Internet DRAFT - draft-zhang-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname
draft-zhang-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname
TRILL Working Group M. Zhang
Internet Draft D. Eastlake 3rd
Intended Category: Proposed Standard Huawei
R. Perlman
EMC
M. Cullen
Painless Security
H. Zhai
JIT
Expires: September 17, 2016 March 16, 2016
TRILL Multilevel Using Unique Nicknames
draft-zhang-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-00.txt
Abstract
TRILL routing can be extended to support multiple levels by building
on the multilevel feature of IS-IS routing. Depending on how
nicknames are managed, there are two primary alternatives to realize
TRILL multilevel: the unique nickname approach and the aggregated
nickname approach as discussed in [MultiL]. This document specifies
the unique nickname approach. This approach gives unique nicknames to
all TRILL switches across the multilevel TRILL campus.
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
Copyright and License Notice
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Acronyms and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Data Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Unicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Multicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Local Distribution Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Global Distribution Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Protocol Basics and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Multilevel TRILL Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Nickname Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Nickname Announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Capability Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Mix with Aggregated nickname Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
The multiple level feature of [IS-IS] can increase the scalability of
TRILL as discussed in [MultiL]. However, multilevel IS-IS needs some
extensions to support the TRILL multilevel feature. The two most
significant extensions are how TRILL switch nicknames are managed and
how distribution trees are handled [MultiL].
There are two primary alternatives to realize TRILL multilevel
[MultiL]. One approach, which is referred as the "aggregated
nickname" approach, involves assigning nicknames to the areas, and
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
allowing nicknames to be reused in different areas, by having the
border TRILL switches rewrite nickname fields when entering or
leaving an area. For more description about the aggregated nickname
approach, one can refer to [MultiL] and [SingleN]. The other
approach, which is referred as the "unique nickname" approach, is
specified in this document. Unique nickname approach gives unique
nicknames to all the TRILL switches in the multilevel campus, by
having the Level-1/Level-2 border TRILL switches advertise into the
Level 1 area which nicknames are not available for assignment in the
area, and insert into Level 2 area which nicknames are used by this
area so that other areas cannot use them anymore, as well as
informing the rest of the campus how to reach the nicknames residing
in this area. In the document, protocol extensions that support such
advertisement are specified.
Each RBridge in a unique nickname area calculates two types of trees:
local distribution trees and global distributions trees. For multi-
destination traffic that is limited to an area, the packets will be
flooded on the local distribution tree. Otherwise, the multi-
destination packets will be flooded along the global distribution
tree.
In the unique nickname approach, nicknames are globally valid so that
border RBridges do not rewrite the nickname field of TRILL data
packets that are transitions between Level 1 and Level 2, as border
RBrides do in the aggregated nickname approach. If a border RBridge
is a transit node on a forwarding path, it does not learn MAC
addresses of the TRILL data packets forwarded along this path.
Testing and maintenance operations that originate in one area and
terminate in a different area are also simplified [MultiL]. For these
reasons, unique nickname approach might realize simpler border
RBridges than the aggregated nickname approach. However, the unique
nickname approach is less scalable and may be less well suited for
very large campuses.
2. Acronyms and Terminology
Data Label: VLAN or FGL
IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS]
RBridge: A device implementing the TRILL protocol.
TRILL: TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links or Tunneled
Routing in the Link Layer [RFC6325].
TRILL switch: An alternative name for an RBridge.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
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].
3. Data Routing
Area X level 2 Area Y
+-------------------+ +-----------------+ +--------------+
| | | | | |
| S--RB27---Rx--Rz----RB2---Rb---Rc--Rd---Re--RB3---Rk--RB44---D |
| 27 | | | | 44 |
| | | | | |
+-------------------+ +-----------------+ +--------------+
Figure 3.1: An example topology for TRILL multilevel
Figure 3.1 is adapted from the example topology of [MultiL].
The routing processes are described in the following two subsections.
3.1. Unicast Routing
The plain RBridge RB27 has a different view of the topology of the
TRILL campus than its border RBridge RB2. For an outward path that
reaches an RBridge not in the same area (say RB44), RB27 calculates
the segment of the path in Area X, the border RBridge RB2 calculates
the segment in Level 2, while the border RBridge to the destination
area, RBridge RB3, calculates the segment from itself to RB44.
Let's say that S transmits a frame to destination D and let's say
that D's location is learned by the relevant TRILL switches already.
These relevant switches have learned the following:
1) RB27 has learned that D is connected to nickname 44.
The following sequence of events will occur:
- S transmits an Ethernet frame with source MAC = S and destination
MAC = D.
