Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation
draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation
INTERNET-DRAFT M. Zhang
Intended Status: Standards Track X. Zhang
Updates: 6325, 7177, 7780 D. Eastlake
Huawei
R. Perlman
EMC
S. Chatterjee
Cisco
Expires: February 3, 2018 August 2, 2017
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
MTU Negotiation
draft-ietf-trill-mtu-negotiation-08.txt
Abstract
The base IETF TRILL protocol has a TRILL campus-wide MTU feature,
specified in RFC 6325 and RFC 7177, that assures that link state
changes can be successfully flooded throughout the campus while being
able to take advantage of a campus-wide capability to support jumbo
packets. This document specifies recommended updates to that MTU
feature to take advantage, for appropriate link-local packets, of
link-local MTUs that exceed the TRILL campus MTU. In addition, it
specifies an efficient algorithm for local MTU testing. This document
updates RFC 6325, updates RFC 7177, and updates RFC 7780.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Link MTU Size Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Refreshing Sz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz and Sz . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. LSP Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Recommendations for Traffic Link MTU Size Testing . . . . . . . 9
8. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Additions to Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Per RBridge Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Per RBridge Port Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
1. Introduction
[RFC6325] describes the way RBridges agree on the campus-wide minimum
acceptable inter-RBridge MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size (called
"Sz") to ensure that link state flooding operates properly and all
RBridges converge to the same link state. For the proper operation of
TRILL IS-IS, all RBridges format their LSPs to fit in Sz.
[RFC7177] diagrams the state transitions of an adjacency. If MTU
testing is enabled, "Link MTU size is successfully tested" is part of
an event (event A6) causing the transition from "2-way" state to
"Report" state for an adjacency. This means the link MTU testing of
size X succeeds, and X is greater than or equal to Sz [RFC6325]. If
this link cannot support an MTU of Sz, it will not be reported as
part of the campus topology.
In this document, a new RECOMMENDED link-wide minimum inter-RBridge
MTU size, Lz, is specified. As further discussed in Section 2, by
calculating and using Lz as specified herein, link-scoped PDUs can be
formatted greater than Sz, up to the link-wide minimum acceptable
inter-RBridge MTU size potentially improving the efficiency of link
utilization and speeding link state convergence.
An optional TRILL MTU size-testing algorithm is specified in Section
3 as an efficient method to update the old MTU testing method
described in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325] and in [RFC7177]. The new MTU
size testing method specified in this document is backward compatible
with the old one. Multicasting the MTU-probes is recommended when
there are multiple RBridges on a link responding to the probing with
MTU-ack [RFC7177]. The testing method and rules of this document are
devised in a way to minimize the number of MTU probes for testing,
which therefore reduces the number of multicast packets for MTU
testing.
This document updates [RFC7780] as specified in Section 4.
1.1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size
This document specifies a new value "Lz" for the minimum acceptable
inter-RBridge link MTU size on a local link. Link-wide Lz is the
minimum Lz supported and agreed amongst all RBridges on a specific
link. If the link is usable, Lz will be greater than or equal to Sz.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
Some TRILL IS-IS PDUs are exchanged only between neighbors instead of
the whole campus. They are confined by the link-wide Lz instead of
Sz. CSNPs and PSNPs are examples of such PDUs. These PDUs are
exchanged only on the local link. (While TRILL IS-IS Hellos are also
link local, they are always limited to 1470 bytes for robustness.)
[RFC7356] defines the PDUs which support flooding scopes in addition
to area-wide scope and domain-wide scope. As specified in [RFC8139],
RBridges support the Extended L1 Circuit Scoped (E-L1CS) flooding
scope LSP (FS-LSP) [RFC7780]. The originatingSNPBufferSize for a port
is the minimum of the following two quantities, but not less than
1470 bytes: (1) the maximum MTU of the port and (2) the maximum LSP
size that the TRILL IS-IS implementation can handle. They use that
flooding to exchange their maximum supported value of "Lz". The
smallest value of the Lz advertised by the RBridges on a link, but
not less than Sz, is the link-wide Lz. An RBridge on a local link
will be able to tell which other RBridges on that link support E-L1CS
FS-LSPs because, as required by [RFC7780], all RBridges include the
Scoped Flooding Support TLV [RFC7356] in their TRILL Hellos.
