Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees
draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees
INTERNET-DRAFT Mingui Zhang
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Huawei
Updates: 6325 Tissa Senevirathne
Consultant
Janardhanan Pathangi
Gigamon
Ayan Banerjee
Cisco
Anoop Ghanwani
DELL
Expires: July 23, 2018 January 19, 2018
TRILL: Resilient Distribution Trees
draft-ietf-trill-resilient-trees-09.txt
Abstract
The TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol
provides multicast data forwarding based on IS-IS link state routing.
Distribution trees are computed based on the link state information
through Shortest Path First calculation. When a link on the
distribution tree fails, a campus-wide re-convergence of this
distribution tree will take place, which can be time consuming and
may cause considerable disruption to the ongoing multicast service.
This document specifies how to build backup distribution trees to
protect links on the primary distribution tree. Since the backup
distribution tree is built up ahead of the link failure, when a link
on the primary distribution tree fails, the pre-installed backup
forwarding table will be utilized to deliver multicast packets
without waiting for the campus-wide re-convergence. This minimizes
the service disruption. This document updates RFC 6325.
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
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Usage of the Affinity Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Indicating Affinity Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Distribution Tree Calculation with Affinity Links . . . . . 7
3. Distribution Tree Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Designating Roots for Backup Distribution Trees . . . . . . 8
3.2. Backup DT Calculation with Affinity Links . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. The Algorithm for Choosing Affinity Links . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. Affinity Links Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Resilient Distribution Trees Installation . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Pruning the Backup Distribution Tree . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. RPF Filters Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Protection Mechanisms with Resilient Distribution Trees . . . . 12
5.1. Global 1:1 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Global 1+1 Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.1. Failure Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.2. Traffic Forking and Merging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Local Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3.1. Starting to Use the Backup Distribution Tree . . . . . 15
5.3.2. Duplication Suppression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.3.3. An Example to Walk Through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.4. Protection Mode Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
5.5. Updating the Primary and the Backup Distribution Trees . . 17
6. TRILL IS-IS Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Resilient Trees Extended Capability Field . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2 Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Resilient Tree Extended Capability Field . . . . . . . . . 19
8.2. Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
1. Introduction
Lots of multicast traffic is generated by interrupt latency sensitive
applications, e.g., video distribution including IPTV, video
conference and so on. Normally, a network fault will be recovered
through a network wide re-convergence of the forwarding states, but
this process is too slow to meet tight Service Level Agreement (SLA)
requirements on the duration of service disruption.
Protection mechanisms are commonly used to reduce the service
disruption caused by network faults. With backup forwarding states
installed in advance, a protection mechanism can restore an
interrupted multicast stream in a much shorter time than the normal
network wide re-convergence, which can meet stringent SLAs on service
disruption. A protection mechanism for multicast traffic has been
developed for IP/MPLS networks [RFC7431]. However, TRILL constructs
distribution trees (DT) in a different way from IP/MPLS; therefore a
multicast protection mechanism suitable for TRILL is developed in
this document.
This document specifies "Resilient Distribution Trees" in which
backup trees are installed in advance for the purpose of fast failure
repair. Three types of protection mechanisms are specified.
o Global 1:1 protection refers to the mechanism where the multicast
source RBridge normally injects one multicast stream onto the
primary DT. When an interruption of this stream is detected, the
source RBridge switches to the backup DT to inject subsequent
multicast streams until the primary DT is recovered.
o Global 1+1 protection refers to the mechanism where the multicast
source RBridge always injects two copies of multicast streams, one
onto the primary DT and one onto the backup DT respectively. In
the normal case, multicast receivers pick the stream sent along
the primary DT and egress it to its local link. When a link
failure interrupts the primary stream, the backup stream will be
picked until the primary DT is recovered.
o Local protection refers to the mechanism where the RBridge
attached to the failed link locally repairs the failure.
Resilient Distribution Trees can greatly reduce the service
disruption caused by link failures. In the global 1:1 protection, the
time cost for DT recalculation and installation can be saved. The
global 1+1 protection and local protection further saves the time
spent on the propagation of failure indication. Routing can be
repaired for a failed link in tens of milliseconds.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
Protection mechanisms to handle node failures are out the scope of
this document. Although it's possible to use Resilient Distribution
Trees to achieve load balancing of multicast traffic, this document
leaves that for future study.
