Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs?
Dinesh G Dutt <ddutt@cisco.com> Sun, 30 November 2008 05:25 UTC
Return-Path: <rbridge-bounces@postel.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7CF28C122 for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:25:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZubH2o65xZ6 for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4403A67F0 for <trill-archive-Osh9cae4@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:24:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAU51UZo027954; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:01:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAU50P5t027553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:00:26 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,689,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="119596390"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2008 05:00:15 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAU50D2L022782; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:00:13 -0800
Received: from [10.21.76.239] ([10.21.76.239]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAU50DtR012189; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:00:13 GMT
Message-ID: <49321DDF.2080608@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:00:15 -0800
From: Dinesh G Dutt <ddutt@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>
References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> <49307F47.3050405@sun.com> <1028365c0811281801p57cb2212qb723528e23cc7772@mail.gmail.com> <4930D4EA.7020005@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <4930D4EA.7020005@sun.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2918; t=1228021213; x=1228885213; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ddutt@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dinesh=20G=20Dutt=20<ddutt@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20MUST=20not=20send=20spannin g=20tree=20BPDUs? |Sender:=20; bh=DrcDzxtn5LV/7jLSX++mKGn4re47CEFjL/cPDLXXulo=; b=ZaMjYumI1Sa1pE6kBEskGCQNKxY/PD5IOB2Ig+UxnObDRm9YG7jOAeVSiH eappZ6KmxlcW7jgiw4gm+RzkEnTxEOBSNwFuXgTd0L2r/Cn4aKimNcv+j+vZ GoW+uPQNik;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ddutt@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: ddutt@cisco.com
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, rbridge@postel.org
Subject: Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs?
X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge>
List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
Errors-To: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
I strongly agree with dropping the sentence and adding the "MUST NOT forward" piece, Dinesh Radia Perlman wrote: > Yeah. I think we should either drop the sentence, or say "MAY generate > BPDUs, > but MUST NOT forward BPDUs from > one link to another". > > Radia > > Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> Hi Radia, >> >> See below... >> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> wrote: >> >> >>> The spec currently says (in section 4.7.3.3 Transmission of BPDUs) >>> >>> RBridges MAY support a capability for sending spanning tree BPDUs for >>> the purpose of attempting to force a bridged LAN to partition as >>> discussed in Section A.3.3. Except for this optional capability, >>> RBridges MUST NOT send spanning tree BPDUs. >>> >>> >>> I don't remember any discussion on saying that RBridges MUST NOT send >>> BPDUs. I remember >>> at one point requiring it, and saying that an RBridge is DRB if and only >>> if it is the Spanning tree Root. >>> (I still would prefer that, by the way -- makes all the controversial >>> per VLAN Hellos >>> unnecessary). >>> >>> I remember it being removed from the spec (because of complexity with n >>> versions of >>> spanning tree, and links with no bridges, perhaps, where the spanning >>> tree messages would >>> be unnecessary overhead), but I don't remember any reason to say >>> RBridges MUST NOT sent >>> BPDUs. >>> >>> >> I suspect it used to say "do not" in the sense that there is no >> RBridge reason for an RBridge port to send spanning tree BPDUs except >> for the optional bridge LAN partitioning feature described in Section >> A.3.3. In some pass to upgrade to IETF implementation key words, it >> probably got changed when it didn't necessarily need to be. The only >> problem I can see with dropping this is that it might marginally >> increase the chance someone would erroneously try to build spanning >> trees through an RBridge. >> >> Donald >> >> >> >>> Anyone else remember? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Radia >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rbridge mailing list >>> rbridge@postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >>> >>> >> ============================= >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) >> 155 Beaver Street >> Milford, MA 01757 USA >> d3e3e3@gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> rbridge mailing list >> rbridge@postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > -- We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAU50P5t027553 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:00:26 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,689,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="119596390" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2008 05:00:15 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAU50D2L022782; Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:00:13 -0800 Received: from [10.21.76.239] ([10.21.76.239]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAU50DtR012189; Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:00:13 GMT Message-ID: <49321DDF.2080608@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 21:00:15 -0800 From: Dinesh G Dutt <ddutt@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> <49307F47.3050405@sun.com> <1028365c0811281801p57cb2212qb723528e23cc7772@mail.gmail.com> <4930D4EA.7020005@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4930D4EA.7020005@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2918; t=1228021213; x=1228885213; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ddutt@cisco.com; z=From:=20Dinesh=20G=20Dutt=20<ddutt@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20MUST=20not=20send=20spannin g=20tree=20BPDUs? |Sender:=20; bh=DrcDzxtn5LV/7jLSX++mKGn4re47CEFjL/cPDLXXulo=; b=ZaMjYumI1Sa1pE6kBEskGCQNKxY/PD5IOB2Ig+UxnObDRm9YG7jOAeVSiH eappZ6KmxlcW7jgiw4gm+RzkEnTxEOBSNwFuXgTd0L2r/Cn4aKimNcv+j+vZ GoW+uPQNik; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=ddutt@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ddutt@cisco.com Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 