Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                           J. TouchRequest for Comments: 5556                                       USC/ISICategory: Informational                                       R. Perlman                                                                     Sun                                                                May 2009Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):Problem and Applicability StatementStatus of This Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights   and restrictions with respect to this document.Abstract   Current IEEE 802.1 LANs use spanning tree protocols that have a   number of challenges.  These protocols need to strictly avoid loops,   even temporary ones, during route propagation, because of the lack of   header loop detection support.  Routing tends not to take full   advantage of alternate paths, or even non-overlapping pairwise paths   (in the case of spanning trees).  This document addresses these   concerns and suggests applying modern network-layer routing protocols   at the link layer.  This document assumes that solutions would not   address issues of scalability beyond that of existing IEEE 802.1   bridged links, but that a solution would be backward compatible with   802.1, including hubs, bridges, and their existing plug-and-play   capabilities.Touch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. The TRILL Problem ...............................................32.1. Inefficient Paths ..........................................32.2. Multipath Forwarding .......................................52.3. Convergence and Safety .....................................62.4. Stability of IP Multicast Optimization .....................62.5. IEEE 802.1 Bridging Protocols ..............................72.6. Problems Not Addressed .....................................83. Desired Properties of Solutions to TRILL ........................93.1. No Change to Link Capabilities .............................93.2. Zero Configuration and Zero Assumption ....................103.3. Forwarding Loop Mitigation ................................103.4. Spanning Tree Management ..................................113.5. Multiple Attachments ......................................113.6. VLAN Issues ...............................................113.7. Operational Equivalence ...................................123.8. Optimizations .............................................123.9. Internet Architecture Issues ..............................134. Applicability ..................................................135. Security Considerations ........................................146. Acknowledgments ................................................157. Informative References .........................................151.  Introduction   Conventional Ethernet networks -- known in the Internet as Ethernet   link subnets -- have a number of attractive features, allowing hosts   and routers to relocate within the subnet without requiring   renumbering, and supporting automatic configuration.  The basis of   the simplicity of these subnets is the spanning tree, which although   simple and elegant, can have substantial limitations.  With spanning   trees, the bandwidth across the subnet is limited because traffic   flows over a subset of links forming a single tree -- or, with the   latest version of the protocol and significant additional   configuration, over a small number of superimposed trees.  The oldest   version of the spanning tree protocol can converge slowly when there   are frequent topology changes.   The alternative to an Ethernet link subnet is often a network subnet.   Network subnets can use link-state routing protocols that allow   traffic to traverse least-cost paths rather than being aggregated on   a spanning tree backbone, providing higher aggregate capacity and   more resistance to link failures.  Unfortunately, IP -- the dominant   network layer technology -- requires that hosts be renumbered when   relocated in different network subnets, interrupting network (e.g.,Touch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   tunnels, IPsec) and transport (e.g., TCP, UDP) associations that are   in progress during the transition.   It is thus useful to consider a new approach that combines the   features of these two existing solutions, hopefully retaining the   desirable properties of each.  Such an approach would develop a new   kind of bridge system that was capable of using network-style   routing, while still providing Ethernet service.  It allows reuse of   well-understood network routing protocols to benefit the link layer.   This document describes the challenge of such a combined approach.   This problem is known as "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of   Links" or "TRILL".  The remainder of this document makes minimal   assumptions about a solution to TRILL.2.  The TRILL Problem   Ethernet subnets have evolved from 'thicknet' to 'thinnet' to twisted   pair with hubs to twisted pair with switches, becoming increasingly   simple to wire and manage.  Each level has corresponding topology   restrictions; thicknet is inherently linear, whereas thinnet and hub-   connected twisted pair have to be wired as a tree.  Switches, added   in IEEE 802.1D, allow network managers to avoid thinking in trees,   where the spanning tree protocol finds a valid tree automatically;   unfortunately, this additional simplicity comes with a number of   associated penalties [Pe99].   