- RB27 encapsulates with a TRILL header with ingress RBridge = 27,
and egress RBridge = 44 producing a TRILL Data packet.
- RB2 has announced in the Level 1 IS-IS instance in Area X, that it
owns all nicknames of other areas, including 44. Therefore, IS-IS
routes the packet to RB2.
- The packet is forwarded through Level 2, from RB2 to RB3, which
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
has advertised, in Level 2, it owns the nickname 44.
- RB3, when forwarding into Area Y, does not change the ingress
nickname 27 or the egress nickname 44.
- RB44, when decapsulating, learns that S is attached to nickname
27.
3.2. Multicast Routing
The scope of multicast routing is defined by the tree root nickname.
A tree with a Level 2 tree root nickname is global and a tree with
Level 1 tree root nickname is local. See Section 4.2 for the Level 1
and Level 2 nickname allocation.
Border RBridges announce the global trees to be calculated only for
those Data Labels that span across areas. APPsub-TLVs as specified in
Section 3.2 of [TreeSel] will be advertised for this purpose. Based
on the Data Label, an ingress RBridge can determine whether a global
tree or a local tree is to be used for a TRILL multi-destination Data
packet.
If there are legacy TRILL switches that do not understand the APPsub-
TLVs for tree selection, configuration MUST guarantee that global
Data Labels are disabled on these legacy TRILL switches (Otherwise,
the legacy TRILL switches might use local trees for multi-destination
traffic with a global scope.). These legacy TRILL switches may use
global trees to flood multi-destination packets with a scope of the
local area. Those global trees MUST be pruned at the border TRILL
switches based on Data Labels.
3.2.1. Local Distribution Trees
The root RBridge RB1 of a local distribution tree resides in the
area. RBridges in this area calculate this local tree based on the
link state information of this area, using RB1's nickname as the
root. Protocol behaviors for local distribution trees have been
specified in 4.5 of [RFC6325]. The only different is that the local
distribution tree spans this area only. A multi-destination packet
with an egress nickname of the root RBridge of a local tree MUST NOT
be leaked into Level 2 at the border RBridge.
3.2.2. Global Distribution Trees
Within Level 2, the RBridge with the highest tree root priority
advertises the set of global trees by providing a list of Level 2
RBridge nicknames just as defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC6325].
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
According to [RFC6325], the RBridge with the highest root priority
advertises the tree roots for a Level 1 area. There has to be a
border RBridge with the highest root tree priority in each area so
that it can advertises the global tree root nicknames into the area.
Also, this border RBridge needs to advertise the set of local
distribution trees by providing another set of nicknames. Since
nicknames of global tree roots and local tree roots indicate
different flooding scopes, these two set MUST NOT overlap. If a
border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root and a
local tree root, it has to acquire both a global tree root
nickname(s) and local tree root nickname(s). However, non-border
RBridges in an area do not differentiate between a global tree root
nickname and a local tree root nickname.
Suppose RB3 is the RBridge with the highest tree root priority within
Level 2, and RB2 is the highest tree root priority in Area X. RB2
advertises in Area X that nickname RB3 is the root of a distribution
tree. Figure 3.2 through Figure 3.5 illustrate how different RBridges
view the global distribution tree.
RB3,RB2,Rb,Rc,Rd,Re,Rk,RB44
o
/
Rz o
/
Rx o
/
RB27 o
Figure 3.2: RB27's view of the global distribution tree
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
RB3,Rk,RB44
o
/
Re o
/
Rd o
/
Rc o
/
Rb o
/
RB2 o
/
Rz o
/
Rx o
/
RB27 o
Figure 3.3: RB2's view of the global distribution tree
RB3
o
/ \
Re o o Rk
/ \
Rd o o RB44
/
Rc o
/
Rb o
/
R27,Rx,Rz,RB2 o
Figure 3.4: RB3's view of the global distribution tree
RB3,RB27,RBx,RBz,RB2,Rb,Rc,Rd,Re
o
\
o Rk
\
o RB44
Figure 3.5: RB44's view of the global distribution tree
The following sequence of events will occur when a multi-destination
TRILL Data packet is forwarded using the global distribution tree:
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
- RB27 produces a multi-destination TRILL Data packet with ingress
RBridge = 27. RB27 floods this packet using the segment of the
global distribution tree that resides in Area X.
- RB2, when flooding the packet in Level 2, uses the segment of the
global distribution tree that resides in Level 2.
- RB3, when flooding the packet into Area Y, uses the segment of the
global distribution tree that resides in Area Y.
- The multicast listener RB44, when decapsulating the received
packet, learns that S is attached to nickname 27.
