | | | | | | |
| | +-----+ | | | | | |
| | Tenant 1 |-+ | | | |
| +------------+ | | | |
| +------------+ +------------+ |
| |
| Edge RBridge |
+---------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Edge RBridge Model as distributed GW
In a data center network (DCN), each tenant may include one or more Layer 2
virtual networks and, in normal cases, each tenant corresponds to one routing
domain (RD). Normally each Layer 2 virtual network uses a different Data Label and
corresponds to one or more subnets.
Each Layer 2 virtual network in a TRILL campus is identified by a unique 12-bit
VLAN ID or 24-bit Fine Grained Label [RFC7172]. Different routing domains may have
overlapping address space but need distinct and separate routes. The end stations
that belong to the same subnet communicate through L2 forwarding, end systems of
the same tenant that belong to different subnets communicate through L3 forwarding.
The above figure 2 depicts the model where there are N VRFs corresponding to N
tenants with each tenant having up to M segments/subnets (virtual network).
5. Distributed Gateway Solution Overview
In the TRILL distributed gateway scenario, an edge RBridge must perform Layer 2
routing for the ESs that are on the same subnet and IP routing for the ESs that
are on the different subnets of the same tenant.
As the IP address space in different routing domains can overlap, VRF instances
need to be created on each edge RBridge to isolate the IP forwarding process among
different routing domains present on the edge RBridge. A globally unique tenant ID
identifies each routing domain. The network operator should ensure the consistency
of the tenant ID on each edge RBridge for each routing domain. If a routing domain
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
spreads over multiple edge RBridges, routing information for the routing domain
should be synchronized among these edge RBridges to ensure the reachability to all
ESs in that routing domain. The Tenant ID should be carried with the routing
information to differentiate the routing domains.
From the data plane perspective, all edge RBridges are connected to each other via
one or multiple TRILL hops, however they are always a single IP hop away. When an
ingress RBridge receives inter-subnet traffic from a local ES whose destination
MAC is the edge RBridge's gateway MAC, that RBridge will perform Ethernet header
termination and look up in its IP forwarding table to forward the traffic to the
IP next hop. If the destination ES is connected to a remote edge RBridge, the
remote RBridge will be the IP next hop for traffic forwarding. The ingress RBridge
will perform TRILL encapsulation for such inter-subnet traffic and route it to the
remote RBridge through the TRILL campus.
When that remote RBridge receives the traffic, it will decapsulate the packet and
then lookup in the RBridge's IP forwarding table to route it to the destination ES.
Through this method, TRILL with distributed gateways provides pair-wise data
routing for inter-subnet traffic.
5.1. Local routing information
An ES can be locally connected to an edge RBridges through a layer 2 network or
externally connected through a layer 3 IP network.
If the ES is connected to an edge RBridge through a Layer 2 network, then the edge
RBridge must act as a Layer 3 GW for the ES. The gateway interface should be
established on the edge RBridge for the connecting ES. Because the ESs in the same
subnet may be spread over multiple edge RBridges, each of these edge RBridges
should establish its gateway interface for the subnet and these gateway interfaces
on different edge RBridges share the same gateway MAC and gateway IP address.
Before an ES starts to send inter-subnet traffic, it should acquire its gateway's
MAC through the ARP/ND process. Local connecting edge RBridges that are supporting
this distributed gateway feature always respond with the gateway MAC address when
receiving ARP/ND requests for the gateway IP. Through the ARP/ND process, the edge
RBridge can learn the IP and MAC correspondence of local ES connected to the edge
RBridge by Layer 2 and then generate local IP routing entries for the ES in the
corresponding routing domain.
If an ES is located in an external IP network, the ES also can be connected to the
TRILL campus through a TRILL edge RBridge. The TRILL edge RBridge runs a unified
routing protocol with the external IP network for each routing domain. The edge
RBridge learns the IP prefix corresponding to the ES through the IP routing
protocol, then the RBridge generates local IP routing entries in the corresponding
routing domain.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
5.2. Local routing information synchronization
Each edge RBridge should announce its own tenant gateway MAC to the TRILL campus.
The tenant gateway MAC is to differentiate inter-subnet Layer 3 traffic or intra-
subnet Layer 2 traffic on an egress RBridge; the ingress RBridge will use the
tenant gateway MAC announced by the egress RBridge as the Inner.MacDA for inter-
subnet traffic TRILL encapsulation. All tenants on a RBridge can share the same
tenant gateway MAC for inter-subnet traffic purposes.
When a routing instance is created on an edge RBridge, the tenant ID, tenant Label
(VLAN or FGL), and their correspondence should be set and globally advertised. The
ingress RBridge uses the Label advertised by the egress RBridge as the inner VLAN
or FGL when it performs inter-subnet traffic TRILL encapsulation. The egress
RBridge relies on tenant Label to find the local VRF instance for the IP
forwarding process when receiving inter-subnet traffic from the TRILL campus. (The
role of tenant Label is akin to an MPLS VPN Label in an MPLS IP/MPLS VPN network.)
