Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls
INTERNET-DRAFT Mohammed Umair
Intended Status: Informational Kingston Smiler Selvaraj
IPInfusion
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei
Lucy Yong
Self
Expires: September 17, 2018 March 18, 2018
TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-08.txt
Abstract
This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple Transparent
Interconnection of Lots of links (TRILL) sites with an intervening
MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS standards. This draft
addresses two problems as follows:
1) Providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that are
separated by an MPLS provider network.
2) Providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different
tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
to the authors or the TRILL working group mailing list:
trill@ietf.org.
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.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................3
1.1. Terminology...........................................3
2. TRILL Over MPLS Model...................................5
3. VPLS Model..............................................6
3.1 Entities in the VPLS Model.............................7
3.2 TRILL Adjacency for VPLS model.........................8
3.3 MPLS encapsulation for VPLS model......................8
3.4 Loop Free provider PSN/MPLS............................8
3.5 Frame Processing.......................................8
4. VPTS Model..............................................9
4.1 Entities in the VPTS Model............................11
4.1.1 TRILL Intermediate Routers (TIR)....................11
4.1.2 Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD)..........12
4.2 TRILL Adjacency for VPTS model........................12
4.3 MPLS encapsulation for VPTS model.....................12
4.4 Loop Free provider PSN/MPLS...........................12
4.5. Frame Processing.....................................13
4.5.1 Multi-Destination Frame Processing..................13
4.5.2 Unicast Frame Processing............................13
5. VPTS Model Versus VPLS Model...........................14
6. Packet Processing Between Pseudowires..................14
7. Efficiency Considerations..............................15
8. Security Considerations................................15
9. IANA Considerations....................................16
Normative References......................................17
Informative References....................................18
Acknowledgements..........................................19
Authors' Addresses........................................19
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
1. Introduction
The IETF Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7177] [RFC7780] provides transparent
forwarding in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topology and link
technologies using a header with a hop count and link-state routing.
TRILL provides optimal pair-wise forwarding without configuration,
safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and support
for multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. Intermediate
Systems (ISs) implementing TRILL are called Routing Bridges
(RBridges) or TRILL Switches
This document, in conjunction with [RFC7173] on TRILL Transport using
Pseudowires, addresses two problems:
1) Providing connection between more than two TRILL sites belongs to
a single TRILL network that are separated by an MPLS provider
network using [RFC7173]. (Herein also called problem statement 1.)
2) Providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different
tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network. In short
providing connection between TRILL sites belonging to a
tenant/tenants over a MPLS provider network. (Herein also called
problem statement 2.)
A tenant is the administrative entity on whose behalf their
associated services are managed. Here tenant refers to a TRILL campus
that is segregated from other tenants for security reasons.
A key multi-tenancy requirement is traffic isolation so that one
tenant's traffic is not visible to any other tenant. This draft also
addresses the problem of multi-tenancy by isolating one tenant's
traffic from the other.
[RFC7173] mentions how to interconnect a pair of Transparent
Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) switch ports using
pseudowires. This document explains, how to connect multiple TRILL
sites (not limited to only two sites) using the mechanisms and
encapsulations defined in [RFC7173].
1.1. Terminology
Acronyms used in this document include the following:
AC - Attachment Circuit [RFC4664]
Data Label - VLAN or FGL
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
database - IS-IS link state database
ECMP - Equal Cost Multi Path
FGL - Fine-Grained Labeling [RFC7172]
IS-IS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS]
LDP - Label Distribution Protocol
LAN - Local Area Network
MPLS - Multi-Protocol Label Switching
PBB - Provider Backbone Bridging
PE - Provider Edge Device
PSN - Packet Switched Network
PW - Pseudowire [RFC4664]
TIR - TRILL Intermediate Router (Devices that has both
IP/MPLS and TRILL functionality)
TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links OR
Tunneled Routing in the Link Layer
TRILL Site - A part of a TRILL campus that contains at least
one RBridge.
VLAN - Virtual Local Area Network.
VPLS - Virtual Private LAN Service
VPTS - Virtual Private TRILL Service
VSI - Virtual Service Instance [RFC4664]
VTSD - Virtual TRILL Switch Domain OR Virtual TRILL
Service Domain. A Virtual RBridge that segregates
one tenant's TRILL database as well as traffic from
the other.