05:01:28 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2827 I strongly agree with dropping the sentence and adding the "MUST NOT forward" piece, Dinesh Radia Perlman wrote: > Yeah. I think we should either drop the sentence, or say "MAY generate > BPDUs, > but MUST NOT forward BPDUs from > one link to another". > > Radia > > Donald Eastlake wrote: > >> Hi Radia, >> >> See below... >> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> wrote: >> >> >>> The spec currently says (in section 4.7.3.3 Transmission of BPDUs) >>> >>> RBridges MAY support a capability for sending spanning tree BPDUs for >>> the purpose of attempting to force a bridged LAN to partition as >>> discussed in Section A.3.3. Except for this optional capability, >>> RBridges MUST NOT send spanning tree BPDUs. >>> >>> >>> I don't remember any discussion on saying that RBridges MUST NOT send >>> BPDUs. I remember >>> at one point requiring it, and saying that an RBridge is DRB if and only >>> if it is the Spanning tree Root. >>> (I still would prefer that, by the way -- makes all the controversial >>> per VLAN Hellos >>> unnecessary). >>> >>> I remember it being removed from the spec (because of complexity with n >>> versions of >>> spanning tree, and links with no bridges, perhaps, where the spanning >>> tree messages would >>> be unnecessary overhead), but I don't remember any reason to say >>> RBridges MUST NOT sent >>> BPDUs. >>> >>> >> I suspect it used to say "do not" in the sense that there is no >> RBridge reason for an RBridge port to send spanning tree BPDUs except >> for the optional bridge LAN partitioning feature described in Section >> A.3.3. In some pass to upgrade to IETF implementation key words, it >> probably got changed when it didn't necessarily need to be. The only >> problem I can see with dropping this is that it might marginally >> increase the chance someone would erroneously try to build spanning >> trees through an RBridge. >> >> Donald >> >> >> >>> Anyone else remember? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Radia >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rbridge mailing list >>> rbridge@postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >>> >>> >> ============================= >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) >> 155 Beaver Street >> Milford, MA 01757 USA >> d3e3e3@gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> rbridge mailing list >> rbridge@postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > -- We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAT5aPjI006931 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:36:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0KB200M8BY8FYY00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:36:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.4.9] ([217.172.65.124]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0KB200FD1Y8DJNN0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:36:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:36:42 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <1028365c0811281801p57cb2212qb723528e23cc7772@mail.gmail.com> To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Message-id: <4930D4EA.7020005@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> <49307F47.3050405@sun.com> <1028365c0811281801p57cb2212qb723528e23cc7772@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19pre (Windows/20081127) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 05:36:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2287 Yeah. I think we should either drop the sentence, or say "MAY generate BPDUs, but MUST NOT forward BPDUs from one link to another". Radia Donald Eastlake wrote: > Hi Radia, > > See below... > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> wrote: > >> The spec currently says (in section 4.7.3.3 Transmission of BPDUs) >> >> RBridges MAY support a capability for sending spanning tree BPDUs for >> the purpose of attempting to force a bridged LAN to partition as >> discussed in Section A.3.3. Except for this optional capability, >> RBridges MUST NOT send spanning tree BPDUs. >> >> >> I don't remember any discussion on saying that RBridges MUST NOT send >> BPDUs. I remember >> at one point requiring it, and saying that an RBridge is DRB if and only >> if it is the Spanning tree Root. >> (I still would prefer that, by the way -- makes all the controversial >> per VLAN Hellos >> unnecessary). >> >> I remember it being removed from the spec (because of complexity with n >> versions of >> spanning tree, and links with no bridges, perhaps, where the spanning >> tree messages would >> be unnecessary overhead), but I don't remember any reason to say >> RBridges MUST NOT sent >> BPDUs. >> > > I suspect it used to say "do not" in the sense that there is no > RBridge reason for an RBridge port to send spanning tree BPDUs except > for the optional bridge LAN partitioning feature described in Section > A.3.3. In some pass to upgrade to IETF implementation key words, it > probably got changed when it didn't necessarily need to be. The only > problem I can see with dropping this is that it might marginally > increase the chance someone would erroneously try to build spanning > trees through an RBridge. > > Donald > > >> Anyone else remember? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Radia >> _______________________________________________ >> rbridge mailing list >> rbridge@postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> > ============================= > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) > 155 Beaver Street > Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e3e3@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAT21T9j018752 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:01:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so616928yxg.75 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:01:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=A5jSwCLRPPwR8y56y2ldh7F8IkSH3+5ipdTTK59Do1Y=; b=ofHdFDf7jS1xmel/5LI9gmRK14MjiROTcWuna7d82L9kb7ZNmpugXFzuVGdJXFheR4 y4GObJPK1dbTQ6LSiazBTZldX95EFtoj8nH6XKweH5fKhxYicO33HUwHNwgBqvuvS5uS v7rJ6z2pYLhq+QviL6FR2lKGuFAwOMz5gOZrY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=xD0KV/pF2SVayrxxSkg8t8hQnztNmwHzCmXjiCqq5G1mu/dDXHPt36XuzalavQidTu j8+WuG9hw5ctvmKC+TY7Rkkd3EaoAVxrnOnxGbbZl3bmAUw6iG4fJ9mQ+z98TjFIhkyx kgRTGWiObiTLfKFkciLwo66jv7td00dQJ9qqs= Received: by 10.100.255.10 with SMTP id c10mr4497136ani.86.1227924089112; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:01:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.137.