Search RFCs

RFC Editor

File formats:

Status:

PROPOSED STANDARD

Updated by:

RFC 6327,RFC 6439,RFC 7172,RFC 7177,RFC 7357,RFC 7179,RFC 7180,RFC 7455,RFC 7780,RFC 7783,RFC 8139,RFC 8249,RFC 8361,RFC 8377

Authors:

R. Perlman
D. Eastlake 3rd
D. Dutt
S. Gai
A. Ghanwani

Stream:

IETF

Source:

trill (int)

Cite this RFC:TXT  | XML  |  BibTeX

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC6325

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing listtrill@ietf.org

Other actions:View Errata  | Submit Errata  | Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF  | View History of RFC 6325

Abstract

Routing Bridges (RBridges) provide optimal pair-wise forwarding withoutconfiguration, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, andsupport for multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. They achievethese goals using IS-IS routing and encapsulation of traffic with aheader that includes a hop count.

RBridges are compatible with previous IEEE 802.1 customer bridges aswell as IPv4 and IPv6 routers and end nodes. They are as invisible tocurrent IP routers as bridges are and, like routers, they terminatethe bridge spanning tree protocol.

The design supports VLANs and the optimization of the distribution ofmulti-destination frames based on VLAN ID and based on IP-derived multicastgroups. It also allows unicast forwarding tables at transit RBridgesto be sized according to the number of RBridges (rather than thenumber of end nodes), which allows their forwarding tables to besubstantially smaller than in conventional customer bridges.[STANDARDS-TRACK]

For the definition ofStatus,seeRFC 2026.

For the definition ofStream, seeRFC 8729.