The spanning tree often results in inefficient use of the link   topology; traffic is concentrated on the spanning tree path, and all   traffic follows that path even when other more direct paths are   available.  The addition in IEEE 802.1Q of support for multiple   spanning trees helps a little, but the use of multiple spanning trees   requires additional configuration, the number of trees is limited,   and these defects apply within each tree regardless.  The spanning   tree protocol reacts to certain small topology changes with large   effects on the reconfiguration of links in use.  Each of these   aspects of the spanning tree protocol can cause problems for current   link-layer deployments.2.1.  Inefficient Paths   The Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) helps break cycles in a set of   interconnected bridges, but it also can limit the bandwidth among   that set and cause traffic to take circuitous paths.  For example, in   a set of N nodes that are interconnected pairwise along a ring, a   spanning tree will disable one physical link so that connectivity is   loop free.  This will cause traffic between the pair of nodes   connected by that disabled link to have to go N-1 physical hopsTouch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   around the entire remainder of the ring rather than take the most   efficient single-hop path.  Using modern routing protocols with such   a topology, no traffic should have to go more than N/2 hops.   For another example, consider the network shown in Figure 1, which   shows a number of bridges and their interconnecting links.  End-hosts   and routers are not shown; they would connect to the bridges that are   shown, labeled A-H.  Note that the network shown has cycles that   would cause packet storms if hubs (repeaters) were used instead of   spanning-tree-capable bridges.  One possible spanning tree is shown   by double lines.                              [A]                             // \    [C]                            //   \   / \\  [D]                           //     \ /   \\ //                          [B]=====[H]=====[E]                            \     //      ||                             \   //       ||                              \ //        ||                               [G]--------[F]           Figure 1: Bridged subnet with spanning tree shown   The spanning tree limits the capacity of the resulting subnet.   Assume that the links are 100 Mbps.  Figure 2 shows how traffic from   hosts on A to hosts on C goes via the spanning tree path A-B-H-E-C   (links replaced with '1' in the figure); traffic from hosts on G to F   go via the spanning three path G-H-E-F (links replaced by '2' in the   figure).  The link H-E is shared by both paths (alternating '1's and   '2's), resulting in an aggregate capacity for both A..C and G..F   paths of a total of 100 Mbps.                                  [A]                                  1           [C]                                 1              1                                1                1                              [B]1111111[H]121212[E]                                     2       2                                    2        2                                   2         2                                  [G]       [F]         Figure 2: Traffic from A..C (1) and G..F (2) share a link   If traffic from G to F were to go directly using full routing, e.g.,   from G-F, both paths could have 100 Mbps each, and the total   aggregate capacity could be 200 Mbps (Figure 3).  In this case, theTouch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   H-F link carries only A-C traffic ('1's) and the G-F traffic ('2's)   is more direct.                                  [A]                                  1           [C]                                 1              1                                1                1                              [B]1111111[H]111111[E]                                  [G]2222222[F]       Figure 3: Traffic from A..C (1) and G..F (2) with full routing   There are a number of features of modern layer 3 routing protocols   which would be beneficial if available at layer 2, but which cannot   practically be integrated into the spanning tree system such as   multipath routing discussed inSection 2.2 below.  Layer 3 routing   typically optimizes paths between pairs of endpoints based on a cost   metric, conventionally based on bandwidth, hop count, latency, and/or   policy measures.2.2.  Multipath Forwarding   The discussion above assumes that all traffic flowing from one point   to another follows a single path.  Using spanning trees reduces   aggregate bandwidth by forcing all such paths onto one tree, while   modern routing causes such paths to be selected based on a cost   metric.  However, extensions to modern routing protocols enable even   greater aggregate bandwidth by permitting traffic flowing from one   endpoint to another to be sent over multiple, typically equal-cost,   paths.  (Traffic sent over different paths will generally encounter   different delays and may be reordered with respect to traffic on   another path.  Thus, traffic must be divided into flows, such that   reordering of traffic between flows is not significant, and those   flows are allocated to paths.)   Multipathing typically spreads the traffic more evenly over the   available physical links.  