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:01:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811281801p57cb2212qb723528e23cc7772@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:01:29 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <49307F47.3050405@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> <49307F47.3050405@sun.com> X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 02:01:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1873 Hi Radia, See below... On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> wrote: > The spec currently says (in section 4.7.3.3 Transmission of BPDUs) > > RBridges MAY support a capability for sending spanning tree BPDUs for > the purpose of attempting to force a bridged LAN to partition as > discussed in Section A.3.3. Except for this optional capability, > RBridges MUST NOT send spanning tree BPDUs. > > > I don't remember any discussion on saying that RBridges MUST NOT send > BPDUs. I remember > at one point requiring it, and saying that an RBridge is DRB if and only > if it is the Spanning tree Root. > (I still would prefer that, by the way -- makes all the controversial > per VLAN Hellos > unnecessary). > > I remember it being removed from the spec (because of complexity with n > versions of > spanning tree, and links with no bridges, perhaps, where the spanning > tree messages would > be unnecessary overhead), but I don't remember any reason to say > RBridges MUST NOT sent > BPDUs. I suspect it used to say "do not" in the sense that there is no RBridge reason for an RBridge port to send spanning tree BPDUs except for the optional bridge LAN partitioning feature described in Section A.3.3. In some pass to upgrade to IETF implementation key words, it probably got changed when it didn't necessarily need to be. The only problem I can see with dropping this is that it might marginally increase the chance someone would erroneously try to build spanning trees through an RBridge. Donald > Anyone else remember? > > Thanks, > > Radia > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.28]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAT1Lu0t009894 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:21:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so614081yxg.75 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:21:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Z9fnimxSxGy8Q0BoKxHIWQC2x9Q+nuivdswxKZtiVs8=; b=jaXJWABIf+LbdxRV1bCPb8HDkjCJ+y3WkaWWXTSupgeapAj2AOAVg73fgICkhKDiHS JhAR+xeIgMR52L40CDC7E7itvyIwHwYDyz1anLnUnGRjL69rSv9oXuUY5DKB7E5dGNk1 lC72Gz4MPqOrnyEBAO3/NCwBMF40Fz+n9Y7g4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=wmgQVwA6GxVkA+xxP0/a6IoKa/S6YlpeKy3z7W45f2r4KV6z9NAZb6fx7vx8+jyZ0d i4c9x/mK0jnlq4gZrlKRn98dyOMh9wQLyk05taTzfWoVmxgMnO69h0tbGA/mYlVJKFK3 +HH8kt/xbex4d3+ofD+ZlNWQ3zRY56MIutV7Y= Received: by 10.100.163.15 with SMTP id l15mr4475482ane.128.1227921716432; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:21:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.137.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:21:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811281721u7064c68dm292f3891716a7c70@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:21:56 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "James Carlson" <james.d.carlson@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <18733.52215.806793.660780@gargle.gargle.HOWL> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1028365c0811261330g60d54735r732b7cad02caa450@mail.gmail.com> <18733.52215.806793.660780@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] draft protocol-10 WGLC Maximum Bridge Transit Delay X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:22:20 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2678 Hi Jim, See below... On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:21 PM, James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote: > Donald Eastlake writes: >> I've reviewed the draft and will be posting a few suggested changes. This is >> the first. >> 802.1 bridges have a Maximum Bridge Transit Delay. They are required to >> discard frames that have been inside the bridge for longer than this time. >> It is configurable with a recommended value of 1 second and maximum value of >> 4 second. (802.1D-2004 Table 7-3) It would seem like a good idea to put in a >> sentence or two to indicate that RBridges have this parameter configurable >> per RBridge and enforce a maximum RBridge transit delay. > > Do modern bridges actually _implement_ such a feature, or do they just > have a knob labeled "Maximum Bridge Transit Delay" that's connected to > nothing underneath? It is my impression that low end 802.1D bridges don't implement this but mid and high end 802.1Q bridges do. Typically, when a frame is received, a control block is created with the VLAN, priority, time of receipt, and other control information. When a frame is de-queued for transmission, the time is checked and frame discarded if it is too old. This time check doesn't need to be, and probably isn't, extremely accurate. > I can imagine flushing Ethernet output queues if link status goes down > and stays down for more than a second, thus blocking timely output, > but tracking internal timestamps on individual packets seems like a > wasted effort to me, and may not even be feasible with modern > hardware. > > I'm inclined to say "no" to this, just on the basis that I cannot see > how it would serve any real purpose. It looks like a spec for the > sake of a spec. In bridges, I think it is required to back up the assurances of Spanning Tree Protocol. I think bridges also flush the output queue and any input queue associated with a port when the port goes down. Generally, it seems like good hygiene not to keep a frame for a long time and then release it... > James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> > Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 It would certainly be easy enough to make this a SHOULD rather than being mandatory the way it is in 802.1, not that people seem to pay that much attention to what is mandatory in 802.1. But perhaps it really isn't necessary for RBridges... Anyone else have an opinion on this. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mASNUpLv013777 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0KB200M2VHBFYY00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.4.9] ([217.172.65.124]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0KB200F8LHBDJNN0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:30:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:31:19 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> To: rbridge@postel.org Message-id: <49307F47.3050405@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19pre (Windows/20081127) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:31:13 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 935 The spec currently says (in section 4.7.3.3 Transmission of BPDUs) RBridges MAY support a capability for sending spanning tree BPDUs for the purpose of attempting to force a bridged LAN to partition as discussed in Section A.3.3. Except for this optional capability, RBridges MUST NOT send spanning tree BPDUs. I don't remember any discussion on saying that RBridges MUST NOT send BPDUs. I remember at one point requiring it, and saying that an RBridge is DRB if and only if it is the Spanning tree Root. (I still would prefer that, by the way -- makes all the controversial per VLAN Hellos unnecessary). I remember it being removed from the spec (because of complexity with n versions of spanning tree, and links with no bridges, perhaps, where the spanning tree messages would be unnecessary overhead), but I don't remember any reason to say RBridges MUST NOT sent BPDUs. Anyone else remember? Thanks, Radia Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mASNQWoS012615 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:26:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0KB200M2QH44YY00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.4.9] ([217.172.65.124]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0KB200F8JH40JNN0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:26:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:26:53 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> To: "Ayan Banerjee (ayabaner)" <ayabaner@cisco.com> Message-id: <49307E3D.6070400@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19pre (Windows/20081127) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org, Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:26:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5095 More re: Ayan Banerjee's comments on protocol-10: > > > Item 13: Section 4.2.3.1.2 - Wording of bullet 5 is unclear. > How about adding a comma after "controls" > Item 14: Section 4.2.3.1.2 - Based on feedback from the IS-IS WG should > we remove this optimization (delete last 3 paras) > I think that the optimization is particularly valuable when IS-IS is operating in layer 2. And it doesn't add complexity, so I see no downside to this. > Item 15: section 4.2.3.2 - (note 1) - designated vlan to be used for > trill data frames, does this imply that > vlans are getting tunneled with a different > outer vlan-id. Just want to make this > explicit. > Yes. The inner and outer VLAN tags are unrelated on encapsualted frames. I thought the spec was clear about this. > Item 16: Section 4.2.3.3 - (last note - should this must be the > ext-ckt-id for P2P, and in a lan. This implies > that we should mandate 3-way handshake for > P2P links > > Item 17: Section 4.2.3.4 - (note 5) - not announcing allows to choose > all (see note 3 in the last call) > > Item 18: Section 4.3 - Distribution tree (see note 3 in last call and > please see draft-ward) > Hmm. I don't understand the above comments, probably because I don't know what "note 5" and "note 3" are referring to. > Item 19: Section 4.3.1 - Talk about parallel links and what needs to > break them > > Item 20: Section 4.3.4 - (note 3 - how - it will hit the group address > and go everywhere) > > Can you be more specific about your concern? I can't tell, based on reading the section, what you're asking about. > Item 21: Section 4.4.1.2 - Second last paragraph - please change the > last sentence. > I think the last sentence you are referring to is: >>(Using a unicast >> Outer.MacDA is of no benefit on a point-to-point link but may result >> in substantial savings if the link is actually a bridged LAN with >> many bridged branches and end stations, to all of which the frame may>> >> get flooded if a multicast destination is used.) Not sure what's wrong with it... > Item 22: Section 4.4.2.2 - the forwarding rbridge need not be a AF on > the link (paragraph 2, consider a P2P case). > Or make a statement, that on a P2P, rbridges > are automatically AFs. > I think this is just a simple clarification. That if it's a P2P case RBridge-endnode, that the RBridge is automatically an AF... > Item 23: Section 4.5 needs more text on forwarding of various classes of > multicast control plane packets > some are forwarded using a special address while > other are flooded. > Hope Donald understands this one... > Item 24: Section 4.6.2 - Last paragraph, first sentence is not clear. > It might be nice to quote the offending text, but I think you are referring to: >> When the appointed forwarder lost counter for RBridge RBn for VLAN-x >> is observed to increase via the core TRILL IS-IS link state database >> but RBn continues to be an appointed forwarder for VLAN-x on at least >> one of its ports, every other RBridge that is an appointed forwarder >> for VLAN-x modifies the aging of all the addresses it has learned by >> decapsulating native frames in VLAN-x from ingress RBridge RBn as >> follows: The time remaining for each entry is adjusted to be no >> larger than a per RBridge configuration parameter called (to >> correspond to [802.1Q]) "Forward Delay". Hmm. I don't remember that section, and don't remember the purpose of counting the number of times appointed forwarder status is lost. Wouldn't the sequence number on the ESADI (together with the CSNP to assure delivery of the latest ESADI from each RBridge) make is unnecessary to have a "appointed forwarder lost counter"? > Item 25: Section 4.6.3 - Not sure if mis-configuration detection being > carried in the LSP is a good idea. > Assuming that it stays there, I do not see any > text on what to do when things are > mis-configured. If this is just a log, I would > suggest that we take this out-of-band > and configuration mismatch issues be handled > separately. > Adding optional information into LSPs to detect misconfiguration, and not saying what to do as a result of this information, was a compromise. One could have RBridges act on the information, or have some sort of management tool that looks through things for misconfigurations. Seems like a good idea and mostly harmless. > > Item 27: Section 4.7.3.3 - Last sentence, do rbridges with access ports, > run STP ? If not, why not? I am > guessing that statement is talking about > trunk ports; if so can we make that > explicit. > The sentence is >>"Except for this optional capability, >> RBridges MUST NOT send spanning tree BPDUs." I don't remember that. Why did we put that in? I might make an independent note about this... Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mASMvp6D004956 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:57:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0KB200M2DFSBYY00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:57:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.4.9] ([217.172.65.124]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0KB200F8EFS6JNN0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:57:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:58:11 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> To: "Ayan Banerjee (ayabaner)" <ayabaner@cisco.com> Message-id: <49307783.9010504@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19pre (Windows/20081127) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org, Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:58:16 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 13902 Re Ayan Banerjee's comments on protocol-10: a) your concern about spraying of hellos. Indeed there was much discussion, with viewpoints ranging from "send Hellos on every VLAN by all RBridges" (which minimizes the possibility of two RBridges not noticing each other because of weird bridge configurations) to "only send Hellos on VLAN 1" (simplicity, least bandwidth). What is in the spec is a compromise which people seemed willing to live with. Only the DRB (once established) sends Hellos on more than one VLAN, and it can be configured to send on a smaller set of VLANs than the set it supports. Another option which I kind of liked was to have the RBridge attempt to become bridge Root. And become DRB if and only if it succeeds in being tree Root. We might want to revisit that. I happened to be talking to someone (who hasn't been participating in the WG, but might be building this) who brought up that solution as a suggestion instead of spraying with hellos. b) differently-configured access and trunk ports: I think all the scenarios work. It is the DRB that decides if it is an access port (and therefore prevents any through-traffic by either setting the overload bit or not creating a pseudonode). So it doesn't matter what the other RBs think the port is. And if the DRB thinks it is a trunk port, it will not assign any designated forwarders. If the DRB thinks it's a "universal port" (both access and transit), and some other RBridge believes it is a trunk port, that other RBridge will not volunteer to be designated forwarder. No problem. If the other RBridge thinks it's an access port, then given that the DRB doesn't claim it's an access port, its decision is overridden, and it does have to forward. c) no nickname necessary if not ingress, egress, or tree root We decided this was a good thing in case nicknames became scarce. It seems totally harmless. Just RB doesn't include a TLV for nickname if it doesn't want a nickname. d) ESADI instances: I couldn't find the place in the spec you point to (you said 4.1.2). I don't see a scalability problem if endnodes for each VLAN are announced in separate announcements. I think the notion of calling it an "IS-IS instance" (my bad terminology) led to lots of confusion, ranging from people thinking that it meant totally separate per-VLAN topologies of the core, to ... not sure what else. I think we've decided not to call it an "instance" anymore, but just to redefine the acronym "ESADI" to be "End System Advertisement Information". One of the reasons to keep the announcements in separate packets for different VLANs is because of VLAN mapping. The scalability concerns people have raised for this involve sending Hellos per VLAN for these ESADI "instances". But there are no Hellos. There is, however, a CSNP for each VLAN-ESADI. e) you said: >>Item 10: Section 4.2.3.5 - New section -- I think that we are better >>served with a P2P IIH Just to confirm on the mailing list what I asked at the meeting (since sometimes "off the top of people's head at a meeting" might be incorrect): I was worried about sending a P2P IIH and having it misinterpreted. Someone said that P2P IIHs and multi-access IIHs are different PDU types. Is this correct? If so, (or if there is some other way of not getting confused by getting one when you are expecting the other), it seems OK, but we'd have to look through the P2P IIH and make sure that all the TRILL information we need is there. I suppose there is no VLAN information needed, pseudonodes, or information about whether it's a trunk or access port. maybe there really is no TRILL information needed in a P2P IIH... f) You said you were confused by this sentence: >>Note that an RBridge RBn does not defer to the >> DRB listed in a Hello, even if that claimed DRB is higher priority, >> if the Hello was sent by an RBridge with lower priority than RBn. I think that's saying that RB1 might hear a Hello from RB2, wherein RB2 announces that RB2 thinks RB3 is DRB, and that RB1 should not defer to RB2 unless RB3 actually hears Hellos from RB3. That's kind of interesting -- maybe it should... I'm sending this in case my email fails, and will try to respond to the rest of Ayan's comments later. Radia > Item 3: Section 2.3.1 - Spraying of hellos, scalability concerns, text > is unclear Consider the following topology and the following scenarios. > > | | | > RB1--------- RB2 ---------- RB3 > | | | > |p1 |p2 |p3 > > The Rbi's are connected on the top to a TRILL cloud consisting of only > Rbridges (for ease of discussion). They are connected on the bottom to > CE switches/network via ports p1, p2, and p3. > > Scenario 1: All ports (p1, p2, and p3) are configured to be access ports > (as defined in Appendix A of the draft). > In this case, Rbi's will spray with hellos on all VLANs configured on > their respective ports. The intent is if a hello is received by other > Rbi's and an "adjacency" can be formed, then we want to block ports to > prevent loops. The intent is such a link should not get in the LSP-DB; > this is inverse of the operation desired with a traditional-isis-hello. > Only one port remains forwarding and the others are blocked; if so I > could not figure out from the draft which one is forwarding (is > system-id etc used as a tie?). Once this is blocked, it remains blocked > till we "loose" the adjacency again. It is possible that the requirement > will be to send in the order of 10,000s hellos/per sec per node. This > solution of spraying poses scalability concerns for the protocol. Also, > the announcement of the vlan list (however compressed) may not fit > within the isis-hello-pdu. > > Scenario 2: All ports (p1, p2, and p3) are configured to be trunk