Tenant Labels are independently allocated on each edge RBridge for each routing
domain, an edge RBridge can pick up an access Label in a routing domain to act as
inter-subnet Label, or the edge RBridge can use a different Label from any access
Labels to act as tenant Label. It's implementation dependant and there is no
restriction on this.
When a local IP prefix is learned in a routing instance on an edge RBridge, the
edge RBridge should advertise the IP prefix information for the routing instance
to other edge RBridges to generate IP routing entries. A globally unique tenant ID
also should be carried to differentiate IP prefixes between different tenants,
because the IP address space of different tenants can overlap.
TRILL FS-LSP [rfc7180bis] extensions can be used for IP routing information
synchronization in each routing domain among edge RBridges. Based on the
synchronized information from other edge RBridges, each edge RBridge generates
remote IP routing entries in each routing domain.
Through this solution, intra-subnet forwarding function and inter-subnet IP
routing functions are integrated and network management and deployment will be
simplified.
5.3. Data traffic forwarding process
After a Layer 2 connected ES1 in VLAN-x acquires its gateway's MAC, it can start
inter-subnet data traffic process to ES2 in VLAN-y. When the local connecting edge
RBridge receives inter-subnet traffic from ES1, the RBridge performs Layer 2
header termination, then, using the local VRF corresponding to VLAN-x, it performs
the IP forwarding process in that VRF.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
If destination ES2 is also attached to the ingress RBridge, the traffic will be
locally forwarded to ES2 on the ingress RBridge. Compared to the centralized
gateway solution, the forwarding path is optimal and a traffic detour is avoided.
If ES2 is attached to a remote edge RBridge, the remote edge RBridge is IP next
hop and the inter-subnet traffic is forwarded to the IP next hop through TRILL
encapsulation. If there are multiple equal cost shortest path between ingress
RBridge and egress RBridge, all these path can be used for inter-subnet traffic
forwarding, so pair-wise load spreading can be achieved for inter-subnet traffic.
When the remote RBridge receives the inter-subnet TRILL encapsulated traffic, the
RBridge decapsulates the TRILL encapsulation and checks the Inner.MacDA, if that
MAC address is the local gateway MAC corresponding to the inner Label (VLAN or
FGL), the inner Label will be used to find the corresponding local VRF, then the
IP forwarding process in that VRF will be performed, and the traffic will be
locally forwarded to the destination ES2.
In summary, through this solution, traffic detours to a central gateway are
avoided, both inter-subnet and intra-subnet traffic can be forwarded along pair-
wise shortest paths, and network bandwidth is conserved.
6. Distributed Layer 3 Gateway Process Example
--------- ---------
| RB3 | | RB4 |
--------- ---------
# * *
# **************************
########################### *
# * # *
# * # *
# * # *
--------- ---------
| RB1 | | RB2 |
--------- ---------
| |
---- ----
|E | |E |
|S1| |S2|
---- ----
Figure 3 Distributed gateway scenario
In figure 3 above, RB1 and RB2 support the distribution gateway function, ES1
connects to RB1, ES2 connects to RB2. ES1 and ES2 belong to Tenant1, but are in
different subnets.
The IP address, VLAN, and subnet information of ES1 and ES2 are as follows:
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
+----+---------+----------------+---------------+----------+
| ES | Tenant | IP Address | Subnet | VLAN |
+----+---------+----------------+---------------+----------+
| ES1| Tenant1 | 10.1.1.2 | 10.1.1.1/32 | 10 |
+----+---------+----------------+---------------+----------+
| ES2| Tenant1 | 20.1.1.2 | 20.1.1.1/32 | 20 |
+----+---------+----------------+---------------+----------+
Figure 4 ES information
The nickname, VRF, tenant VLAN, tenant gateway MAC for Tenant1 on RB1 and RB2 are
as follows:
+----+---------+----------+-------+--------------+--------------+
| RB | Nickname| Tenant | VRF | Tenant VLAN | Gateway MAC |
+----+---------+----------+-------+--------------+--------------+
| RB1| nick1 | Tenant1 | VRF1 | 100 | MAC1 |
+----+---------+----------+-------+--------------+--------------+
| RB2| nick2 | Tenant1 | VRF2 | 100 | MAC2 |
+----+---------+----------+-------+--------------+--------------+
Figure 5 RBridge information
6.1. Control plane process
RB1 announces the following local routing information to the TRILL campus:
Tenant ID: 1
Tenant gateway MAC: MAC1.
Tenant VLAN for Tenant1: VLAN 100.
IP prefix in Tenant1: 10.1.1.2/32.