The addition of multipathing to a routed   network would typically result in only a small improvement in   capacity for a network with roughly equal traffic between all pairs   of nodes, because in that situation traffic is already fairly well   dispersed.  Conversely, multipathing can produce a dramatic   improvement in a routed network where the traffic between a small   number of pairs of nodes dominates, because such traffic can -- under   the right circumstances -- be spread over multiple paths that might   otherwise be lightly loaded.Touch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 20092.3.  Convergence and Safety   The spanning tree is dependent on the way a set of bridges are   interconnected, i.e., the link-layer topology.  Small changes in this   topology can cause large changes in the spanning tree.  Changes in   the spanning tree can take time to propagate and converge, especially   for older versions of STP.   One possible case occurs when one of the branches connected to the   root bridge fails, causing a large number of ports to block and   unblock before the network reconverges [Me04].  Consider a ring with   a stub as shown in Figure 4.                   [R]----[A]----[B]----[C]----[D]----[E]                           |                           |                           +--------[F]-----[G]--------+         Figure 4: Ring with poor convergence under reconfiguration   If A is the root bridge, then the paths A->B->C->D and A->F->G->E are   the two open paths, while the D->E link is blocked.  If the A->B link   fails, then E must unblock its port to D for traffic to flow again,   but it may require recomputation of the entire tree through BPDUs   (Bridge PDUs).  Even worse, if R is root and R or the A-R connection   fails, BPDU updates related to the old and new root can lead to a   brief count-to-infinity event, and, if RSTP (Rapid Spanning Tree   Protocol) is in use, can delay convergence for a few seconds.  The   original IEEE 802.1 spanning tree protocol can impose 30-second   delays in re-establishing data connectivity after a topology change   in order to be sure a new topology has stabilized and been fully   propagated.   The spanning tree protocol is inherently global to an entire layer 2   subnet; there is no current way to contain, partition, or otherwise   factor the protocol into a number of smaller, more stable subsets   that interact as groups.  Contrast this with Internet routing, which   includes both intradomain and interdomain variants, split to provide   exactly that containment and scalability within a domain while   allowing domains to interact freely independent of what happens   within a domain.2.4.  Stability of IP Multicast Optimization   Although it is a layer violation, it is common for high-end bridges   to snoop on IP multicast control messages for the purpose of   optimizing the distribution of IP multicast data and of those control   messages [RFC4541].Touch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   When such snooping and optimization is performed by spanning-tree-   based bridges, it done at each bridge based on the traffic observed   on that bridge's ports.  Changes in topology may reverse or otherwise   change the required forwarding ports of messages for a multicast   group.  Bridges must relearn the correct multicast forwarding from   the receipt of multicast control messages on new ports.  Such control   messages are sent to establish multicast distribution state and then   to refresh it, sometimes at intervals of seconds.  If a bridging   topology change has occurred during such intervals, multicast data   may be misdirected and lost.   However, a solution based on link-state routing, for example, can   form and maintain a global view of the multicast group membership and   multicast router situation in a similar fashion to that in which it   maintains a global view of the status of links.  Thus, such a   solution can adjust the forwarding of multicast data and control   traffic immediately as it sees the LAN topology change.2.5.  IEEE 802.1 Bridging Protocols   There have been a variety of IEEE protocols beyond the initial   shared-media Ethernet variant, including:   o  802.1D - added bridges (i.e., switches) and a spanning tree      protocol (STP) (incorporates 802.1w, below) [IEEE04].   o  802.1w - extension for rapid reconvergence of the spanning tree      protocol (RTSP) [IEEE04].   o  802.1Q - added VLAN and priority support, where each link address      maps to one VLAN (incorporates 802.1v and 802.1s, below) [IEEE06].   o  802.1v - added VLANs where segments map to VLANs based on link      address together with network protocol and transport port      [IEEE06].   o  802.1s - added support for multiple spanning trees, up to a      maximum of 65, one per non-overlapping group of VLANs (Multiple      STP) [IEEE06].   This document presumes the above variants are supported on the   Ethernet subnet, i.e., that a TRILL solution would not interfere with   (i.e., would not affect) any of the above.   In addition, the following more recent extensions have been   standardized to specify provider/carrier Ethernet services that can   be effectively transparent to the previously specified customer   Ethernet services.  The TRILL problem as described in this documentTouch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   is limited to customer Ethernet services; however, there is no reason   that a TRILL solution might not be easily applicable to both customer   and provider Ethernet.   o  802.1ad (Provider Bridges) - added support for a second level of      VLAN tag, called a "service tag", and renamed the original 802.1Q      tag a "customer tag".  