The maximum sized level 1 link-local PDU, such as PSNP or CSNP, which
may be generated by a system is controlled by the value of the
management parameter originatingL1SNPBufferSize. This value
determines Lz. The TRILL APPsub-TLV shown in Figure 2.1 SHOULD be
included in a TRILL GENINFO TLV [RFC7357] in an E-L1CS FS-LSP
fragment zero. If it is missing from a fragment zero E-L1CS FS-LSP or
there is no fragment zero E-L1CS FS-LSP, it is assumed that its
originating IS is implicitly advertising its originatingSNPBufferSize
value as Sz octets.
E-L1CS FS-LSPs are link-local and can also be sent up to Lz in size
but, for robustness, E-L1CS FS-LSP fragment zero MUST NOT exceed 1470
bytes.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = tbd | (2 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length = 2 | (2 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| originatingSNPBufferSize | (2 byte)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2.1: The originatingSNPBufferSize TLV.
Type: set to originatingSNPBufferSize APPsubTLV (TRILL APPsub-TLV
type tbd). Two bytes because this APPsub-TLV appears in an Extended
TLV [RFC7356].
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
Length: set to 2.
originatingSNPBufferSize: the local value of
originatingL1SNPBufferSize as an unsigned integer, limited in the
range from 1470 to 65,535 bytes. (A value less than 1470 will be
ignored.)
2.1. Operations
Lz MAY be reported using an originatingSNPBufferSize TLV that occurs
in fragment zero of the RBridge's E-L1CS FS-LSP. An
originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment
is ignored. If more than one originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV
occurs in fragment zero, the one advertising the smallest value for
originatingSNPBufferSize, but not less than 1470 bytes, is used.
Lz:1800 Lz:1800
+---+ | +---+
|RB1|(2000)---|---(2000)|RB2|
+---+ | +---+
|
Lz:1800 |
+---+ +--+
|RB3|(2000)---(1700)|B1|
+---+ +--+
|
Figure 2.2: Link-wide Lz = 1800 v.s. tested link MTU size = 1700
Even if all RBridges on a specific link have reached consensus on the
value of link-wide Lz based on advertised originatingSNPBufferSize,
it does not mean that these RBridges can safely exchange PDUs between
each other. Figure 2.2 shows such a corner case. RB1, RB2 and RB3 are
three RBridges on the same link and their Lz is 1800, so the link-
wide Lz of this link is 1800. There is an intermediate bridge (say
B1) between RB2 and RB3 whose port MTU size is 1700. If RB2 sends
PDUs formatted in chunks of size 1800, it will be discarded by B1.
Therefore the link MTU size SHOULD be tested. After the link MTU size
of an adjacency is successfully tested, those link-local PDUs such as
CSNPs, PSNPs and E-L1CS FS-LSPs will be formatted no greater than the
tested link MTU size and will be safely transmitted on this link.
As for Sz, RBridges continue to propagate their
originatingL1LSPBufferSize across the campus through the
advertisement of LSPs as defined in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325]. The
smallest value of Sz advertised by any RBridge, but not less than
1470, will be deemed as Sz. Each RBridge formats their "campus-wide"
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
PDUs, for example LSPs, not greater than what they determine as Sz.
3. Link MTU Size Testing
[RFC7177] defines the event A6 as including "MTU test is successful"
if the MTU testing is enabled. As described in Section 4.3.2 of
[RFC6325], this is a combination of the following event and
condition.
Event: The link MTU size has been tested.
Condition: The link can support Sz.
This condition can be efficiently tested by the following "Binary
Search Algorithm" and rules. This updates [RFC7177] and [RFC6325].
x, lowerBound, and upperBound are local integer variables. The MTU-
probe and MTU-ack PDUs are specified in Section 3 of [RFC7176].
Step 0: RB1 sends an MTU-probe padded to the size of link-wide Lz.