[RFC7176] specifies the Affinity Sub-TLV. An "Affinity Link" can be
explicitly assigned to a distribution tree or trees as discussed in
Section 2.1. This offers a way to manipulate the calculation of
distribution trees. With intentional assignment of Affinity Links, a
backup distribution tree can be set up to protect links on a primary
distribution tree.
This document updates [RFC6325] as specified in Section 5.3.1.
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].
1.2. Terminology
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection [RFC7175] [RBmBFD]
CMT: Coordinated Multicast Trees [RFC7783]
Child: A directly connected node further from the Root.
DT: Distribution Tree [RFC6325]
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System [RFC7176]
LSP: IS-IS Link State PDU
mLDP: Multipoint Label Distribution Protocol [RFC6388]
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Parent: A directly connected node closer to the Root.
PDU: Protocol Data Unit
Root: The top node in a tree.
PIM: Protocol Independent Multicast [RFC7761]
PLR: Point of Local Repair. In this document, PLR is the multicast
upstream RBridge connecting to the failed link. It's valid only for
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
local protection (Section 5.3).
RBridge: A device implementing the TRILL protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7780]
RPF: Reverse Path Forwarding
SLA: Service Level Agreement
Td: failure detection timer
TRILL: TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links or Tunneled
Routing in the Link Layer [RFC6325] [RFC7780]
2. Usage of the Affinity Sub-TLV
This document uses the already existing Affinity Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to
assign a parent to an RBridge in a tree as discussed below. Support
of the Affinity Sub-TLV by an RBridge is indicated by a capability
bit in the TRILL-VER Sub-TLV [RFC7783].
2.1. Indicating Affinity Links
The Affinity Sub-TLV explicitly assigns parents for RBridges on
distribution trees. It is distributed in an LSP and can be recognized
by each RBridge in the campus. The originating RBridge becomes the
parent and the nickname contained in the Affinity Record identifies
the child. This explicitly provides an "Affinity Link" on a
distribution tree or trees. The "Tree-num of roots" in the Affinity
Record(s) in the Affinity Sub-TLV identify the distribution trees
that adopt this Affinity Link [RFC7176].
Suppose the link between RBridge RB2 and RBridge RB3 is chosen as an
Affinity Link on the distribution tree rooted at RB1 in Figure 2.1.
RB2 sends out the Affinity Sub-TLV with an Affinity Record that says
{Nickname=RB3, Num of Trees=1, Tree-num of roots=RB1}. Different from
the Affinity Link usage in [RFC7783], RB3 does not have to be a leaf
node on a distribution tree. Therefore an Affinity Link can be used
to identify any link on a distribution tree. This kind of assignment
offers a flexibility of control to RBridges in distribution tree
calculation: they can be directed to choose a child for which they
are not on the shortest paths from the root. This flexibility is used
to construct back-up trees that can be used to increase the
reliability of distribution trees. Affinity Links may be configured
or automatically determined according to an algorithm as described in
this document.
Affinity Link SHOULD NOT be misused to declare connection of two
RBridges that are not adjacent. If it is, the Affinity Link is
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
ignored and has no effect on tree building.
2.2. Distribution Tree Calculation with Affinity Links
Root Root
+---+ -> +---+ -> +---+ +---+ -> +---+ -> +---+
|RB1| |RB2| |RB3| |RB1| |RB2| |RB3|
+---+ <- +---+ <- +---+ +---+ <- +---+ <- +---+
^ | ^ | ^ | ^ | ^ ^ |
| v | v | v | v | | v
+---+ -> +---+ -> +---+ +---+ -> +---+ -> +---+
|RB4| |RB5| |RB6| |RB4| |RB5| |RB6|
+---+ <- +---+ <- +---+ +---+ <- +---+ +---+
Full Graph Sub Graph
Root 1 Root 1
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
4 2 4 2
/ \ | |
/ \ | |
5 3 5 3
| |
| |
6 6
Shortest Path Tree of Full Graph Shortest Path Tree of Sub Graph
Figure 2.1: DT Calculation with the Affinity Link RB4-RB5
When RBridges receive an Affinity Sub-TLV declaring an Affinity Link
that is an incoming link of an RBridge (i.e., this RBridge is the
child on this Affinity Link) for a particular distribution tree, this
RBridge's incoming links/adjacencies other than the Affinity Link are
removed from the full graph of the campus to get a sub graph to
compute that tree. RBridges perform the Shortest Path First
calculation to compute the tree based on the resulting sub graph.
This assures that the Affinity Link appears in the distribution tree
being calculated.