Also known as Q-in-Q because of the      stacking of 802.1Q VLAN tags.   o  802.1ah (Provider Backbone Bridges) - added support for stacking      of MAC addresses by providing a tag to contain the original source      and destination MAC addresses.  Also know as MAC-in-MAC.   It is useful to note that no extension listed above in this section   addresses the issue of independent, localized routing in a single LAN   -- which is the focus of TRILL.   The TRILL problem and a sketch of a possible solution [Pe04] were   presented to both the IETF (via a BoF) and IEEE 802 (via an IEEE 802   Plenary Meeting Tutorial).  The IEEE, in response, approved a project   called Shortest Path Bridging (IEEE Project P802.1aq), taking a   different approach than that presented in [Pe04].  The current Draft   of P802.1aq appears to describe two different techniques.  One, which   does not use encapsulation, is, according to the IEEE Draft, limited   in applicability to small networks of no more than 100 shortest path   bridges.  The other, which uses 802.1ah, is, according to the IEEE   Draft, limited in applicability to networks of no more than 1,000   shortest path bridges.2.6.  Problems Not Addressed   There are other challenges to deploying Ethernet subnets that are not   addressed in this document other than, in some cases, to mention   relevant IEEE 802.1 documents, although it is possible for a solution   to address one or more of these in addition to the TRILL problem.   These include:   o  increased Ethernet link subnet scale   o  increased node relocation   o  security of the Ethernet link subnet management protocol   o  flooding attacks on a Ethernet link subnet   o  support for "provider" services such as Provider Bridges      (802.1ad), Provider Backbone Bridges (802.1ah), or Provider      Backbone Bridge Traffic Engineering (802.1Qay)Touch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   Solutions to TRILL need not support deployment of larger scales of   Ethernet link subnets than current broadcast domains can support   (e.g., around 1,000 end-hosts in a single bridged LAN of 100 bridges,   or 100,000 end-hosts inside 1,000 VLANs served by 10,000 bridges).   Similarly, solutions to TRILL need not address link-layer node   migration, which can complicate the caches in learning bridges.   Similar challenges exist in the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP),   where link-layer forwarding is not updated appropriately when nodes   move to ports on other bridges.  Again, the compartmentalization   available in network routing, like that of network-layer Autonomous   Systems (ASes), can help hide the effect of migration.  That is a   side effect, however, and not a primary focus of this work.   Current link-layer control-plane protocols, including Ethernet link   subnet management (spanning tree) and link/network integration (ARP),   are vulnerable to a variety of attacks.  Solutions to TRILL need not   address these insecurities.  Similar attacks exist in the data plane,   e.g., source address spoofing, single address traffic attacks,   traffic snooping, and broadcast flooding.  TRILL solutions need not   address any of these issues, although it is critical that they do not   introduce new vulnerabilities in the process (seeSection 5).3.  Desired Properties of Solutions to TRILL   This section describes some of the desirable or required properties   of any system that would solve the TRILL problems, independent of the   details of such a solution.  Most of these are based on retaining   useful properties of bridges, or maintaining those properties while   solving the problems listed inSection 2.3.1.  No Change to Link Capabilities   There must be no change to the service that Ethernet subnets already   provide as a result of deploying a TRILL solution.  Ethernet supports   unicast, broadcast, and multicast natively.  Although network   protocols, notably IP, can tolerate link layers that do not provide   all three, it would be useful to retain the support already in place   [RFC3819].  So called "zero configuration protocols" (also known as   "zeroconf", e.g., as used to configure link-local addresses   [RFC3927]), as well as existing bridge autoconfiguration, are also   dependent on broadcast.   Current Ethernet ensures in-order delivery for frames of the same   priority and no duplicated frames, under normal operation (excepting   transients during reconfiguration).  These criteria apply in varying   degrees to the different types of Ethernet, e.g., basic Ethernet up   through basic VLAN (802.1Q) ensures that all frames with the sameTouch & Perlman              Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   priority between two link addresses have both properties, but   protocol/port VLAN (802.1v) ensures this only for packets with the   same protocol and port.  There are subtle implications to such a   requirement.  Bridge autolearning already is susceptible to moving   nodes between ports, because previously learned associations between   the port and link address change.  A TRILL solution could be   similarly susceptible to such changes.3.2.  Zero Configuration and Zero Assumption   Both bridges and hubs are zero configuration devices; hubs having no   configuration at all, and bridges being automatically self-   configured.  Bridges are further zero-assumption devices, unlike   hubs.  Bridges can be interconnected in arbitrary topologies, without   regard for cycles or even self-attachment.  