1) If RB1 successfully receives the MTU-ack from RB2 to the probe of
the value of link-wide Lz within k tries (where k is a
configurable parameter whose default is 3. One Round Trip Time
(RTT) between the two adjacent RBridges is RECOMMENDED to be used
as the minimum interval between two successive probes. Note that
RTT estimation is out of the scope for this document. If operators
cannot not estimate the RTT, the default value 5-millisecond
should be assumed.), link MTU size is set to the size of link-wide
Lz and stop.
2) RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size 1470.
a) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries (An
MTU-ack should be considered to have failed two RTT after the
probe is sent out.), RB1 sets the "failed minimum MTU test"
flag for RB2 in RB1's Hello and stop.
b) Link MTU size is set to 1470, lowerBound is set to 1470,
upperBound is set to the link-wide Lz, x is set to [(lowerBound
+ upperBound)/2], rounded down to the nearest integer.
Step 1: RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size x.
1) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries:
upperBound is set to x-1 and x is set to [(lowerBound +
upperBound)/2], rounded down to the nearest integer.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
2) If RB1 receives an MTU-ack to a probe of size x from RB2:
link MTU size is set to x, lowerBound is set to x and x is set
to [(lowerBound + upperBound)/2], rounded down to the nearest
integer. If lowerBound equals upperBound-1 then x is set to
upperBound.
3) If lowerBound >= upperBound or Step 1 has been repeated n times
(where n is a configurable parameter whose default value is 5),
stop.
4) Repeat Step 1.
After the testing, the two connected RBridges agree on the value of
the link MTU size. MTU testing is only done in the Designated VLAN
[RFC7177]. Since the execution of the above algorithm can be resource
consuming, it is RECOMMENDED that the Designated RBRidge (DRB
[RFC7177]) take the responsibility to do the testing. Multicast MTU-
probes are used instead of unicast when multiple RBridges are desired
to respond with an MTU-ack on the link. The Binary Search Algorithm
given here is a way to minimize the probing attempts; it reduces the
number of multicast packets for MTU-probing.
The following rules are designed to determine whether the
aforementioned "Condition" holds.
RBridges have figured out the upper bound and lower bound for the
link MTU size from the execution of the above algorithm. If Sz is
smaller than the lower bound or greater than the upper bound,
RBridges can directly judge whether the link supports Sz without MTU-
probing.
(a) If "lowerBound" >= Sz. This link can support Sz.
(b) Else if "upperBound" <= Sz. This link cannot support Sz.
Otherwise, RBridges SHOULD test whether the link can support Sz as in
item (c) below. If they do not, the only safe assumption will be that
the link cannot support Sz. This assumption, without testing, might
rule out the use of a link that can, in fact, handle packets up to
Sz. In the worst case, this might result in unnecessary network
partition.
(c) "lowerBound" < Sz < "upperBound". RBridges probe the link with
MTU-probe messages padded to Sz. If an MTU-ack is received within
k tries, this link can support Sz. Otherwise, this link cannot
support Sz. Through this test, the lower bound and upper bound of
link MTU size can be updated accordingly.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
4. Refreshing Sz
RBridges may join or leave the campus, which may change Sz.
1) Joining
a) When a new RBridge joins the campus and its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than current Sz,
reporting its originatingL1LSPBufferSize in its LSPs will cause
other RBridges decrease their Sz. Then any LSP greater than the
reduced Sz MUST be split and/or the LSP contents in the campus
MUST be otherwise redistributed so that no LSP is greater than
the new Sz.
b) If the joining RBridge's originatingL1LSPBufferSize is equal to
or bigger than current Sz, reporting its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize will not change Sz.
2) Leaving
a) From the specification of the Joining process, we know it's
non-applicable that an RBridge leaves the campus while its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than Sz.
b) When an RBridge leaves the campus and its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize equals to Sz, its LSPs are purged
from the remaining campus after reaching MaxAge [IS-IS]. Sz MAY
be recalculated and MAY increase. In other words, while in most
cases RB1 ignores link state information for IS-IS unreachable
RBridge RB2 [RFC7780], originatingL1LSPBufferSize is
meaningful. Its value, even from IS-IS unreachable RBridges, is
used in determining Sz. This updates [RFC7780].
c) When an RBrige leaves the campus and its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize is greater than Sz, this will not
update Sz since Sz is determined by another RBridge with
smaller originatingL1LSPBufferSize.
