--- 1/draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-02.txt 2017-10-10 05:22:53.472292378 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-03.txt 2017-10-10 05:22:53.504293138 -0700 @@ -1,100 +1,96 @@ -IDR Working Group W. Hao - D. Eastlake -Internet Draft Huawei -Intended status: Standard Track S. Hares + +INTERNET-DRAFT D. Eastlake +Intended status: Proposed Standard W. Hao + Huawei + S. Hares Hickory Hill Consulting S.Gupta IP Infusion M. Durrani Cisco Y. Li Huawei -Expires: February 2017 August 16, 2016 +Expires: April 2, 2018 October 3, 2017 Distribution of TRILL Link-State using BGP - draft-ietf-idr-ls-trill-02.txt + Abstract This draft describes a TRILL link state and MAC address reachability information distribution mechanism using a BGP LS extension. - External components such as an SDN Controller can use the - information for topology visibility, troubleshooting, network - automation, etc. + External components such as an SDN Controller can use the information + for topology visibility, troubleshooting, network automation, and the + like. -Status of this Memo +Status of This Memo - This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the + 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 IDR working group mailing list: idr@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." + 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/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft + Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. -Copyright Notice +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL - Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the - document authors. All rights reserved. +Table of Contents - 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. + 1. Introduction............................................3 + 2. Conventions used in this document.......................5 -Table of Contents + 3. Carrying TRILL Link-State Information in BGP............6 + 3.1 Node Descriptors.......................................7 + 3.1.1 IGP Router-ID........................................8 + 3.2 MAC Address Descriptors................................8 + 3.2.1 MAC-Reachability TLV.................................9 + 3.3 The BGP-LS Attribute...................................9 + 3.3.1 Node Attribute TLVs..................................9 + 3.3.1.1 Node Flag Bits TLV................................10 + 3.3.1.2 Opaque Node Attribute TLV.........................10 + 3.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs................................11 - 1. Introduction ................................................ 2 - 2. Conventions used in this document............................ 4 - 3. Carrying TRILL Link-State Information in BGP................. 4 - 3.1. Node Descriptors........................................ 6 - 3.1.1. IGP Router-ID...................................... 6 - 3.2. MAC Address Descriptors................................. 6 - 3.2.1. MAC-Reachability TLV............................... 7 - 3.3. The BGP-LS Attribute.................................... 8 - 3.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs................................ 8 - 3.3.1.1. Node Flag Bits TLV............................ 8 - 3.3.1.2. Opaque Node Attribute TLV..................... 8 - 3.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs................................ 9 - 4. Operational Considerations................................... 9 - 5. Security Considerations..................................... 10 - 6. IANA Considerations ........................................ 11 - 7. References ................................................. 11 - 7.1. Normative References................................... 11 - 7.2. Informative References................................. 12 - 8. Acknowledgments ............................................ 12 + 4. Operational Considerations.............................12 + + 5. Security Considerations................................13 + 6. IANA Considerations....................................13 + + Normative References......................................14 + Informative References....................................14 + Acknowledgments...........................................15 + + Authors' Addresses........................................16 + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL 1. Introduction BGP has been extended to distribute IGP link-state and traffic - engineering information to some external components [I-D.ietf-idr- - ls-distribution], such as the PCE and ALTO servers. The information - can be used by these external components to compute a MPLS-TE path - across IGP areas, visualize and abstract network topology, and the - like. + engineering information to some external components [RFC7752], such + as the PCE and ALTO servers. The information can be used by these + external components to compute a MPLS-TE