ports > (as defined in Appendix A of the draft). > Once again, Rbi's spray hello on all VLANs. In this case, forming of > adjacencies is desired, in the sense this links gets in the LSP-DB. Once > a DRB is elected, only the DRB continues spraying with hellos such that > future nodes can discover and join the designated vlan to send hellos. > Nodes other than the DIS after the initial spraying will move to sending > hellos on the designated vlan only. Question: What happens if the DRB > does not capture all the vlans, for example RB1 became DRB, but has > vlans 2,3 on p1 and the others p2 and p3, have vlan 2,3,4. Can a new > RB4, with vlan 4 configured on it enter this Rbridge LAN and create > issues? Can we have some text to clearly show the desired operation. > > Scenario 3: Some ports are configured to be trunk and some others access > (could be due to mis-configuration or error in cabling) Not sure what is > the desired behavior? Are we saying that "adjacency" must not be formed > with hellos that have the access "AC" bit set, however, must be formed > with others. If p1 is the only with AC set, then does it "block" or > "forward" traffic? I believe that the above scenarios needs to be > addressed in the TRILL base spec. > > > Item 4: Section 3.7.3 - An RBridge that will not act as an ingress, > egress, or tree root need not have a nickname. > Do we really want this statement in the base spec ? What if it > does vlan-mapping, etc. Can we just delete > this statement from the dradt. > > Item 5: Section 4.1 - please replace on Ethernet links with (on > multi-access links). I am hoping that we can be > sensitive to running a P2P mode (configured albeit) on Ethernet > links. > > Item 6: Section 4.1.2 - ESADI is a single instance or multiple instances > per vlan as currently defined. I > believe that I had raised scalability concerns with ESADI being > multiple instances. > > Item 7: Section 4.1.3 - There is talk about TRILL-IS-IS Hellos and outer > encapsulation. [This is to be > removed as per the last call note 2]. > > Item 8: Section 4.2.2 - TRILL-IS-IS frames must be ALL-Rbridges > multicast address (unicast address how?) > Updates to this section are not in sync with 4.1.3 > > Item 9: Section 4.2.3.1 - one rbridge is elected DRB for LAN case, but > in P2P case there should be no > such thing. I believe that the confusion could be due to the > fact > the base spec talks about TRILL-IS-IS in terms of LAN IIHs, > however, P2P IIHs (with a config option) > need to be accounted. We want text in the base protocol spec > that says that in the event a link > is configured to be P2P, such DRB election is not needed (as per > base IS-IS protocol). Also, > with P2P mode configuration, there need not be any spraying of > hellos. > > Item 10: Section 4.2.3.5 - New section -- I think that we are better > served with a P2P IIH section in the draft. > > Item 11: Section 4.2.3.1.1 - Are Core IS-IS hellos tagged ? Maybe okay > for LAN, but is this true for P2P > > Item 12: Section 4.2.3.1.1 - Last sentence ?? Not sure I follow this, > can this be re-written please. > > Item 13: Section 4.2.3.1.2 - Wording of bullet 5 is unclear. > > Item 14: Section 4.2.3.1.2 - Based on feedback from the IS-IS WG should > we remove this optimization (delete last 3 paras) > > Item 15: section 4.2.3.2 - (note 1) - designated vlan to be used for > trill data frames, does this imply that > vlans are getting tunneled with a different > outer vlan-id. Just want to make this > explicit. > > Item 16: Section 4.2.3.3 - (last note - should this must be the > ext-ckt-id for P2P, and in a lan. This implies > that we should mandate 3-way handshake for > P2P links. > > Item 17: Section 4.2.3.4 - (note 5) - not announcing allows to choose > all (see note 3 in the last call) > > Item 18: Section 4.3 - Distribution tree (see note 3 in last call and > please see draft-ward) > > Item 19: Section 4.3.1 - Talk about parallel links and what needs to > break them > > Item 20: Section 4.3.4 - (note 3 - how - it will hit the group address > and go everywhere) > > Item 21: Section 4.4.1.2 - Second last paragraph - please change the > last sentence. > > Item 22: Section 4.4.2.2 - the forwarding rbridge need not be a AF on > the link (paragraph 2, consider a P2P case). > Or make a statement, that on a P2P, rbridges > are automatically AFs. > > Item 23: Section 4.5 needs more text on forwarding of various classes of > multicast control plane packets > some are forwarded using a special address while > other are flooded. > > Item 24: Section 4.6.2 - Last paragraph, first sentence is not clear. > > Item 25: Section 4.6.3 - Not sure if mis-configuration detection being > carried in the LSP is a good idea. > Assuming that it stays there, I do not see any > text on what to do when things are > mis-configured. If this is just a log, I would > suggest that we take this out-of-band > and configuration mismatch issues be handled > separately. > > Item 26: Section 4.7.1 - Text is confusing since we are talking about > creating adjacencies, pseudo-node > LSPs etc. Please see item 3 above and text > needs to make the scenarios outlined > there clearer. > > Item 27: Section 4.7.3.3 - Last sentence, do rbridges with access ports, > run STP ? If not, why not? I am > guessing that statement is talking about > trunk ports; if so can we make that > explicit. > > Item 28: Section A.2 - Solution 4 to problem 1- what optional feature? > > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On > Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:48 AM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt > > This message begins a working group last call on > draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt. Because of the size of the > document, it will run for three weeks until Wednesday, November 26th. > > There are three issues in connection with this draft that you may wish > to note: > 1. A method of doing VLAN mapping was discussed on the working group > mailing list. This protocol draft is compatible with that method which > has been written up in draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-00. This > separate draft could be considered for adoption as a working group draft > and be progressed separately or it could be considered as material to > add to the protocol draft, perhaps as an appendix. > 2. The protocol draft does incorporate a change in the encapsulation > of TRILL IS-IS frames (they are no longer encapsulated but are always > sent to a different multicast address) and a minor change in the > encapsulation of TRILL ESADI frames (they have a different new inner > multicast address). There was discussion