Frequent LSP "re-sizing" is harmful to the stability of the TRILL
campus, so, to avoid this, upward resizing SHOULD be dampened. When
an upward resizing event is noticed by an RBridge, it is RECOMMENDED
that a timer be set at that RBridge. This is a configurable
parameter, LSPresizeTime, whose default value is 300 seconds. Before
this timer expires, all subsequent upward resizing will be dampened
(ignored). Of course, in a well-configured campus with all RBridges
configured to have the same originatingL1LSPBufferSize, no resizing
will be necessary. It does not matter if different RBridges have
different dampening timers or some RBridges re-size upward more
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
quickly than others.
If the refreshed Sz is smaller than the lower bound or greater than
the upper bound of the tested link MTU size, the resource consuming
link MTU size testing can be avoided according to rule (a) or (b)
specified in Section 3. Otherwise, RBridges test the link MTU size
according to rule (c).
5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz and Sz
When the port MTU of an RBridge is smaller than the local
originatingL1SNPBufferSize of an RBridge (an inconsistent
configuration), that port SHOULD be disabled since, in any case, an
adjacency cannot be formed through such a port. On the other hand,
when an RBridge receives an LSP or E-L1CS FS-LSP with size greater
than the link-wide Lz or Sz but not greater than its port MTU size,
this LSP is processed normally. If the size of an LSP is greater than
the MTU size of a port over which it is to be propagated, this LSP
MUST NOT be sent over the port and an LSPTooLargeToPropagate alarm
shall be generated [IS-IS].
6. LSP Synchronization
An RBridge participates in LSP synchronization on a link as soon as
it has at least one adjacency on that link that has advanced to at
least the 2-Way state [RFC7177]. On a LAN link, CSNP and PSNP PDUs
are used for synchronization. On a point-to-point link, only PSNP are
used.
The CSNPs and PSNPs can be formatted in chunks of size at most the
link-wide Lz but are processed normally if received larger than that
size. Since the link MTU size may not have been tested in the 2-Way
state, link-wide Lz may be greater than the supported link MTU size.
In that case, a CSNP or PSNP may be discarded. After the link MTU
size is successfully tested, RBridges will begin to format these PDUs
in the size no greater than that MTU, therefore these PDUs will
eventually get through.
Note that the link MTU size is frequently greater than Sz. Link-local
PDUs are limited in the size by the link MTU size rather than Sz,
which, when Lz is greater than Sz, promises a reduction in the number
of PDUs and a faster LSP synchronization process.
7. Recommendations for Traffic Link MTU Size Testing
Sz and link-wide Lz are used to limit the size of most TRILL IS-IS
PDUs. They are different from the MTU size restricting the size of
TRILL Data packets. The size of a TRILL Data packet is restricted by
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
the physical MTU of the ports and links the packet traverses. It is
possible that a TRILL Data packet successfully gets through the
campus but its size is greater than Sz or link-wide Lz values.
The algorithm defined for link MTU size testing can also be used in
TRILL traffic MTU size testing; in that case the link-wide Lz used in
that algorithm is replaced by the port MTU of the RBridge sending MTU
probes. The successfully tested size X MAY be advertised as an
attribute of this link using MTU sub-TLV defined in [RFC7176].
Unlike RBridges, end stations do not participate in the exchange of
TRILL IS-IS PDUs; therefore, they cannot grasp the traffic link MTU
size from a TRILL campus automatically. An operator may collect these
values using network management tools such as TRILL ping or
TraceRoute. Then, the path MTU can be set as the smallest tested link
MTU on this path; and end stations should not generate frames that,
when encapsulated as TRILL Data packets, exceed this path MTU.
8. Backwards Compatibility
There can be a mixture of Lz-ignorant and Lz-aware RBridges on a
link. This will act properly although, it may not be as efficient as
it would be if all RBridges on the link are Lz-aware.