path across IGP areas, + visualize and abstract network topology, and the like. TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) protocol [RFC6325] provides a solution for least cost transparent routing in multi-hop networks with arbitrary topologies and link technologies, using [IS-IS] [RFC7176] link-state routing and a hop count. TRILL switches are sometimes called RBridges (Routing Bridges). The TRILL protocol has been deployed in many data center networks. Data center automation is a vital step to increase the speed and agility of business. An SDN controller as an external component @@ -116,37 +112,41 @@ +---+ +---+ | | | | | | | | +---+ +---+ |ES1|-|RB1|-| Area 1 |-|BRB1| |BRB2|-| Area 2 |-|RB2|-|ES2| +---+ +---+ | | +----+ +----+ | | +---+ +---+ | | | | | | +--------+ +-----------+ +--------+ |<----TRILL ------>||<-----TRILL ----->| Figure 1: TRILL interconnection - In Data Center interconnection scenario illustrated in figure 1, a + In Data Center interconnection scenario illustrated in Figure 1, a single SDN Controller or network management system (NMS) can be used for end-to-end network management. End-to-end topology visibility on - the SDN controller or NMS is very useful for whole network - automation and troubleshooting. BGP LS can be used by the external - SDN controller to collect multiple TRILL domain's link-state. + the SDN controller or NMS is very useful for whole network automation + and troubleshooting. BGP LS can be used by the external SDN + controller to collect multiple TRILL domain's link-state. + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL BGP LS also can be used for MAC address reachability information synchronization across multiple TRILL domains. The transported MAC reachability information and the like is for telemetry purposes and for use by SDN controller(s) where the coordination or protocol between the SDN controllers is out of scope. This document describes the detailed BGP LS extension mechanisms for TRILL link state and MAC address reachability information distribution. +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + 2. 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 [RFC2119]. BGP - Border Gateway Protocol BGP-LS - BGP Link-State @@ -156,30 +156,32 @@ intermediate systems are RBridges) NLRI - Network Layer Reachability Information SDN - Software Defined Networking RBridge - A device implementing the TRILL protocol TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + 3. Carrying TRILL Link-State Information in BGP - In [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution], four NLRI types are defined as - follows: Node NLRI, Link NLRI, IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI and IPv6 - Topology Prefix NLRI. For TRILL link-state distribution, the Node - NLRI and Link NLRI are extended to carry layer 3 gateway role and - link MTU information. TRILL specific attributes are carried using - opaque Node Attribute TLVs, such as nickname, distribution tree - number and identifiers, interested VLANs/Fine Grained Label, and - multicast group address, etc. + In [RFC7752], four NLRI types are defined as follows: Node NLRI, Link + NLRI, IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI and IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI. For + TRILL link-state distribution, the Node NLRI and Link NLRI are + extended to carry layer 3 gateway role and link MTU information. + TRILL specific attributes are carried using opaque Node Attribute + TLVs, such as nickname, distribution tree number and identifiers, + interested VLANs/Fine Grained Label, and multicast group address, + etc. To differentiate TRILL protocol from layer 3 IGP protocol, a new TRILL Protocol-ID is defined. +-------------+----------------------------------+ | Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol | +-------------+----------------------------------+ | 1 | IS-IS Level 1 | | 2 | IS-IS Level 2 | | 3 | OSPFv2 | @@ -181,32 +183,35 @@ | Protocol-ID | NLRI information source protocol | +-------------+----------------------------------+ | 1 | IS-IS Level 1 | | 2 | IS-IS Level 2 | | 3 | OSPFv2 | | 4 | Direct | | 5 | Static configuration | | 6 | OSPFv3 | | TBD | TRILL | +-------------+----------------------------------+ + Table 1: Protocol Identifiers ESADI (End Station Address Distribution Information) protocol [RFC7357] is a per data label control plane MAC learning solution. MAC address reachability information is carried in ESADI packets. Compared with data plane MAC learning solution, ESADI protocol has security and fast update advantage that are pointed out in [RFC7357]. - For an RBridge that is announcing participation in ESADI, the - RBridge can distribute MAC address reachability information to - external components using BGP. A new NLRI type of ''MAC Reachability - NLRI'' is requested for the MAC address reachability distribution. + For an RBridge that