Take Figure 2.1 as an example. Suppose RB1 is the root and link RB4-
RB5 is the Affinity Link. RB5's other incoming links RB2-RB5 and RB6-
RB5 are removed from the Full Graph to get the Sub Graph. Since RB4-
RB5 is the unique link to reach RB5, the Shortest Path Tree
inevitably contains this link.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
Note that outgoing links/adjacencies are not affected by the Affinity
Link. When two RBridges, say RB4 and RB5, are adjacent, the
adjacency/link from RB4 to RB5 and the adjacency/link from RB5 to RB4
are separate and, for example, might have different costs.
3. Distribution Tree Calculation
RBridges use IS-IS to advertise adjacencies and thus advertise
network faults through the withdrawal of such adjacencies. A node or
link failure will trigger a campus-wide re-convergence of all TRILL
distribution trees. The re-convergence generally includes the
following sequence of procedures:
1. Failure (loss of adjacency) detected through IS-IS control
messages (HELLO) not getting through or some other link test such
as BFD [RFC7175] [RBmBFD];
2. IS-IS state flooding so each RBridge learns about the failure;
3. Each RBridge recalculates affected distribution trees
independently;
4. RPF filters are updated according to the new distribution trees.
The recomputed distribution trees are pruned and installed into
the multicast forwarding tables.
The re-convergence time to go through these four steps disrupts
ongoing multicast traffic. In protection mechanisms, alternative
paths prepared ahead of potential node or link failures are available
to detour around the failures upon the failure detection; thus
service disruption can be minimized.
This document focuses only on link failure protection. The
construction of backup DTs (distribution trees) for the purpose of
node protection is out of scope. (The usual way to protect from a
node failure on the primary tree, is to have a backup tree setup
without this node. When this node fails, the backup tree can be
safely used to forward multicast traffic to make a detour. However,
TRILL distribution trees are shared among all VLANs and Fine Grained
Labels [RFC7172] and they have to cover all RBridge nodes in the
campus [RFC6325]. A DT that does not span all RBridges in the campus
may not cover all receivers of many multicast groups. (This is
different from the multicast trees construction signaled by PIM
(protocol independent multicast [RFC7761]) or mLDP (multicast label
distribution protocol [RFC6388].))
3.1. Designating Roots for Backup Distribution Trees
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
The RBridge, say, RB1, having the highest root priority nickname
controls the creation of backup DTs and specifies their roots. It
explicitly advertises a list of nicknames identifying the roots of
primary and their backup DTs using the Backup Tree APPsub-TLV as
specified in Section 6.2 (See also Section 4.5 of [RFC6325]). It's
possible that a backup DT and a primary DT have the same root RBridge
but this is not required. In that case, to distinguish the primary DT
and the backup DT for the common root case, the root RBridge MUST own
at least two nicknames so a different nickname can be used to name
each tree.
The method by which the highest priority root RBridge determines
which primary distribution trees to protect with a backup and what
the root of each such back up will be is out of scope for this
document.
3.2. Backup DT Calculation with Affinity Links
2 1
/ \
Root 1___ ___2 Root
/|\ \ / /|\
/ | \ \ / / | \
3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6
| | | | \/ \/
| | | | /\ /\
7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10
Primary DT Backup DT
Figure 3.1: An Example of a Primary DT and its Backup DT
TRILL supports the computation of multiple distribution trees by
RBridges. With the intentional assignment of Affinity Links in DT
calculation, this document specifies a method to construct Resilient
Distribution Trees. For example, in Figure 3.1, the backup DT is set
up to be maximally disjoint to the primary DT. (The full topology is
a combination of these two DTs, which is not shown in the figure.)
Except for the link between RB1 and RB2, all other links on the
primary DT do not overlap with any link on the backup DT. Thus every
link on the primary DT, except link RB1-RB2, is protected by the
backup DT.
3.2.1. The Algorithm for Choosing Affinity Links
Operators MAY configure Affinity Links, for example, to intentionally
protect a specific link such as the link connected to a gateway. But
it is desirable that every RBridge independently computes Affinity
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
Links for a backup DT across the whole campus. This enables a
distributed deployment and also minimizes configuration.
Compared to the algorithms for Maximally Redundant Trees in
[RFC7811], TRILL has both an advantage and a disadvantage. An
advantage of TRILL is that Resilient Distribution Tree does not
restrict the root of the backup DT to be the same as that of the
primary DT. Two disjoint (or maximally disjoint) trees may have
different root nodes, which significantly augments the solution
space.