of this on the mailing list but > sufficiently little that it was hard to gauge working group opinion. > 3. There was discussion on the mailing list of alternatives for > distribution tree root selection and announcement but no changes along > these lines were made in the draft. > > At least items 1 and 3 above are expected to be discussed at the working > group meeting in Minneapolis. Should those discussions result in any > changes to the base draft then we will separately last call those > changes. > > Erik and Donald > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.244]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mASFSEiA007362 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so561542and.30 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:28:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=zm/CuqxzO/3sCngEuakTa3pbUps6CTVbbeX1y0ZSwvk=; b=caKfc8l2O2L883Ycz1wWYFhABS1AqEGmlxrhOEMw3ZoveNjuWhxKyeNjv+EhyGgLok V6bcCPEJ/rttCPCq7dwmsSc67IcnUABfxOmH4+LBin4x4guxO2SwCK1YhRCymDzHMWYz fZOk25nRkrJ0ekL9g0/uuh7olGKQj8b9WebNA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=Nsvuar7nJbpOeEN5hRaU1K+Jwf4DqBE83224RqLmec3wO7k8TyrEj9icuM4xVfY0os eVWc1oVTWtYtVA6dH2+4KSSQtO3ojhaZUfQILynrfe09X0zQq7LP+kxmrk3rj3AYskIW Qbm/8Qv3hCKRvpyCkajb6+/ipJ4Dau/OTVxL4= Received: by 10.100.255.10 with SMTP id c10mr4184403ani.86.1227886094182; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:28:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.137.8 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:28:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811280728k544d61a2s4c6c5ab2d83e91a8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:28:14 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "mike shand" <mshand@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <492D92F5.4000902@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <492D92F5.4000902@cisco.com> X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:28:33 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 8387 Hi Mike, Thanks for your comments, responses below... On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:18 PM, mike shand <mshand@cisco.com> wrote: > >... > > 1. The problem of IIH space limitations (typically a maximum of < 1500 > octets) and potential number of VLAN tags (4.2.3.1.1) is not discussed. > Even if some range based compression is used there is the possibility of > pathological distributions of VLAN ids (e.g. just the odd ones) causing > problems. There needs to be some guidance on what limitations this may > impose etc. That's a reasonable point. The Hello contents are in 4.2.3.1.2. The only bulky items are 3 (enabled VLANs) and 6 (appointed forwarders). Item 3 is usually present and relates, so to speak, to the configuration of the 802.1Q part of the RBridge port and so could be pretty arbitrary. For that reason, draft-eastlake-trill-isis proposes that it be bit encoded so it can't take too much more than 512 bytes (in the worst case it takes three TLVs/sub-TLVs to fit the data). Item 6 is only in the DRB's Hello but you may want to specify VLANs for each of several other RBridges if you are load sharing the forwarding function. This obviously won't fit in the general case and there should be a comment to that effect. On the other hand, I don't see this as a big problem. The DRB appointing some other RBridge as forwarder for one or more VLANs or blocks of VLANs is just an optimization. Its probably OK, in my opinion, if the DRB can't do such appointments with complete generality due to the Hello frame size limit. I think some discussion of this should be added as you suggest. > 2. The number of IIHs required to be sent when large numbers of VLANs > are in use (4.2.3.1.1) is of some concern. Again there needs to be some > discussion of what impact this may have in terms of limiting the > scaleability of the protocol, and whether such limitations are acceptable. There was considerable discussion in the TRILL WG on the number of Hellos to be sent. Some wanted Hellos to always be sent on all VLANs, considerably more than the default specified in this protocol specification draft. Some wanted fewer Hellos, possibly just Hellos on the Designated VLAN. However, fewer Hellos are not safe in general unless you also use the optional decapsulation check. See Sections 3.2 of http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-notes-00.txt (However, note that that draft has not been updated for the latest changes in the protocol draft; I'm working on a -01). > 3. The loop avoidance mechanisms described in 4.2.3.3 needs to be > verified by the IS-IS WG. In addition the last bullet needs some further > explanation as to what aspect "already provided in IS-IS" is being > referenced. IS-IS will normally only elect a single DIS in such > circumstances, but there is no provision for disabling forwarding as is > implied here. TRILL loop avoidance is unrelated to IS-IS routing loop avoidance. TRILL loop avoidance is just about minimizing the probability that a frame which is decapsulated by one RBridge port onto a link will be picked up and re-encapsulated by another RBridge port connected to that link (where a link may be a bridged LAN). In fact, the sketch of a proof that persistent loops do not occur in RBridge campuses, which appears in Section 4 of http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-notes-00.txt (which, as I mention above, is out of date and needs to be updated), simply assumes that there are no persistent IS-IS routing loops (and no persistent loops within any bridged LANs). So, while I welcome any review and intelligent comment, given that TRILL loop avoidance is unrelated to IS-IS routing loop avoidance, it is not clear to me why the TRILL loop avoidance mechanisms need to be blessed by the IS-IS WG. On your second point concerning the last bullet point in Section 4.2.3.3, I think you are correct to question it. It seems superfluous and a little confused. As I understand it, TRILL IS-IS Hellos injected by the same RBridge into a link through different ports are distinguished by their source MAC addresses. In any case, it would be plausible that, under some circumstances, the DRB would want to appoint as a forwarder some other of its own port's that are attached to the same link. This might seem like an odd and useless thing to do if you imagine the link as a hunk of classic Ethernet cable but, in fact, the ports may be connected to different areas of an arbitrarily complex bridged LAN. In any case, I think this last bullet point item should simply be deleted. > 4. The VLAN mapping detection (4.2.3.1.3) needs to be verified by IS-IS > WG. In