is announcing participation in ESADI, the RBridge + can distribute MAC address reachability information to external + components using BGP. A new NLRI type of "MAC Reachability NLRI" is + requested for the MAC address reachability distribution. + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL +------+---------------------------+ | Type | NLRI Type | +------+---------------------------+ | 1 | Node NLRI | | 2 | Link NLRI | | 3 | IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI | | 4 | IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI | | TBD | MAC Reachability NLRI | +------+---------------------------+ @@ -203,24 +208,25 @@ +------+---------------------------+ | Type | NLRI Type | +------+---------------------------+ | 1 | Node NLRI | | 2 | Link NLRI | | 3 | IPv4 Topology Prefix NLRI | | 4 | IPv6 Topology Prefix NLRI | | TBD | MAC Reachability NLRI | +------+---------------------------+ + Table 2: NLRI Types The MAC Reachability NLRI uses the format as shown in the following - figure. + Figure. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identifier | | (64 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Local Node Descriptor (variable) // @@ -220,67 +226,74 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol-ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identifier | | (64 bits) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Local Node Descriptor (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // MAC Address Descriptors (variable) // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + Figure 2: The MAC Reachability NLRI format -3.1. Node Descriptors +3.1 Node Descriptors The Node Descriptor Sub-TLV types include Autonomous System and BGP- LS Identifier, IS-IS Area-ID and IGP Router-ID. TRILL uses a fixed zero Area Address as specified in [RFC6325], Section 4.2.3. This is encoded in a 4-byte Area Address TLV (TLV #1) as follows: +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0x01, Area Address Type | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0x02, Length of Value | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0x01, Length of Address | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 0x00, zero Area Address | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + Figure 3: Area Address TLV -3.1.1. IGP Router-ID +3.1.1 IGP Router-ID Similar to layer 3 IS-IS, TRILL protocol uses 7-octet "IS-IS ID" as the identity of an RBridge or a pseudonode, IGP Router ID sub-TLV in Node Descriptor TLVs contains the 7-octet "IS-IS ID". In TRILL network, each RBridge has a unique 48-bit (6-octet) IS-IS System ID. - This ID may be derived from any of the RBridge's unique MAC - addresses or configured. A pseudonode is assigned a 7-octet ID by - the DRB (Designated RBridge) that created it, the DRB is similar to - the "Designated Intermediate System" (DIS) corresponding to a LAN. + This ID may be derived from any of the RBridge's unique MAC addresses + or configured. A pseudonode is assigned a 7-octet ID by the DRB + (Designated RBridge) that created it, the DRB is similar to the + "Designated Intermediate System" (DIS) corresponding to a LAN. -3.2. MAC Address Descriptors +3.2 MAC Address Descriptors - The ''MAC Address Descriptor'' field is a set of Type/Length/Value - (TLV) triplets. ''MAC Address Descriptor'' TLVs uniquely identify an + The "MAC Address Descriptor" field is a set of Type/Length/Value + (TLV) triplets. "MAC Address Descriptor" TLVs uniquely identify an MAC address reachable by a Node. The following attributes TLVs are defined: +--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+ | TLV Code | Description | Length | Value defined | | Point | | | in: | +--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+ | 1 | MAC-Reachability | variable | section 3.2.1 | +--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+ + Table 3: MAC Address Descriptor TLVs -3.2.1. MAC-Reachability TLV +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + +3.2.1 MAC-Reachability TLV +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type= MAC-RI | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | (1 byte) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |V|F| RESV | Data Label | (4 bytes) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC (1) (6 bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-...