A disadvantage of TRILL, when using the algorithm specified below in
this section is that the backup DT is computed with reference to the
primary tree but there may be a pair of tree that is more disjoint
than any backup tree can be with the particular primary tree.
This document RECOMMENDS achieving the independent backup tree
determination method through a change to the conventional DT
calculation process of TRILL. After the primary DT is calculated,
every RBridge will be aware of which links are used in that primary
tree. When the backup DT is calculated, each RBridge increases the
metric of these links by the summation of all original link metrics
in the campus but not more than 2**23, which gives these links a
lower priority of being chosen for the backup DT by the Shortest Path
First calculation. All links on this backup DT can be assigned as
Affinity Links but this may not be necessary. In order to reduce the
amount of Affinity Sub-TLVs flooded across the campus, only those NOT
picked by the conventional DT calculation process SHOULD be announced
as Affinity Links.
3.2.2. Affinity Links Advertisement
Similar to [RFC7783], every parent RBridge of an Affinity Link takes
charge of announcing this link in an Affinity Sub-TLV. When this
RBridge plays the role of parent RBridge for several Affinity Links,
it is natural to have them advertised together in the same Affinity
Sub-TLV, and each Affinity Link is structured as one Affinity Record
[RFC7176].
Affinity Links are announced in the Affinity Sub-TLV that is
recognized by every RBridge. Since each RBridge computes distribution
trees as the Affinity Sub-TLV requires, the backup DT will be built
consistently by all RBridges in the campus.
4. Resilient Distribution Trees Installation
As specified in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC6325], an ingress RBridge MUST
announce the distribution trees it may choose to ingress multicast
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
frames. Thus other RBridges in the campus can limit the amount of
state necessary for RPF checks. Also, [RFC6325] recommends that an
ingress RBridge by default chooses the DT or DTs whose root or roots
are least cost from the ingress RBridge. To sum up, RBridges do pre-
compute all the trees that might be used so they can properly forward
multi-destination packets, but only install RPF state for some
combinations of ingress and tree.
This document specifies that the backup DT MUST be included in an
ingress RBridge's DT announcement list in this ingress RBridge's LSP
if the corresponding primary tree is included. In order to reduce the
service disruption time, RBridges SHOULD install backup DTs in
advance, which also includes the RPF filters that need to be set up
for RPF Checks.
Since the backup DT is intentionally built highly disjoint to the
primary DT, when a link fails and interrupts the ongoing multicast
traffic sent along the primary DT, it is probable that the backup DT
is not affected. Therefore, the backup DT installed in advance can be
used to deliver multicast packets immediately.
4.1. Pruning the Backup Distribution Tree
The way that a backup DT is pruned is different from the way that the
primary DT is pruned. To enable protection it is possible that a
branch should not be pruned (see Section 4.5.3 of [RFC6325]), even
though it does not have any downstream receivers for a particular
data label. The rule for backup DT pruning is that the backup DT
should be pruned, eliminating branches that have no potential
downstream RBridges which appear on the pruned primary DT.
Even though the primary DT may not be optimally pruned in practice,
the backup DT SHOULD always be pruned as if the primary DT is
optimally pruned. Those redundant links that ought to be pruned on
the primary DT will not be protected.
1
\
Root 1___ ___2 Root
/ \ \ / /|\
/ \ \ / / | \
3 5 6 3 4 5 6
| | | / \/
| | | / /\
7 9 10 7 9 10
Pruned Primary DT Pruned Backup DT
Figure 4.1: The Backup DT is Pruned Based on the Pruned Primary DT.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
Suppose RB7, RB9 and RB10 constitute a multicast group MGx. The
pruned primary DT and backup DT are shown in Figure 4.1. Referring
back to Figure 3.1, branches RB2-RB1 and RB4-RB1 on the primary DT
are pruned for the distribution of MGx traffic since there are no
potential receivers on these two branches. Although branches RB1-RB2
and RB3-RB2 on the backup DT have no potential multicast receivers,
they appear on the pruned primary DT and may be used to repair link
failures of the primary DT. Therefore they are not pruned from the
backup DT. Branch RB8-RB3 can be safely pruned because it does not
appear on the pruned primary DT.