4. Protocol Basics and Extensions
4.1. Multilevel TRILL Basics
Multilevel TRILL builds on the multilevel feature of [IS-IS]. Border
RBridges are in both a Level 1 area and in Level 2. They establish
adjacency with Level 1 RBridges as specified in [RFC7177] and
[RFC6325]. They establish adjacency with Level 2 RBridges in exactly
the same way except that (1) for a LAN link the IS-IS Hellos used are
Level 2 Hello PDUs [IS-IS] and (2) for a point-to-point link the
Level is configured and indicated in flags in the point-to-point
Hello. The state machines for Level 1 and Level 2 adjacency are
independent and two RBridges on the same LAN link can have any
adjacency state for Level 1 and, separately, any adjacency state for
Level 2. Level 1 and Level 2 link state flooding are independent
using Level 1 and Level 2 versions of the relevant IS-IS PDUs (LSP,
CSNP, PSNP, FS-LSP, FS-CSNP and FS-PSNP). Thus Level 1 link state
information stays within a Level 1 area and Level 2 link state
information stays in Level 2 unless there are specific provisions for
leaking (copying) information between levels. This is why multilevel
can address the TRILL scalability issues as specified in Section 2 of
[MultiL].
The former "campus wide" minimum acceptable link size Sz is
calculated as before by Level 1 RBridges (including border RBridges)
using the originatingLSPBufferSize advertised in Level 1 LSP so it is
area local in multilevel TRILL. A minimum acceptable link size in
Level 2, called Sz2, is calculated by the RBridges participating in
Level 2 in the same way as Sz is calculated but using the
originatingLSPBufferSize distributed in Level 2 LSPs.
4.2. Nickname Allocation
Level 2 RBridges contend for nicknames in the range from 0xF000
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
through 0xFBFF the same way as specified in [RFC6325], using Level 2
LSPs. The highest priority border router for a Level 1 area should
contend with others in Level 2 for smallish blocks of nicknames for
the range from 0x0001 to 0xEFFF. Blocks of 64 aligned on multiple of
64 boundaries are RECOMMENDED in this document.
The nickname contention in Level 2 will figure out which blocks of
nicknames are available for an area and which blocks of nicknames are
used else where. The NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV as specified in
Section 4.3 will be used by the border RBridge(s) to announce the
nickname availability.
4.3. Nickname Announcements
Border RBridges need to exchange nickname information between Level 1
and Level 2, otherwise forwarding paths inward/outward will not be
calculated. For this purpose, border RBridges need to fabricate
nickname announcements. Sub-TLVs used for such artificial
announcements are specified as follows.
Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge needs to announce, in
its area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are reachable
from this border RBridge. These external nicknames include nicknames
used in other unique nickname areas and nicknames in Level 2. Non-
border RBridge nicknames within aggregated nickname areas are
excluded. Also, a border RBridge needs to announce, in Level 2, the
ownership of all nicknames within its area. From listening to these
Level 2 announcements, border RBridges can figure out the nicknames
used by other areas.
RBridges in the TRILL base protocol use the Nickname Sub-TLV as
specified in Section 2.3.2 of [RFC7176] to announce the ownership of
nicknames. However, it becomes uneconomic to use this Sub-TLV to
announce a mass of internal/external nicknames. To address this
issue, border RBridges should make use of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-
TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the inclusive range of
nicknames that are available or not for self allocation by the Level
1 RBridges in that area. Its structure is as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| type = tbd2 |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| length |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|OK| RESV |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Nickname Block 1 |
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ...
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Nickname Block K |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
o Type: tbd2 (TRILL NickBlockFlags)
o Length: 2 + 2*K where K is the number of nickname blocks.
o OK:
- When this bit is set to 1, the blocks of nicknames in this
APPsub-TLV are available for Level 1 use of the area. The
APPsub-TLV will be advertised in both Level 1 and Level 2.
For nicknames that fall in the ranges or the nickname blocks,
RBridges of Level 2 always route to the originating border
RBridge, just as if this border RBridge owns these
nicknames.
- When this bit is set to 0, it indicates that the nicknames
covered by the nickname blocks are being used in Level 2 or
other areas so that they are not available for Level 1 use of
the area. The APPsub-TLV will be advertised into Level 1
only. For nicknames that fall in the ranges of the nickname
blocks, RBridges of the area always route to the originating
border RBridge, just as if this border RBridge owns these
nicknames.
o RESV: reserved for future flag allocation. MUST be sent as zero
and ignored on receipt.
o Nickname Block: a starting and ending nickname as follows:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| starting nickname |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ending nickname |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
For nicknames in these ranges, other RBridges will deem that they are
owned by the originating border RBridge. The paths to nicknames that
fall in these ranges will be calculated to reach the originating
border RBridge. TRILL Data packets with egress nicknames that are
neither in these ranges nor announced by any RBridge in the area MUST
be discarded.