RB2 announces the following local routing information to TRILL campus:
Tenant ID: 1
Tenant gateway MAC: MAC2.
Tenant VLAN for Tenant1: VLAN 100.
IP prefix in Tenant1: 20.1.1.2/32.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
Relying on the routing information from RB2, remote routing entries on RB1 are
generated as follows:
+--------------+-------------+--------------+----------------+
| Prefix/Mask | Inner.MacDA | inner VLAN | egress nickname|
+--------------+-------------+--------------+----------------+
| 20.1.1.2/32 | MAC2 | 100 | nick2 |
+--------------+-------------+--------------+----------------+
Figure 6 Tenant 1 remote routing table on RB1
Similarly, relying on the routing information from RB1, remote routing entries on
RB2 are generated as follows:
+-----------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
|Prefix/Mask| Inner.MacDA |inner VLAN |egress nickname|
+-----------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
|10.1.1.2/32| MAC1 | 100 | nick1 |
+-----------+-------------+-----------+---------------+
Figure 7 Tenant 1 remote routing table on RB1
6.2. Data plane process
Assuming ES1 sends unicast inter-subnet traffic to ES2, the traffic forwarding
process is as follows:
1. ES1 sends unicast inter-subnet traffic to RB1 with RB1's gateway's MAC as the
destination MAC.
2. Ingress RBridge (RB1) forwarding process:
RB1 checks the destination MAC, if the destination MAC equals the local gateway
MAC, the gateway function will terminate the Layer 2 header and perform L3
forwarding process.
RB1 looks up IP routing table information by destination IP and Tenant ID to get
IP next hop information, which includes the egress RBridge's gateway MAC (MAC2),
tenant VLAN (VLAN 100) and egress nickname (nick2). Using this information, RB1
will perform inner Ethernet header encapsulation and TRILL encapsulation. RB1 will
use MAC2 as the Inner.MacDA, MAC1 (RB1's own gateway MAC) as the Inner.MacSA, VLAN
100 as the Inner.VLAN, nick2 as the egress nickname and nick1 as the ingress
nickname.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
RB1 looks up TRILL forwarding table by egress nickname and sends the traffic to
the TRILL next hop as per [RFC6325]. The traffic will be sent to RB3 or RB4 as
result of load balancing.
Assuming the traffic is forwarded to RB3, the following occurs:
3. Transit RBridge (RB3) forwarding process:
RB3 looks up TRILL forwarding information by egress nickname and forwards the
traffic to RB2 as per [RFC6325].
4. Egress RBridge forwarding process:
As the egress nickname is RB2's own nickname, RB2 performs TRILL decapsulation.
Then it checks the Inner.MacDA and, because that MAC is equal to the local gateway
MAC, performs inner Ethernet header termination. Relying on inner VLAN, RB2 finds
the local corresponding VRF and looks up the packets destination IP address in the
VRF's IP routing table. The traffic is then be locally forwarded to ES2.
7. TRILL Protocol Extensions
If an edge RBridge RB1 participates in the distributed gateway function, it should
announce its tenant gateway MAC, tenant Label and IPv4/IPv6 prefix to the TRILL
campus through the tenant gateway MAC APPsub-TLV, tenant Label APPsub-TLV and
IPv4/IPv6 prefix APPsub-TLV. Other edge RBridges belonging to the same routing
domain use this information to generate IP routing entries in that routing domain.
The ingress RBridge uses the tenant gateway MAC and tenant Label of the egress
RBridge to perform inter-subnet traffic TRILL encapsulation when it receives
inter-subnet traffic from a local ES. The tenant gateway MAC is used as the
Inner.MacDA and the tenant Label is used as the Inner.Label.
The following APPsub-TLVs MUST be included in a TRILL GENINFO TLV in FS-LSPs
[rfc7180bis].
7.1. The tenant gateway MAC APPsub-TLV
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+
| Tenant gateway MAC | (6 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...+-+-+
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
o Type: Set to TENANT-GWMAC sub-TLV (TBD1). Two bytes, because this APPsub-
TLV appears in an extended TLV [RFC7356].
o Length: 6.
o Tenant gateway MAC: The local tenant gateway MAC for inter-subnet traffic
forwarding.
7.2. The tenant Label APPsub-TLV
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tenant ID (4 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L|Resv| Label1 | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Resv2| Label2 | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: Set to TENANT-LABEL sub-TLV (TBD2). Two bytes, because this APPsub-
TLV appears in an extended TLV [RFC7356].
o Length: If Label1 field is used to represent a VLAN, the value of the
length field is 12. If Label1 and Label2 field are used to represent an FGL, the
value of the length field is 14.
o Tenant ID: This identifies a global tenant ID.
o L: 1 bit. When Label1 and Label2 field are used to identify an FGL, this
bit is set to 1. When Label1 field is used to identify a VLAN, it is set to 0.
o Resv: 3 bits that MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt.
o Label1: If the value of length field is 12, the field is to identify tenant
VLAN ID. If the value of length field is 14, the field is to identify higher 12
bits of tenant FGL.
o Resv2: 4 bits that MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. Only
present if the length field is 14.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
o Label2: This field has the lower 12 bits of tenant FGL. Only present if the
length field is 14.