4.2. RPF Filters Preparation
RB2 announces in its LSP the trees RB2 might choose when RB2
ingresses a multicast packet [RFC6325]. When RB2 specifies such
trees, it SHOULD include the backup DT. Other RBridges will prepare
the RPF check states for both the primary DT and backup DT. When a
multicast packet is sent along either the primary DT or the backup
DT, it will be subject to the RPF Check. This works when global 1:1
protection is used. However, when global 1+1 protection or local
protection is applied, traffic duplication will happen if multicast
receivers accept both copies of the multicast packets from two RPF
filters. In order to avoid such duplication, egress RBridge multicast
receivers MUST act as merge points to activate a single RPF filter
and discard the duplicated packets from the other RPF filter. In the
normal case, the RPF state is set up according to the primary DT.
When a link failure on the primary DT is detected, the egress node
RPF filter based on the backup DT should be activated.
5. Protection Mechanisms with Resilient Distribution Trees
Protection mechanisms make use of the backup DT installed in advance.
Protection mechanisms developed using PIM or mLDP for multicast in
IP/MPLS networks are not applicable to TRILL due to the following
fundamental differences in their distribution tree calculation.
o The link on a TRILL distribution tree is always bidirectional
while the link on a distribution tree in IP/MPLS networks may be
unidirectional.
o In TRILL, a multicast source node does not have to be the root of
the distribution tree. It is just the opposite in IP/MPLS
networks.
o In IP/MPLS networks, distribution trees are constructed for each
multicast source node as well as their backup distribution trees.
In TRILL, a small number of core distribution trees are shared
among multicast groups. A backup DT does not have to share the
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
same root as the primary DT.
Therefore a TRILL specific multicast protection mechanism is needed.
Global 1:1 protection, global 1+1 protection and local protection are
described in this section. In Figure 4.1, assume RB7 is the ingress
RBridge of the multicast stream while RB9 and RB10 are the multicast
receivers. Suppose link RB1-RB5 fails during the multicast
forwarding. The backup DT rooted at RB2 does not include link RB1-
RB5, therefore it can be used to protect this link. In global 1:1
protection, RB7 will switch the subsequent multicast traffic to this
backup DT when it's notified of the link failure. In the global 1+1
protection, RB7 will inject two copies of the multicast stream and
let multicast receivers RB9 and RB10 choose which copy would be
delivered. In the local protection, when link RB1-RB5 fails, RB1 will
locally replicate the multicast traffic and send it on the backup DT.
The type of protection in use at an RBridge is indicated by a two-bit
field in that RBridge's Extended Capability TLV as discussed in
Section 5.4.
5.1. Global 1:1 Protection
In the global 1:1 protection, the ingress RBridge of the multicast
traffic is responsible for switching the failure affected traffic
from the primary DT over to the backup DT. Since the backup DT has
been installed in advance, the global protection need not wait for
the DT recalculation and installation. When the ingress RBridge is
notified about the failure, it immediately makes this switch over.
This type of protection is simple and duplication safe. However,
depending on the topology of the RBridge campus, the time spent on
the failure detection and propagation through the IS-IS control plane
may still cause a considerable service disruption.
BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) protocol can be used to
reduce the failure detection time. Link failures can be rapidly
detected with one-hop BFD [RFC7175]. [RBmBFD] introduces the fast
failure detection of multicast paths. It can be used to reduce both
the failure detection and the propagation time for global protection.
In [RBmBFD], the ingress RBridge needs to send BFD control packets to
poll each receiver, and receivers return BFD control packets to the
ingress as the response. If no response is received from a specific
receiver for a detection time, the ingress can judge that the
connectivity to this receiver is broken. Therefore, [RBmBFD] is used
to detect the connectivity of a path rather than a link. The ingress
RBridge will determine a minimum failed branch that contains this
receiver. The ingress RBridge will switch ongoing multicast traffic
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
based on this judgment. For example, in Figure 4.1, if RB9 does not
respond while RB10 still responds, RB7 will presume that link RB1-RB5
and RB5-RB9 are failed. Multicast traffic will be switched to a
backup DT that can protect these two links. More accurate link
failure detection might help ingress RBridges make smarter decision
but it's out of the scope of this document.
5.2. Global 1+1 Protection
In the global 1+1 protection, the multicast source RBridge always
replicates the multicast packets and sends them onto both the primary
and backup DT. This may sacrifice the capacity efficiency but given
there is much connection redundancy and inexpensive bandwidth in Data
Center Networks, such kind of protection can be popular [RFC7431].
5.2.1. Failure Detection
Egress RBridges (merge points) SHOULD realize the link failure as
early as practical and update their RPF filters quickly to minimize
the traffic disruption. Three options are provided as follows.