Spanning tree protocols   (STPs) remove the impact of cycles automatically, and port   autolearning reduces unnecessary broadcast of unicast traffic.   A TRILL solution should strive to have a similar zero-configuration,   zero-assumption operation.  This includes having TRILL solution   components automatically discover other TRILL solution components and   organize themselves, as well as to configure that organization for   proper operation (plug-and-play).  It also includes zero-   configuration backward compatibility with existing bridges and hubs,   which may include interacting with some of the bridge protocols, such   as spanning tree.   VLANs add a caveat to zero configuration; a TRILL solution should   support automatic use of a default VLAN (like non-VLAN bridges), but   would undoubtedly require explicit configuration for VLANs where   bridges require such configuration.   Autoconfiguration extends to optional services, such as multicast   support via Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) snooping,   broadcast support via serial copy, and support of multiple VLANs.3.3.  Forwarding Loop Mitigation   Using spanning trees avoids forwarding loops by construction,   although transient loops can occur, e.g., via the temporarily   undetected appearance of new link connectivity or the loss of a   sufficient number of spanning-tree control frames.  Solutions to   TRILL are intended to use adapted network-layer routing protocols   that may introduce transient loops during routing convergence.  A   TRILL solution thus needs to provide support for mitigating the   effect of such routing loops.Touch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   In the Internet, loop mitigation is provided by decrementing hop   counts (Time To Live (TTL)); in other networks, packets include a   trace (sometimes referred to as 'serialized' or 'unioned') of visited   nodes [RFC1812].  In addition, there may be localized consistency   checks, such as whether traffic is received on an unexpected   interface, which indicates that routing is in flux and that such   traffic should probably be discarded for safety.  These types of   mechanisms limit the impact of loops or detect them explicitly.   Mechanisms with similar effect should be included in TRILL solutions.3.4.  Spanning Tree Management   In order to address convergence under reconfiguration and robustness   to link interruption (Section 2.2), participation in the spanning   tree (STP) must be carefully managed.  The goal is to provide the   desired stability of the TRILL solution and of the entire Ethernet   link subnet, which may include bridges using STP.  This may involve a   TRILL solution participating in the STP, where the protocol used for   TRILL might dampen interactions with STP, or it may involve severing   the STP into separate STPs on 'stub' external Ethernet link subnet   segments.   A requirement is that a TRILL solution must not require modifications   or exceptions to the existing spanning tree protocols (e.g., STP,   RSTP (Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol), MSTP (Multiple Spanning Tree   Protocol)).3.5.  Multiple Attachments   In STP, a single node with multiple attachments to a single spanning   tree segment will always get and send traffic over only one of the   those attachment points.  TRILL must manage all traffic, including   multicast and broadcast traffic, so as not to create traffic loops   involving Ethernet segments with multiple TRILL attachment points.   This includes multiple attachments to a single TRILL node and   attachments to multiple TRILL nodes.  Support for multiple   attachments can improve support for forms of mobility that induce   topology changes, such as "make before break", although this is not a   major goal of TRILL.3.6.  VLAN Issues   A TRILL solution should support multiple customer VLANs (802.1Q,   which includes 802.1v and 802.1s).  This may involve ignorance, just   as many bridge devices do not participate in the VLAN protocols.  A   TRILL solution may alternately furnish direct VLAN support, e.g., by   providing configurable support for VLAN-ignorant end stations   equivalent to that provided by 802.1Q non-provider bridges.Touch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   Provider VLANs (802.1ad) are outside of the scope of this document.   A TRILL solution might or might not be easily adaptable to handling   provider VLANs.3.7.  Operational Equivalence   As with any extension to an existing architecture, it would be useful   -- though not strictly necessary -- to be able to describe or   consider a TRILL solution as equivalent to an existing link layer   component.  Such equivalence provides a validation model for the   architecture and a way for users to predict the effect of the use of   a TRILL solution on a deployed Ethernet.  In this case, 'user' refers   to users of the Ethernet protocol, whether at the host (data   segments), bridge (ST control segments), or VLAN (VLAN control).   This provides a sanity check, i.e., "we got it right if we can   exchange a TRILL solution component or components with an X" (where   "X" might be a single bridge, a hub, or some other link layer   abstraction).  It does not matter whether "X" can be implemented on   the same scale as the corresponding TRILL solution.  It also does not   matter if it can -- there may be utility to deploying the TRILL   solution components incrementally, in ways that a single "X" could   not be installed.   