+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -294,31 +308,33 @@ The bits of 'V' and 'F' are used to identify Data Label type and are defined as follows: +----------+-------------------------+ | Bit | Description | +----------+-------------------------+ | 'V' | VLAN | | 'F' | Fine Grained Label | +----------+-------------------------+ + Table 4: Data Label Type Bits Definitions Notes: If BGP LS is used for NVO3 network MAC address distribution between external SDN Controller and NVE, Data Label can be used to represent 24 bits VN ID. -3.3. The BGP-LS Attribute +3.3 The BGP-LS Attribute -3.3.1. Node Attribute TLVs +3.3.1 Node Attribute TLVs +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL -3.3.1.1. Node Flag Bits TLV +3.3.1.1 Node Flag Bits TLV A new Node Flag bit is added as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |O|T|E|B|G| Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -325,31 +342,34 @@ Figure 5: Node Flag Bits TLV format The new bit and remaining reserved bits are defined as follows: +----------+----------------------------+-----------+ | Bit | Description | Reference | +----------+----------------------------+-----------+ | 'G' | Layer 3 Gateway Bit | [RFC7176] | | Reserved | Reserved for future use | | +----------+----------------------------+-----------+ + Table 5: Node Flag Bits Definitions -3.3.1.2. Opaque Node Attribute TLV +3.3.1.2 Opaque Node Attribute TLV The Opaque Node Attribute TLV is used as the envelope to transparently carry TRILL specific information. In [RFC7176], there are the following Sub-TLVs in the Router Capability and MT- Capability TLVs and the Group Address (GADDR) TLV that need to be carried. Future possible TRILL TLVs/Sub-TLVs extension also can be carried using the Opaque Node Attribute TLV. +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + Descriptions IS-IS TLV/Sub-TLV ------------------------------------ TRILL-VER 22/13 NICKNAME 22/6 TREES 22/7 TREE-RT-IDs 22/8 TREE-USE-IDs 22/9 INT-VLAN 22/10 VLAN-GROUP 22/14 INT-LABEL 22/15 @@ -361,147 +381,176 @@ GIPV6-ADDR 142/3 GLMAC-ADDR 142/4 GLIP-ADDR 142/5 GLIPV6-ADDR 142/6 Table 6: TRILL TLVs/Sub-TLVs 3.3.2. Link Attribute TLVs Link attribute TLVs are TLVs that may be encoded in the BGP-LS - attribute with a link NLRI. Besides the TLVs that has been defined - in [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] section 3.3.2 table 9, the - following 'Link Attribute' TLV is provided for TRILL. + attribute with a link NLRI. Besides the TLVs that has been defined in + [RFC7752] section 3.3.2 Table 9, the following 'Link Attribute' TLV + is provided for TRILL. +-----------+----------------+--------------+------------------+ | TLV Code | Description | IS-IS TLV | Defined in: | | Point | | /Sub-TLV | | +-----------+----------------+--------------+------------------+ | TBD | Link MTU | 22/28 | [RFC7176]/2.4 | +-----------+----------------+--------------+------------------+ + Table 7: Link Attribute TLVs +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + 4. Operational Considerations This document does not require any MIB or Yang model to configure operational parameters. Any implementation of the protocol in this specification (i.e. that distributes TRILL Link-State information using BGP), MUST do the malformed attribute checks below, and if it detects a malformed attribute, it should use the 'Attribute Discard' action per [I- D.ietf.idr-error-handling] section 2. - An implementation MUST perform the following expanded [BGP-LS] + An implementation MUST perform the following expanded BGP-LS syntactic check for determining if the message is malformed: - o Does the sum of all TLVs found in the BGP LS attribute - correspond to the BGP LS path attribute length ? + o Does the sum of all TLVs found in the BGP LS attribute correspond + to the BGP LS path attribute length ? - o Does the sum of all TLVs found in the BGP MP_REACH_NLRI - attribute correspond to the BGP MP_REACH_NLRI length ? + o Does the sum of all TLVs found in the BGP MP_REACH_NLRI attribute + correspond to the BGP MP_REACH_NLRI length ? o Does the sum of all TLVs found in the BGP MP_UNREACH_NLRI attribute correspond to the BGP MP_UNREACH_NLRI length ? - o Does the sum of all TLVs found in a Node-, Link, prefix (IPv4 - or IPv6) NLRI attribute correspond to the Node-, Link- or Prefix + o Does the sum of all TLVs found in a Node-, Link, prefix (IPv4 or + IPv6) NLRI attribute correspond to the Node-, Link- or Prefix Descriptors 'Total NLRI Length' field ? - o Does any fixed length TLV correspond to the TLV Length field - in this document ? + o Does any fixed length TLV correspond to the TLV Length field in + this document ? o Does the sum of MAC reachability TLVs equal the length of the field? In addition, the following checks need to be made for the fields specific to the BGP LS for TRILL: PROTOCOL ID is TRILL - NLRI types are valid per table 2 + NLRI types are valid per Table 2 MAC Reachability NLRI has correct format including: o Identifier (64 bits), o local node descriptor with AREA address TLV has the form - found in figure 2 + found in Figure 2 - opaque TLV support the range of ISIS-TLV/SUB-TLV shown in - table 3, and link TLVs support the range in figure 8. + opaque TLV support the range of ISIS-TLV/SUB-TLV shown in Table + 3, and link TLVs support the range in Figure 8. + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL 5. Security Considerations Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the BGP security model. See [RFC6952] for details. 