1. If you had a very reliable and steady data stream, egress RBridges
assume a minimum known packet rate for that data stream [RFC7431].
A failure detection timer (say Td) is set as the interval between
two continuous packets. Td is reinitialized each time a packet is
received. If Td expires and packets are arriving at the egress
RBridge on the backup DT (within the time frame Td), it updates
the RPF filters and starts to receive packets forwarded on the
backup DT. This method requires configuration at the egress
RBridge of Td and of some method (filter) to determine if a packet
is part of the reliable data stream. Since the filtering
capabilities of various fast path logic differs greatly, specifics
of such configuration are outside the scope of this document.
2. With multi-point BFD [RBmBFD], when a link failure happens,
affected egress RBridges can detect a lack of connectivity from
the ingress. Therefore these egress RBridges are able to update
their RPF filters promptly.
3. Egress RBridges can always rely on the IS-IS control plane to
learn the failure and determine whether their RPF filters should
be updated.
5.2.2. Traffic Forking and Merging
For the sake of protection, transit RBridges SHOULD activate both
primary and backup RPF filters, therefore both copies of the
multicast packets will pass through transit RBridges.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
Multicast receivers (egress RBridges) MUST act as "merge points" to
egress only one copy of each multicast packet. This is achieved by
the activation of only a single RPF filter. In the normal case,
egress RBridges activate the primary RPF filter. When a link on the
pruned primary DT fails, the ingress RBridge cannot reach some of the
receivers. When these unreachable receivers realize the link failed,
they SHOULD update their RPF filters to receive packets sent on the
backup DT.
Note that the egress RBridge need not be a literal merge point, that
is receiving the primary and backup DT versions over different links.
Even if the egress RBridge receives both copies over the same link,
because disjoint links are not available, it can still filter out one
copy because the RFP filtering logic is designed to test which tree
the packet is on as indicated by a field in the TRILL Header
[RFC6325].
5.3. Local Protection
In the local protection, the Point of Local Repair (PLR) happens at
the upstream RBridge connected to the failed link. It is this RBridge
that makes the decision to replicate the multicast traffic to recover
from this link failure. Local protection can further save the time
spent on failure notification through the flooding of LSPs across the
TRILL campus. In addition, the failure detection can be sped up using
BFD [RFC7175], therefore local protection can minimize the service
disruption, typically reducing it to less than 50 milliseconds.
Since the ingress RBridge is not necessarily the root of the
distribution tree in TRILL, a multicast downstream point may not be
the descendant of the ingress point on the distribution tree.
Due to the multi-destination RPF check in TRILL, local protection can
only be used at a fork point where the primary and backup trees
diverge and the set of nodes downstream is identical for both paths.
If these conditions do not apply, local protection MUST NOT be used.
5.3.1. Starting to Use the Backup Distribution Tree
The egress nickname TRILL Header field of the replicated multicast
TRILL data packets specifies the tree on which they are being
distributed. This field will be rewritten to the backup DT's root
nickname by the PLR. But the ingress nickname field of the multicast
TRILL Data packet MUST remain unchanged. The PLR forwards all
multicast traffic with the backup DT egress nickname along the backup
DT. This updates [RFC6325] which specifies that the egress nickname
in the TRILL header of a multi-destination TRILL data packet must not
be changed by transit RBridges.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
In the above example, the PLR RB1 locally decides to send replicated
multicast packets according to the backup DT. It will send them to
the next hop RB2.
5.3.2. Duplication Suppression
When a PLR starts to send replicated multicast packets on the backup
DT, some multicast packets are still being sent along the primary DT.
Some egress RBridges might receive duplicated multicast packets. The
traffic forking and merging method in the global 1+1 protection can
be adopted to suppress the duplication.
5.3.3. An Example to Walk Through
The example used to illustrate the above local protection is put
together to get a whole "walk through" below.
In the normal case, multicast frames ingressed by RB7 in Figure 4.1
with pruned distribution on the primary DT rooted at RB1 are being
received by RB9 and RB10. When the link RB1-RB5 fails, the PLR RB1
begins to replicate and forward subsequent multicast packets using
the pruned backup DT rooted at RB2. When RB2 gets the multicast
packets from the link RB1-RB2, it accepts them since the RPF filter
{DT=RB2, ingress=RB7, receiving links=RB1-RB2, RB3-RB2, RB4-RB2, RB5-
RB2 and RB6-RB2} is installed on RB2. RB2 forwards the replicated
multicast packets to its neighbors except RB1. The multicast packets
reach RB6 where both RPF filters {DT=RB1, ingress=RB7, receiving
link=RB1-RB6} and {DT=RB2, ingress=RB7, receiving links=RB2-RB6 and
RB9-RB6} are active. RB6 will let both multicast streams through.