7.3. The IPv4 Prefix APPsub-TLV
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Length | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tenant ID |(4 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length(1)|(1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (1) |(variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ..... |(1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ..... |(variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length(N)|(1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (N) |(variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: Set to IPV4-PREFIX sub-TLV (TBD3). Two bytes, because this APPsub-
TLV appears in an extended TLV [RFC7356].
o Total Length: This 2-byte unsigned integer indicates the total length of
Tenant ID, Prefix Length and Prefix fields in octets. A value of 0 indicates that
no IPv4 prefix is being advertised.
o Tenant ID: This identifies a global tenant ID.
o Prefix Length: The Prefix Length field indicates the length in bits of
the IPv4 address prefix. A length of zero indicates a prefix that
matches all IPv4 addresses (with prefix, itself, of zero octets).
o Prefix: The Prefix field contains an IPv4 address prefix, followed by
enough trailing bits to make the end of the field fall on an octet boundary. Note
that the value of the trailing bits is irrelevant.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
7.4. The IPv6 Prefix APPsub-TLV
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Length | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tenant ID |(4 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length(1)|(1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (1) |(variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ..... |(1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ..... |(variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Length(N)|(1 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix (N) |(variable)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+...-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type: Set to IPV6-PREFIX sub-TLV (TBD4). Two bytes, because this APPsub-
TLV appears in an extended TLV [RFC7356].
o Total Length: This 2-byte unsigned integer indicates the total length of
Tenant ID, Prefix Length and Prefix fields in octets. A value of 0 indicates that
no IPv6 prefix is being advertised.
o Tenant ID: This identifies a global tenant ID.
o Prefix Length: The Prefix Length field indicates the length in bits of
the IPv6 address prefix. A length of zero indicates a prefix that matches all
IPv6 addresses (with prefix, itself, of zero octets).
o Prefix: The Prefix field contains an IPv6 address prefix, followed by
enough trailing bits to make the end of the field fall on an octet boundary. Note
that the value of the trailing bits is irrelevant.
8. Security Considerations
Correct configuration of the edge RBridges participating is important to assure
that data is not delivered to the wrong tenant, which would violate security
constrains. IS-IS security [RFC5310] can be used to secure the information
advertised by the edge RBridges.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
Particularly sensitive data should be encrypted end-to-end, that is, from the
source end station to the destination end station.
For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign four APPsub-TLV type numbers less than 255 under the
TRILL GENINFO TLV [RFC7357] as follows:
Type Name References
---- ---------------- ------------
TBD1 TENANT-GWMAC [this document]
TBD2 TENANT-LABEL [this document]
TBD3 IPV4-PREFIX [this document]
TBD4 IPV6-PREFIX [this document]
10. Normative References
[1] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] [RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S.,and A. Ghanwani,
"Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification", RFC 6325, July
2011.
[3] [RFC7172] Eastlake, D., M. Zhang, P. Agarwal, R. Perlman, D. Dutt, "TRILL
(Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links): Fine-Grained Labeling",
RFC7172, May 2014.
[4] [RFC7176] - Eastlake, D., T. Senevirathne, A. Ghanwani, D. Dutt and A.
Banerjee" Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-
IS", RFC7176, May 2014.
[5] [RFC7357] - Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., and O. Stokes,
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): End Station Address
Distribution Information (ESADI) Protocol", RFC 7357, September 2014.
11. Informative References
[1] [RFC5310] - Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R., and M.
Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication", RFC 5310, February
2009.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
12. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the important contributions of
Guangrui Wu, Zhenbin Li, Zhibo Hu.
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
Authors' Addresses
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
Weiguo Hao
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56623144
Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com
Yizhou Li
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56625375
Email: liyizhou@huawei.com
Donald E. Eastlake
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Liang Xia(Frank)
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue,
Nanjing 210012
China
Phone: +86-25-56624539
Email: frank.xialiang@huawei.com
Andrew Qu
MediaTec
Email: laodulaodu@gmail.com
Muhammad Durrani
Brocade
130 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: mdurrani@brocade.com
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft TRILL Distributed Layer 3 Gateway October 2014
Ponkarthick Sivamurugan
Address: IP Infusion,
RMZ Centennial
Mahadevapura Post
Bangalore - 560048
EMail: Ponkarthick.sivamurugan@ipinfusion.com
Hao & Li Expires March 15, 2015 [Page 20]