6. IANA Considerations For all of the following assignments, [this document] is the reference. - IANA is requested to assign one Protocol-ID for "TRILL" from the - BGP-LS registry of Protocol-IDs. + IANA is requested to assign one Protocol-ID for "TRILL" from the BGP- + LS registry of Protocol-IDs. - IANA is requested to assign one NLRI Type for "MAC Reachability" - from the BGP-LS registry of NLRI Types. + IANA is requested to assign one NLRI Type for "MAC Reachability" from + the BGP-LS registry of NLRI Types. IANA is requested to assign one Node Flag bit for "Layer 3 Gateway" from the BGP-LS registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs. IANA is requested to assign one new TLV type for "Link MTU" from the BGP-LS registry of BGP-LS Attribute TLVs. -7. References - -7.1. Normative References +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL -[1] [I-D.ietf-idr-ls-distribution] Gredler, H., Medved, J., - Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and S.Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of - Link-State and TE Information using BGP", draft-ietf-idr-ls- - distribution-10(work in progress), January 2015. +Normative References -[2] [I-D.ietf.idr-error-handling] Enke, C., John, S., Pradosh, M., + [I-D.ietf.idr-error-handling] - Enke, C., John, S., Pradosh, M., Keyur,P., "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages", draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19(work in progress), April 2015. -[3] [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + [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. + + [RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. -[4] [RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S.,and - A. Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol + [RFC6325] - Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S.,and A. + Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification", RFC 6325, July 2011. -[5] [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, . + [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, . -[6] [RFC7176] Eastlake, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, - D., Banerjee, A.," Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links - (TRILL) Use of IS-IS'', May 2014. + [RFC7176] - Eastlake, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt, D., + Banerjee, A.," Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links + (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", May 2014. -[7] [RFC7357] - Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., - and O. Stokes, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links - (TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information (ESADI) - Protocol", RFC 7357, September 2014, . -7.2. Informative References + [RFC7752] - Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., + and S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic + Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752, DOI + 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016, . -8. Acknowledgments +Informative References + + [RFC6952] - Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of + BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying and + Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guide", RFC + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + + 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, + +Acknowledgments Authors like to thank Ross Callon, Andrew Qu, Jie Dong, Mingui Zhang, Qin Wu, Shunwan Zhuang, Zitao Wang, Lili Wang for their valuable inputs. + The document was prepared in raw nroff. All macros used were defined + within the source file. + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + Authors' Addresses Weiguo Hao Huawei Technologies 101 Software Avenue, Nanjing 210012 China Phone: +86-25-56623144 Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com @@ -529,10 +580,44 @@ Phone: +1-408-527-6921 Email: mdurrani@cisco.com Yizhou Li Huawei Technologies 101 Software Avenue, Nanjing 210012, China Phone: +86-25-56625375 Email: liyizhou@huawei.com + +INTERNET-DRAFT BGP LS For TRILL + +Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions + + Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + document authors. All rights reserved. + + This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal + Provisions Relating to IETF Documents + (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of + publication of this document. Please review these documents + carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect + to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must + include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of + the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as + described in the Simplified BSD License. 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.