There might be multiple border RBridges connected to the same area.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
Each border RBridges may advertise a subset of the entire
internal/external nickname space in order to realize load balance.
However, optimization of such load balance is an implementation issue
and is out the scope of this document.
As specified in Section 4.2.6 of [RFC6325], multiple border RBridges
may claim the same nicknames outward and/or inward. Other RBridges
add those nicknames as if they are attached to all of those border
RBridges.
4.4. Capability Indication
All border RBridge MUST understand the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV. Non
border RBridges in an area SHOULD understand the NickBlockFlags
APPsub-TLV. If an RBridge within an area understands the
NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV, it MUST indicate this capability by
announcing it in its TRILL-VER Sub-TLV. (See Section 7).
If there are RBridges that do not understand the NickBlockFlags
APPsub-TLV, border RBridges of the area will also use the traditional
Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames
covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose
OK is 0. The available range of nicknames for this area should be
configure on these traditional RBridges.
5. Mix with Aggregated nickname Areas
The design of TRILL multilevel allows a mixture of unique nickname
areas and aggregated nickname areas (see Section 1.2 of [MultiL]).
Usage of nickname space must be planed so that nicknames used in any
one unique nickname area and Level 2 are never used in any other
areas which includes unique nickname areas as well as aggregated
nickname areas. In other words, nickname re-usage is merely allowed
among aggregated nickname areas.
Border RBridges of an aggregated area need to announce nicknames
heard from Level 2 into their area like just like an unique nickname
border RBridge. But these RBridges do not announce nicknames of their
area into Level 2.
Each border RBridge of the aggregated areas will appear on the global
tree, as specified in Section 4.1, as a single node. The global trees
for unique nickname areas span unique nickname areas and Level 2 but
never reach the inside of aggregated areas.
6. Security Considerations
Malicious devices may fake the Nickname Properties Sub-TLV to
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
announce a range of nicknames. By doing this, the attacker can
attract TRILL data packets that are originally to reach other
RBridges.
RBridges SHOULD be configured to include the IS-IS Authentication TLV
(10) in the IS-IS PDUs that contains the Nickname Properties Sub-TLV,
so that IS-IS security ([RFC5304] [RFC5310]) can be used to secure
the network.
If border RBridges do not prune multi-destination distribution tree
traffic in Data Labels that are configured to be area local, then
traffic that should have been contained within an area might be
wrongly delivered to end stations in that Data Label in other areas.
This would generally violate security constraints.
For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325].
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to register a new flag bit with mnemonic "B" (Block
of Nicknames) under the TRILL-VER Sub-TLV Capabilities registry.
Bit Mnemonic Description Reference
--- -------- ----------- ---------
tbd1 B Able to handle the [This document]
Nickname Properties
Sub-TLV
IANA is requested to assign a new type for the NickBlockFlags APPsub-
TLV from the range available below 256 and add the following entry to
the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application
Identifier 1" registry as follows:
Type Name Reference
---- ------ ---------
tbd2 NickBlockFlags [This document]
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[TreeSel] Li, Y., Eastlake, D., et al, "TRILL: Data Label based Tree
Selection for Multi-destination Data", draft-ietf-trill-
tree-selection, Work in Progress.
[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>.
[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>.
[IS-IS] International Organization for Standardization,
"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.
8.2. Informative References
[MultiL] Perlman, R., Eastlake, D., et al, "Alternatives for
Multilevel TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of
Links)", draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-multilevel, Work in
Progress.
[SingleN] Zhang, M., Eastlake, D., et al, "Single Area Border RBridge
Nickname for TRILL Multilevel", draft-ietf-trill-
multilevel-single-nickname, Work in Progress.
[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.
[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>.
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT TRILL Multilevel Unique Nickname March 16, 2016
Author's Addresses
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing 100095
China
Phone: +86-13810702575
Email: zhangmingui@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
Margaret Cullen
Painless Security
14 Summer St. Suite 202
Malden, MA 02148
United States
Email: margaret@painless-security.com
Hongjun Zhai
Jinling Institute of Technology
99 Hongjing Avenue, Jiangning District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 211169
China
Email: honjun.zhai@tom.com
Mingui Zhang, et al Expires September 17, 2016 [Page 14]