WAN - Wide Area Network
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
2. TRILL Over MPLS Model
TRILL Over MPLS can be achieved in two different ways.
a) the VPLS Model for TRILL
b) the VPTS Model/TIR Model for TRILL
Both these models can be used to solve problem statements 1 and 2.
Herein the VPLS Model for TRILL is also called Model 1 and the VPTS
Model/TIR Model is also called Model 2.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
3. VPLS Model
Figure 1 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using VPLS
model. The PE routers in the below topology model should support all
the functional Components mentioned in [RFC4664].
+-----+ +-----+
| RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb |
+-----+ | . . | +-----+
Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2
+----|PE1 | |PE2 |----+
+----+ MPLS Cloud +----+
. .
. +----+ .
..........|PE3 |...........
+----+ ^
| |
| +-- Emulated LAN
+-----+
| RBc |
+-----+
Site 3
Figure 1. Topological Model of TRILL over MPLS
connecting three TRILL Sites
Figure 2 below shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS to
connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to a tenant. (Tenant here is a
TRILL campus, not a specific Data label.) VSI1 and VSI2 are two
Virtual Service Instances that segregate Tenant1's traffic from other
tenant traffic. VSI1 will maintain its own database for Tenant1,
similarly VSI2 will maintain its own database for Tenant2.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
+-----+ ............................ +-----+
|RBat1+---+ . ++++++++++++++++++++++++ . +---|RBbt1|
+-----+ | . + + . | +-----+
Tenant1 | +----+ +----+ | Tenant1
Site 1 +----|VSI1| |VSI1|----+ Site 2
+----|VSI2| MPLS Cloud |VSI2|----+
| +----+ +----+ |
+-----+ | . + + . | +-----+
|RBat2+---+ . +++++++++ +----+ ++++++++ . +---|RBbt2|
+-----+ ............|VSI1|........... +-----+
Tenant2 |VSI2| ^ Tenant2
Site 1 +----+ | Site 2
| |
+-----+ +-----Emulated
|RBct2| LAN
+-----+
Tenant2 Site 3
.... VSI1 Path
++++ VSI2 Path
Figure 2. Topological Model for VPLS Model
connecting 2 Tenants with 3 sites each
In this model, TRILL sites are connected to VPLS-capable PE devices
that provide a logical interconnect, such that TRILL RBridges
belonging to a specific tenant connected via an single bridged
Ethernet. These PE devices are the same as the PE devices specified
in [RFC4026]. The Attachment Circuit ports of PE Routers are layer 2
switch ports that are connected to the RBridges at a TRILL site. Here
each VPLS instance looks like an emulated LAN. This model is similar
to connecting different RBridges by a layer 2 bridge domain (multi
access link) as specified in [RFC6325]. This model doesn't requires
any changes in PE routers to carry TRILL packets, as TRILL packets
will be transferred transparently.
3.1 Entities in the VPLS Model
The PE (VPLS-PE) and CE devices are defined in [RFC4026].
The Generic L2VPN Transport Functional Components like Attachment
Circuits, Pseudowires, VSI etc. are defined in [RFC4664].
The RB (RBridge) and TRILL Sites are defined in [RFC6325] as updated
by [RFC7780].
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
3.2 TRILL Adjacency for VPLS model
As specified in section 3 of this document, the MPLS cloud looks like
an emulated LAN (also called multi-access link or broadcast link).
This results in RBridges at different sites looking like they are
connected by a multi-access link. With such interconnection, the
TRILL adjacencies over the link are automatically discovered and
established through TRILL IS-IS control messages [RFC7177]. These IS-
IS control messages are transparently forwarded by the VPLS domain,
after doing MPLS encapsulation as specified in the section 3.4.
3.3 MPLS encapsulation for VPLS model
Use of VPLS [RFC4762] [RFC4761] to interconnect TRILL sites requires
no changes to a VPLS implementation, in particular the use of
Ethernet pseudowires between VPLS PEs. A VPLS PE receives normal
Ethernet frames from an RBridge (i.e., CE) and is not aware that the
CE is an RBridge device. As an example, an MPLS-encapsulated TRILL
packet within the MPLS network can use the format illustrated in
Appendix A of [RFC7173] for the non-PBB case. For the PBB case,
additional header fields illustrated in [RFC7041] can be added by
entry PE and removed by the exit PE.