For example, if a TRILL solution's components were equivalent to a   single IEEE 802.1D bridge, it would mean that they would -- as a   whole - participate in the STP.  This need not require that TRILL   solution components would propagate STP, any more than a bridge need   do so in its on-board control.  It would mean that the solution would   interact with BPDUs at the edge, where the solution would -- again,   as a whole - participate as if a single node in the spanning tree.   Note that this equivalence is not required; a solution may act as if   an IEEE 802.1 hub, or may not have a corresponding equivalent link   layer component at all.3.8.  Optimizations   There are a number of optimizations that may be applied to TRILL   solutions.  These must be applied in a way that does not affect   functionality as a tradeoff for increased performance.  Such   optimizations may address broadcast and multicast frame distribution,   VLAN support, and snooping of ARP and IPv6 neighbor discovery.   In addition, there may be optimizations which make the implementation   of a TRILL solution easier than roughly equivalent existing bridge   devices.  For example, in many bridged LANs, there are topologies   such that central ("core") bridges which have both a greater volume   of traffic flowing through them as well as traffic to and from aTouch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   larger variety of end station than do non-core bridges.  Thus means   that such core bridges need to learn a large number of end station   addresses and need to do lookups based on such addresses very   rapidly.  This might require large high speed content addressable   memory making implementation of such core bridges difficult.   Although a TRILL solution need not provide such optimizations, it may   reduce the need for such large, high speed content addressable   memories or provide other similar optimizations.3.9.  Internet Architecture Issues   TRILL solutions are intended to have no impact on the Internet   network layer architecture.  In particular, the Internet and higher   layer headers should remain intact when traversing a deployed TRILL   solution, just as they do when traversing any other link subnet   technologies.  This means that the IP TTL field cannot be co-opted   for forwarding loop mitigation, as it would interfere with the   Internet layer assuming that the link subnet was reachable with no   changes in TTL.  (Internet TTLs are changed only at routers, as perRFC 1812, and even if IP TTL were considered, TRILL is expected to   support non-IP payloads, and so requires a separate solution anyway   [RFC1812]).   TRILL solutions should also have no impact on Internet routing or   signaling, which also means that broadcast and multicast, both of   which can pervade an entire Ethernet link subnet, must be able to   transparently pervade a deployed TRILL solution.  Changing how either   of these capabilities behaves would have significant effects on a   variety of protocols, including RIP (broadcast), RIPv2 (multicast),   ARP (broadcast), IPv6 neighbor discovery (multicast), etc.   Note that snooping of network-layer packets may be useful, especially   for certain optimizations.  These include snooping multicast   control-plane packets (IGMP) to tune link multicast to match the   network multicast topology, as is already done in existing smart   switches [RFC3376] [RFC4286].  This also includes snooping IPv6   neighbor discovery messages to assist with governing TRILL solution   edge configuration, as is the case in some smart learning bridges   [RFC4861].  Other layers may similarly be snooped, notably ARP   packets, for similar reasons as for IPv4 [RFC826].4.  Applicability   As might be expected, TRILL solutions are intended to be used to   solve the problems described inSection 2.  However, not all such   installations are appropriate environments for such solutions.  This   section outlines the issues in the appropriate use of these   solutions.Touch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   TRILL solutions are intended to address problems of path efficiency   and concentration, inability to multipath, and path stability within   a single Ethernet link subnet.  Like bridges, individual TRILL   solution components may find other TRILL solution components within a   single Ethernet link subnet and aggregate into a single TRILL   solution.   TRILL solutions are not intended to span separate Ethernet link   subnets interconnected by network-layer (e.g., router) devices,   except via link-layer tunnels, where such tunnels render the distinct   subnet undetectably equivalent from a single Ethernet link subnet.   A currently open question is whether a single Ethernet link subnet   should contain components of only one TRILL solution, either of   necessity of architecture or utility.  Multiple TRILL solutions, like   Internet ASes, may allow TRILL routing protocols to be partitioned in   ways that help their stability, but this may come at the price of   needing the TRILL solutions to participate more fully as nodes (each   modeling a bridge) in the Ethernet link subnet STP.  Each   architecture solution should decide whether multiple TRILL solutions   are supported within a single Ethernet link subnet, and mechanisms   should be included to enforce whatever decision is made.   TRILL solutions need not address scalability limitations in bridged   subnets.  