Multicast packets will finally reach RB9 where the RPF filter is
updated from {DT=RB1, ingress=RB7, receiving link=RB5-RB9} to
{DT=RB2, ingress=RB7, receiving link=RB6-RB9}. RB9 will egress the
multicast packets from the Backup Distribution Tree on to the local
link and drop those from the Primary Distribution Tree based on the
reverse path forwarding filter.
5.4. Protection Mode Signaling
The desired mode of resilient tree operation for each RBridge is
chosen by the network operator and configured on that RBridge. This
mode is announced by each RBridge is a two-bit Resilient Tree Mode
field in their Extended Capabilities TLV (see Sections 6.1, 8.1). The
values of this field have the following meanings:
Value Short Name Effect
----- ---------- ------
00 No support If any RBridge does not support Resilient
Trees, then the Resilient Tree mechanism is
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
disabled in all RBridges. This also applies if
any RBridge does not announce an Extended
Capabilities TLV.
01 Global 1:1 An RBridge advertising this value will, when it
ingresses a multi-destination frames, send them
on only one of the primary and backup DTs. All
other RBridges set their RPF filters to accept
traffic on both trees from this ingress.
10 Global 1+1 An RBridge advertising this value will, when it
ingresses a multi-destination frames, send them
on both the primary and backup DTs. All other
RBridges MUST set their RPF filters to accept
Traffic only on the primary or backup DT.
11 1+1 & Local An RBridge advertising this value acts as an
for the value 01 above when it is the ingress
RBridge. In addition, if it is a transit
RBridge at a fork point between the primary and
backup tress and detects that an adjacency has
failed, it diverts multi-destination TRILL data
packts on the primary tree to the backup tree,
changing the tree id in the packet to the
backup tree.
5.5. Updating the Primary and the Backup Distribution Trees
Assume an RBridge receives the LSP that indicates a link failure.
This RBridge starts to calculate the new primary DT based on the new
topology with the failed link excluded. Suppose the new primary DT is
installed at t1.
The propagation of LSPs around the campus will take some time. For
safety, we assume all RBridges in the campus will have converged to
the new primary DT at t1+Ts. By default, Ts (the "settling time") is
set to 30 seconds but it is configurable in seconds from 1 to 100. At
t1+Ts, the ingress RBridge switches the traffic from the backup DT
back to the new primary DT.
After another Ts (at t1+2*Ts), no multicast packets are being
forwarded along the old primary DT. The backup DT should be updated
(recalculated and reinstalled) after the new primary DT. The process
of this update under different protection types are discussed as
follows.
a) For the global 1:1 protection, the backup DT is simply updated at
t1+2*Ts.
b) For the global 1+1 protection, the ingress RBridge stops
replicating the multicast packets onto the old backup DT at t1+Ts.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
The backup DT is updated at t1+2*Ts. The ingress RBridge MUST wait
for another Ts, during which time period all RBridges converge to
the new backup DT. At t1+3*Ts, it's safe for the ingress RBridge
to start to replicate multicast packets onto the new backup DT.
c) For the local protection, the PLR stops replicating and sending
packets on the old backup DT at t1+Ts. It is safe for RBridges to
start updating the backup DT at t1+2*Ts.
6. TRILL IS-IS Extensions
This section lists extensions to TRILL IS-IS to support resilient
trees.
6.1. Resilient Trees Extended Capability Field
An RBridge that supports the facilities specified in this document
MUST announce the Extended RBridge Capabilities APPsub-TLV [RFC7782]
with a non-zero value in the Resilient Trees field. If there are
RBridges that do not announce field set to a non-zero value, all
RBridges of the campus MUST disable the Resilient Distribution Tree
mechanism as defined in this document and fall back to the
distribution tree calculation algorithm as specified in [RFC6325].