3.4 Loop Free provider PSN/MPLS
No explicit handling is required to avoid loop free topology. Split
Horizon technique specified in [RFC4664] will take care of avoiding
loops in the provider PSN network.
3.5 Frame Processing
The PE devices transparently process the TRILL control and data
frames. Procedures to forward the frames are defined in [RFC4664].
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
4. VPTS Model
The VPTS (Virtual Private TRILL Service) is a L2 TRILL service, that
emulates TRILL service across a Wide Area Network (WAN). VPTS is
similar to what VPLS does for bridge core but provides a TRILL core.
VPLS provides "Virtual Private LAN Service" for different customers.
VPTS provides "Virtual Private TRILL Service" for different TRILL
tenants.
Figure 3 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using VPTS.
In this model the PE routers are replaced with TIR (TRILL
Intermediate Router) and VSI is replaced with VTSD (Virtual TRILL
Switch Domain). The TIR devices must be capable of supporting both
MPLS and TRILL as specified in section 4.1.1. The TIR devices are
interconnected via PWs and appear as a unified emulated TRILL campus
with each VTSD inside a TIR equivalent to a RBridge.
Some of the reasons for interconnecting TRILL Sites without isolating
the TRILL Control plane of one TRILL site from other sites are as
described below.
1) Nickname Uniqueness: One of the basic requirements of TRILL is
that, RBridge Nicknames are unique within the campus [RFC6325]. If
we segregate control plane of one TRILL site from other TRILL site
and provide interconnection between these sites, it may result in
Nickname collision.
2) Distribution Trees and their pruning: When a TRILL Data packet
traverses a Distribution Tree, it will stay on it even in other
TRILL sites. If no end-station service is enabled for a particular
Data Label in a TRILL site, the Distribution Tree may be pruned
and TRILL data packets of that particular Data Label might never
get to another TRILL site where the pckets had no receivers. The
TRILL RPF check will always be performed on the packets that are
received by TIRs through pseudowires.
3) Hop Count values: When a TRILL data packet is received over a
pseudowire by a TIR, the TIR does the processing of Hop Count
defined in [RFC6325] and will not perform any resetting of Hop
Count.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
+-----+ +-----+
| RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb |
+-----+ | . . | +-----+
Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2
+----|TIR1| |TIR2|----+
+----+ MPLS Cloud +----+
. .
. +----+ .
..........|TIR3|...........
+----+ ^
| |
| +-- Emulated TRILL
+-----+
| RBc |
+-----+
Site 3
Figure 3. Topological Model of VPTS/TIR
connecting three TRILL Sites
In the above Figure 3, Site1, Site2 and Site3 (running the TRILL
protocol) are connected to TIR Devices. These TIR devices, along with
the MPLS cloud, look like an unified emulated TRILL network. Only the
PE devices in the MPLS network should be replaced with TIRs so the
intermediate Provider routers are agnostic to the TRILL protocol.
Figure 4 below extends the topological model of TRILL over MPLS to
connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to a tenant (tenant here is a
campus, not a Data label) using VPTS model. VTSD1 and VTSD2 are two
Virtual TRILL Switch Domains (Virtual RBridges) that segregate
Tenant1's traffic from Tenant2's traffic. VTSD1 will maintain its own
TRILL database for Tenant1. Similarly VTSD2 will maintain its own
TRILL database for Tenant2.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
+-----+ ............................ +-----+
|RBat1+---+ . ######################## . +---|RBbt1|
+-----+ | . # # . | +-----+
Tenant1 | +-----+ +-----+ | Tenant1
Site 1 +----|VTSD1| |VTSD1|----+ Site 2
+----|VTSD2| MPLS Cloud |VTSD2|----+
| +-----+ +-----+ |
+-----+ | . # # . | +-----+
|RBat2+---+ . #########+-----+######### . +---|RBbt2|
+-----+ ...........|VTSD1|........... +-----+
Tenant2 |VTSD2| ^ Tenant2
Site 1 +-----+ | Site 2
| |
+-----+ +-----Emulated
|RBct2| TRILL
+-----+
Tenant2 Site 3
.... VTSD1 Connectivity
#### VTSD2 Connectivity
Figure 4. Topological Model of VPTS/TIR
connecting 2 tenants with three TRILL Sites
4.1 Entities in the VPTS Model
The CE devices are defined in [RFC4026].