Although there may be scale benefits of other aspects of   solving TRILL problems, e.g., of using network-layer routing to   provide stability under link changes or intermittent outages, this is   not a focus of this work.   As also noted earlier, TRILL solutions are not intended to address   security vulnerabilities in either the data plane or control plane of   the link layer.  This means that TRILL solutions should not limit   broadcast frames, ARP requests, or spanning tree protocol messages   (if such are interpreted by the TRILL solution or solution edge).5.  Security Considerations   TRILL solutions should not introduce new vulnerabilities compared to   traditional bridged subnets.   TRILL solutions are not intended to be a solution to Ethernet link   subnet vulnerabilities, including spoofing, flooding, snooping, and   attacks on the link control plane (STP, flooding the learning cache)   and link-network control plane (ARP).  Although TRILL solutions are   intended to provide more stable routing than STP, this stability is   limited to performance, and the subsequent robustness is intended to   address non-malicious events.Touch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   There may be some side-effects to the use of TRILL solutions that can   provide more robust operation under certain attacks, such as those   interrupting or adding link service, but TRILL solutions should not   be relied upon for such capabilities.   Finally, TRILL solutions should not interfere with other protocols   intended to address these vulnerabilities, such as those to secure   IPv6 neighbor discovery [RFC3971].6.  Acknowledgments   Portions of this document are based on documents that describe a   preliminary solution, and on a related network-layer solution [Pe04]   [Pe05] [To03].  Donald Eastlake III provided substantial text and   comments.  Additional comments and feedback were provided by the   members of the IETF TRILL WG, in which this document was developed,   and by the IESG.   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.7.  Informative References   [IEEE04]  IEEE 802.1D bridging standard, "IEEE Standard for Local and             metropolitan area networks: Media Access Control (MAC)             Bridges", (incorporates 802.1w), Jun. 2004.   [IEEE06]  IEEE 802.1Q VLAN standard, "IEEE Standards for Local and             metropolitan area networks: Virtual Bridged Local Area             Networks", (incorporates 802.1v and 802.1s), May 2006.   [Me04]    Myers, A., T.E. Ng, H. Zhang, "Rethinking the Service             Model: Scaling Ethernet to a Million Nodes", Proc. ACM             Third Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-III),             Mar. 2004.   [Pe99]    Perlman, R., "Interconnection: Bridges, Routers, Switches,             and Internetworking Protocols", Addison Wesley, Chapter 3,             1999.   [Pe04]    Perlman, R., "RBridges: Transparent Routing", Proc. Infocom             2005, Mar. 2004.   [Pe05]    Perlman, R., J. Touch, A. Yegin, "RBridges: Transparent             Routing," (expired work in progress), Apr. 2004 - May 2005.Touch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009   [RFC826]  Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or             Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet             Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,RFC826, November 1982.   [RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",RFC 1812, June 1995.   [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.             Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version             3",RFC 3376, October 2002.   [RFC3819] Karn, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,             Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.             Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers",BCP 89,RFC 3819, July 2004.   [RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic             Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses",RFC 3927, May             2005.   [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,             "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)",RFC 3971, March 2005.   [RFC4286] Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) Formats             for Representing Resource Lists",RFC 4826, May 2007.   [RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,             "Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol             (IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping             Switches",RFC 4541, May 2006.   [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,             "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)",RFC 4861,             September 2007.   [To03]    Touch, J., Y. Wang, L. Eggert, G. Finn, "A Virtual Internet             Architecture", ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-570, Presented             at the Workshop on Future Directions in Network             Architecture (FDNA) 2003 at Sigcomm 2003, March 2003.Touch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 5556            TRILL: Problem and Applicability            May 2009Authors' Addresses   Joe Touch   USC/ISI   4676 Admiralty Way   Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695   U.S.A.   Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151   EMail: touch@isi.edu   URL:http://www.isi.edu/touch   Radia Perlman   Sun Microsystems   16 Network Circle   umpk16-161   Menlo Park, CA 94025   U.S.A.   EMail: Radia.Perlman@sun.comTouch & Perlman              Informational                     [Page 17]