6.2 Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLV
The structure of the Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLV is shown below.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = tbd2 | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Primary Tree Root Nickname | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Backup Tree Root Nickname | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o Type = Backup Tree Root APPsubTLV type, set to tbd2
o Length = 4, if the length is any other value, the APPsub-TLV is
corrupt and MUST be ignored.
o Primary Tree Root Nickname = the nickname of the root RBridge
of the primary tree for which a resilient backup tree is being
created
o Backup Tree Root Nickname = the nickname of the root RBridge of
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
the backup tree
If either nickname is not the nickname of a tree whose calculation is
being directed by the highest priority tree root RBridge, the APPsub-
TLV is ignored. This APPsub-TLV MUST be advertised by the highest
priority RBridge to be a tree root. Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLVs
advertised by other RBridges are ignored. If there are two or more
Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLVs for the same primary tree specifying
different backup trees, then the one specifying the lowest magnitude
backup tree root nickname is used, treating nicknames as unsigned 16-
bit quantities.
7. Security Considerations
This document raises no new security issues for TRILL. The IS-IS PDUs
used to transmit the information specified in Section 6 can be
secured with IS-IS security [RFC5310].
For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
8. IANA Considerations
The Affinity Sub-TLV has already been defined in [RFC7176]. This
document does not change its definition. See below for IANA Actions.
8.1. Resilient Tree Extended Capability Field
IANA will assign two adjacent bits (Sections 5.4, 6.1) in the
Extended RBridge Capabilities subregistry on the TRILL Parameters
page to form the Resilient Tree Extended Capability field and change
the heading of the "Bit" column to be "Bit(s)", adding the following
to the registry [for example, tbd1 could be "2-3"]:
Bit Mnemonic Description Reference
---- -------- ----------- ---------
tbd1 RT Resilient Tree Support [this document]
8.2. Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLV
IANA will assign and APPsub-TLV type under IS-IS TLV 251 Application
Identifier 1 on the TRILL Parameters page from the range below 255
for the Backup Tree Root APPsub-TLV (Section 6.2) as follows:
Type Name Reference
---- ---------------- ---------------
tbd2 Backup Tree Root [this document]
Acknowledgements
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
The careful review from Gayle Noble is gracefully acknowledged. The
authors would like to thank the comments and suggestions from Donald
Eastlake, Erik Nordmark, Fangwei Hu, Gayle Noble, Hongjun Zhai and
Xudong Zhang.
9. References
9.1. 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>.
[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>.
[RFC7783] Senevirathne, T., Pathangi, J., and J. Hudson, "Coordinated
Multicast Trees (CMT) for Transparent Interconnection of
Lots of Links (TRILL)", RFC 7783, DOI 10.17487/RFC7783,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7783>.
[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>.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas, I.,
Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol Independent
Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification
(Revised)", STD 83, RFC 7761, DOI 10.17487/RFC7761, March
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7761>.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-
to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, DOI 10.17487/RFC6388, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.
[RBmBFD] M. Zhang, S. Pallagatti and V. Govindan, "TRILL Support of
Point to Multipoint BFD", draft-ietf-trill-p2mp-bfd, work
in progress.
[RFC7175] Manral, V., Eastlake 3rd, D., Ward, D., and A. Banerjee,
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support", RFC
7175, DOI 10.17487/RFC7175, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7175>.
[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>.
[RFC7782] Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Zhai, H., Durrani, M., and S.
Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL) Active-Active Edge Using Multiple MAC Attachments",
RFC 7782, DOI 10.17487/RFC7782, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7782>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC7811] Enyedi, G., Csaszar, A., Atlas, A., Bowers, C., and A.
Gopalan, "An Algorithm for Computing IP/LDP Fast Reroute
Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)", RFC 7811, DOI
10.17487/RFC7811, June 2016, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7811>.
[RFC7431] Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431, DOI
10.17487/RFC7431, August 2015, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7431>.
[mBFD] D. Katz, D. Ward, "BFD for Multipoint Networks", draft-
ietf-bfd-multipoint, work in progress.
[RFC7172] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Agarwal, P., Perlman, R., and
D. Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC 7172, DOI
10.17487/RFC7172, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7172>.
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT Resilient Distribution Trees January 19, 2018
Author's Addresses
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Huawei Building, No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095 P.R. China
Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com
Tissa Senevirathne
Consultant
Email: tsenevir@gmail.com
Janardhanan Pathangi
Gigamon
Email: path.jana@gmail.com
Ayan Banerjee
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134 USA
Email: ayabaner@cisco.com
Anoop Ghanwani
Dell
350 Holger Way
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: +1-408-571-3500
Email: Anoop@alumni.duke.edu
Zhang, et al. Expires July 23, 2018 [Page 22]