The Generic L2VPN Transport Functional Components like Attachment
Circuits, Pseudowires etc. are defined in [RFC4664].
The RB (RBridge) and TRILL Campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated
by [RFC7780].
This model introduces two new entities called TIR and VTSD that are
described below.
4.1.1 TRILL Intermediate Routers (TIR)
The TIRs (TRILL Intermediate Routers) must be capable of running both
VPLS and TRILL protocols. TIR devices are a superset of the VPLS-PE
devices defined in [RFC4026] with the additional functionality of
TRILL. The VSI instance that provides transparent bridging
functionality in the PE device is replaced with VTSD in a TIR.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
4.1.2 Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD)
The VTSD (Virtual Trill Switch Domain) is similar to VSI (layer 2
bridge) in the VPLS model, but the VTSD acts as a TRILL RBridge. The
VTSD is a superset of VSI and must support all the functionality
provided by the VSI as defined in [RFC4026]. Along with VSI
functionality, the VTSD must be capable of supporting TRILL protocols
and forming TRILL adjacencies. The VTSD must be capable of performing
all the operations that a standard TRILL Switch can do.
One VTSD instance per tenant must be maintained, when multiple
tenants are connected to a TIR. The VTSD must maintain all the
information maintained by the RBridge on a per tenant basis. The VTSD
must also take care of segregating one tenant traffic from other.
Each VTSD will have its own nickname for each tenant, If a TIR
supports 10 TRILL tenants, it needs to be assigned with ten TRILL
nicknames, one for the nickname space of each of its tenants, and run
ten copies of TRILL protocols, one for each tenant. It is possible
that it would have the same nickname for two or more tenants but,
since the TRILL data and control traffic are separated for the
tenants, there is no confusion.
4.2 TRILL Adjacency for VPTS model
The VTSD must be capable of forming TRILL adjacency with the
corresponding VTSDs present in its peer VPTS neighbor, and also the
neighbor RBridges present in the TRILL sites. The procedure to form
TRILL Adjacency is specified in [RFC7173] and [RFC7177].
4.3 MPLS encapsulation for VPTS model
The VPTS model uses PPP or Ethernet pseudowires for MPLS
encapsulation as specified in [RFC7173], and requires no changes in
the packet format in that RFC. In accordance with [RFC7173], the PPP
encapsulation is the default.
4.4 Loop Free provider PSN/MPLS
This model isn't required to employ Split Horizon mechanism in the
provider PSN network, as TRILL takes care of Loop free topology using
Distribution Trees. Any multi-destination packet will traverse a
distribution tree path. All distribution trees are calculated based
on TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325] as updated by [RFC7780].
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
4.5. Frame Processing
This section specifies multi-destination and unicast frame processing
in VPTS/TIR model.
4.5.1 Multi-Destination Frame Processing
Any multi-destination (unknown unicast, multicast or broadcast, as
indicated by multi-destination bit in the TRILL Header) packets
inside a VTSD will be processed or forwarded through the distribution
tree for which they were encapsulated on TRILL ingress. If any multi-
destination packet is received from the wrong pseudowire at a VTSD,
the TRILL protocol running in the VTSD will perform an RPF check as
specified in [RFC7780] and drop the packet.
The Pruning mechanism in Distribution Trees, as specified in
[RFC6325] and [RFC7780], can also be used to avoid forwarding of
multi-destination data packets on the branches where there are no
potential destinations.
4.5.2 Unicast Frame Processing
Unicast packets are forwarded in same way they get forwarded in a
standard TRILL Campus as specified in [RFC6325]. If multiple equal
cost paths are available over pseudowires to reach destination, then
VTSD should be capable of doing ECMP for them.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
5. VPTS Model Versus VPLS Model
VPLS Model uses a simpler loop-breaking rule: the "split horizon"
rule, where a PE must not forward traffic from one PW to another in
the same VPLS mesh, whereas the VPTS Model uses distribution Trees
for loop free topology. As this is an emulated TRILL service, for
interoperability purposes the VPTS model is the default.