For an Lz-ignorant RBridge, TRILL IS-IS PDUs are always formatted not
greater than Sz. Lz-aware RBridges as receivers can handle these PDUs
since they cannot be greater than the link-wide Lz.
For an Lz-aware RBridge, in the case that link-wide Lz is greater
than Sz, larger link-local TRILL IS-IS PDUs can be sent out to gain
efficiencies. Lz-ignorant RBridges as receivers will have no problem
handling them since the originatingL1LSPBufferSize value of these
RBridges had been tested and the link-wide Lz is not greater than
that value.
An Lz-ignorant RBridge might not support the link MTU testing
algorithm defined in Section 3 but could be using some algorithm just
to test for Sz MTU on the link. In any case, if an RBridge per
[RFC6325] receives an MTU-probe, it MUST respond with an MTU-ack
padded to the same size as the MTU-probe.
9. Security Considerations
This document raises no significant new security issues for TRILL. In
TRILL, RBridges are generally considered to be trusted devices.
Protection against forged TRILL IS-IS PDUs, including forged Hellos
containing originatingSNPBufferSize APP-subTLVs, can be obtained
through IS-IS PDU cryptographic authentication [RFC5310]. The worst
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
that an RBridge can do by reporting an erroneous
originatingSNPBufferSize is reduce Lz to Sz and thus make unavailable
the optimization of being able to use link MTUs that exceed the
campus wide MTU for link local TRILL IS-IS PDUs.
For general and adjacency related TRILL security considerations, see
[RFC6325] and [RFC7177].
10. Additions to Configuration
Implementation of the features specified in this document adds two
RBridge configuration parameters as follows:
10.1. Per RBridge Configuration
Each RBridge implementing the RECOMMENDED LSP re-sizing damping
strategy specified in Section 4 has an LSPresizeTime parameter that
is an integer in the range of 0-65,535 which defaults to 300. It is
the number of seconds for which an RBridge determines that Sz has
increased before it will create any LSP or E-L1FS FS-LSP fragments.
10.2. Per RBridge Port Configuration
Each RBridge port on which the calculation and use of Lz is
implemented has an originatingL1SNPBufferSize parameter that is an
integer in the range of 1,470-65,535. This parameter defaults to the
minimum of the size that the port can accommodate and the size link-
local IS-IS PDU that the TRILL implementation can accommodate.
11. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a new APPsub-TLV number from the range
less than 256 in the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251
Application Identifier 1" registry for the TRILL
originatingSNPBufferSize sub-TLV defined in Section 2 of this
document. The entry is as follows:
Type Name Reference
---- ------------------------ ---------------
tbd originatingSNPBufferSize [this document]
12. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Vishwas
Manral.
13. References
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI
10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic Authentication",
RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[RFC7177] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and
V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177, May
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.
[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D.,
and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of
Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176, DOI
10.17487/RFC7176, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7176>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356, DOI
10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and
Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.
[RFC7357] Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., and O.
Stokes, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information
(ESADI) Protocol", RFC 7357, DOI 10.17487/RFC7357,
September 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7357>.
13.2. Informative References
[IS-IS] International Organization for Standardization,
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- Intermediate System
to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing information
exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the protocol
for providing the connectionless-mode network service (ISO
8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, November 2002.
[RFC8139] Eastlake 3rd, D., Li, Y., Umair, M., Banerjee, A., and F.
Hu, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
Appointed Forwarders", RFC 8139, DOI 10.17487/RFC8139, June
2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8139>.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT MTU Negotiation August 2, 2017
Author's Addresses
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
Beijing 100095
China
Phone: +86-13810702575
Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com
Xudong Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhangxudong@huawei.com
Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
United States
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Radia Perlman
EMC
2010 256th Avenue NE, #200
Bellevue, WA 98007
United States
Email: radia@alum.mit.edu
Somnath Chatterjee
Cisco Systems
SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park
Outer Ring Road
Bangalore - 560087
India
Email: somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires February 3, 2018 [Page 14]