6. Packet Processing Between Pseudowires
Whenever a packet gets received over a pseudowire, a VTSD will
decapsulate the MPLS headers followed by checking the TRILL header.
If the egress nickname in the TRILL header is for a TRILL site
located beyond another pseudowire, then VTSD will encapsulate with
new MPLS headers and send it across the proper pseudowire.
For example in figure 3, consider that the pseudowire between TIR1
and TIR2 fails, Then TIR1 will communicate with TIR2 via TIR3,
whenever packets which are destined to TIR3 gets received from
pseudowire between TIR1 and TIR3, VTSD inside TIR3 will decapsulate
the MPLS headers, then check the TRILL header's egress nickname
field. If the egress nickname indicate it is destained for the
RBridge in site3 then the packet will be sent to RBc, if the egress
nickname is located at site2, VTSD will add MPLS headers for the
pseudowire between TIR3 and TIR2 and forward the packet on that
pseudowire.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
7. Efficiency Considerations
Since the VPTS Model uses Distribution trees for processing of multi-
destination data packets, it is always advisable to have at least one
Distribution tree root to be located in every TRILL site. This will
avoid data packets getting received at TRILL sites where end-station
service is not enabled for that data packet.
8. Security Considerations
This document specifies methods using existing standards and
facilities in ways that do not create new security problems.
For general VPLS security considerations, including discussion of
isolating customers from each other, see [RFC4761] and [RFC4762].
For transport of TRILL by Pseudowires security consideration, see
[RFC7173]. In particular, since pseudowires are support by MPLS or IP
which are in turn supported by a link layer, that document recommends
using IP security, such as IPsec [RFC4301] or DTLS [RFC6347], or the
lower link layer security, such as MACSEC [802.1AE] for Ethernet
links.
Transmission outside the customer environment through the provider
environment, as described in this document, increases risk of
compromise or injection of false data through failure of tenant
isolation or by the provider. In the VPLS model (Section 3), the use
of link encryption and authentication between the CEs of a tenant
that is being connected through provider facilities should be a good
defense. In the VPTS model (Section 4), it is assumed that the CEs
will peer with virtual TRILL switches of the provider network and
thus link security between TRILL switch ports is inadequate as it
will terminate at the edge PE. Thus, end station to end station
encryption and authentication is more appropriate for the VPTS model.
For added security against the compromise of data end-to-end
encryption and authentication should be considered; that is,
encryption and authentication from source end station to destination
end station. This would typically be provided by IPsec [RFC4301] or
DTLS [RFC6347] or other protocols convenient to protect information
of concern.
For general TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325].
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
9. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please delete
this section before publication
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
Normative References
[IS-IS] "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with the
Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service
(ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 2002".
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[RFC7173] Yong, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Aldrin, S., and J. Hudson,
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transport
Using Pseudowires", RFC 7173, DOI 10.17487/RFC7173, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7173>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
Informative References
[802.1AE] "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks--
Media Access Control (MAC) Security.", 2006.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026, DOI
10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, December
2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, DOI
10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, January
2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7041] Balus, F., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., and N. Bitar, Ed.,
"Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider
Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging", RFC 7041, DOI
10.17487/RFC7041, November 2013, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7041>.
[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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
Acknowledgements
The contributions of Andrew G. Malis are gratefully acknowledged in
improving the quality of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Mohammed Umair
Cisco Systems
SEZ, Cessna Business Park
Sarjapur - Marathahalli Outer Ring road
Bengaluru - 560103, India
EMail: mohammed.umair2@gmail.com
Kingston Smiler Selvaraj
IPInfusion
RMZ Centennial
Mahadevapura Post
Bangalore - 560048 India
EMail: kingstonsmiler@gmail.com
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
USA
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Lucy Yong
Self
Phone: +1-469-227-5837
EMail: lucyyong@gmail.com
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Transparent Transport over MPLS
Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions
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. The definitive version of
an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
including those that are translated into other languages, should not
be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
that are published by third parties, including those that are
translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of
doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such
Contribution.
M.Umair, K.Smiler, et al [Page 20]