particular the mechanism of setting the mapping detected bit in > the next 5 hellos seems dangerous, since such messages could be lost in > the looping which would ensue when mapping was configured. This should > either be latched until reset, or at the very least latched until it is > detected that it has been actioned by the DRB. The TRILL VLAN mapping detection is only there for TRILL loop avoidance. A mapping of VLAN X to Y inside a link is only a problem if different RBridge ports are appointed forwarder for X and Y on that link. That's why, by default, RBridges send Hellos on a port in all VLANs for which they are appointed forwarder for that port. If a VLAN-X frame is decapsulated onto a link and picked up and re-encapsulated as a VLAN-Y frame, while you're not there yet, you have taken a big step towards having a loop. (A second link doing VLAN Y to X mapping and one broadcast frame and you're sunk...) But having it latch until the DRB acknowledges it seems like a reasonable idea. > 5. It is not clear how the existing VLAN mapping detection will > interoperate with the proposed VLAN mapping extensions discussed in > Minneapolis. TRILL VLAN mapping detection concerns mapping that is occurring between RBridges on a path that includes an initial RBridge port below the EISS interface, a link which may be a bridged LAN, and a final RBridge port below the EISS interface. On the other hand, the VLAN mapping extension in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-00.txt that was discussed in Minneapolis provides for VLAN mapping in the core of the cut-set RBridges between two regions. As far as I can see, these two kinds of VLAN mapping are orthogonal. > 6. Section 4.2.1 states that a pseudonode is assigned a 7-octet ID > USUALLY by appending another octet to the 6 octet system ID owned by the > DRB. This suggests that the possibility of some other way is intended. > If so this needs to be described. Probably Radia should answer this one. However, if the assertion in that section that "The only constraint is that the 7-octet ID be unique within the campus, and that the 7th octet be nonzero." is not correct, then the section needs to be re-written. However, if that assertion is correct, I see no reason why the method used by any particular DRB to determine the campus-unique 7-octet ID needs to be discussed or described. There are a number of obvious ways to do this which generally leverage off the global uniqueness of MAC addresses. > 7. The second para of 4.2.4.1 (ESADI participation) needs some rational > for the sending of CSNPs by the non-DRB. Another item probably for Radia...but as I recall the idea is that participants, other than the DRB, know they should be getting a CSNP occasionally. If they don't get one in a long enough time, they send one on the theory it might help and can't hurt. > 8. Section 4.4.2.1 (TRILL IS-IS frames) states "If the frame protocol is > not IS-IS NSAP..." What does this mean? The wording is poor... You get to 4.4.2.1 on receipt of a frame addressed to All-IS-IS-RBridges. You want to discard the frame if it isn't an IS-IS frame. The "frame protocol" is the Ethertype or SNAP SAP 5-octet protocol or the LSAPs... anyway, I think this is just trying to say that it must be an IS-IS frame encoded in the usual LLC way even if there is currently or in the future an IS-IS Ethertype or the like... i.e., if there is now, or in the future, some other way of encoding the IS-IS protocol in a frame, RBridges need not support it. > Mike Thanks again for the comments, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com (brmea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQMef1x017718 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-east-02.east.sun.com ([129.148.13.5]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id mAQMefm0020612 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:40:41 GMT Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (phorcys.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.143]) by dm-east-02.east.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id mAQMee23046081 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:40:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAQMLoMi026838; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:21:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id mAQMLhwZ026831; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:21:43 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18733.52215.806793.660780@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:21:43 -0500 From: James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1028365c0811261330g60d54735r732b7cad02caa450@mail.gmail.com> References: <1028365c0811261330g60d54735r732b7cad02caa450@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: carlsonj@phorcys.east.sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] draft protocol-10 WGLC Maximum Bridge Transit Delay X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:40:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1382 Donald Eastlake writes: > I've reviewed the draft and will be posting a few suggested changes. This is > the first. > 802.1 bridges have a Maximum Bridge Transit Delay. They are required to > discard frames that have been inside the bridge for longer than this time. > It is configurable with a recommended value of 1 second and maximum value of > 4 second. (802.1D-2004 Table 7-3) It would seem like a good idea to put in a > sentence or two to indicate that RBridges have this parameter configurable > per RBridge and enforce a maximum RBridge transit delay. Do modern bridges actually _implement_ such a feature, or do they just have a knob labeled "Maximum Bridge Transit Delay" that's connected to nothing underneath? I can imagine flushing Ethernet output queues if link status goes down and stays down for more than a second, thus blocking timely output, but tracking internal timestamps on individual packets seems like a wasted effort to me, and may not even be feasible with modern hardware. I'm inclined to say "no" to this, just on the basis that I cannot see how it would serve any real purpose. It looks like a spec for the sake of a spec. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.228]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQMQX8N013440 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so632672rvf.45 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=PviFe8Q/lhlGOf0lxZa3xPx4Tl5vSDeSjmsZOdzJykw=; b=RN6/WULp41VGI5s9vb0Xe3ncGx01Qiz2qItSzKBKKwl1sAxUI786ty0hbklB+N21/0 jjTWdF9b4Zqk77CTQiP/XMgD9Wb5cFuq/VY2bH0sb/YHgw6mfHKA4fZ3NxinYV+cnIfm T1H5JgrYPThwl4WxAkvXXaE9JTpPam7GVg9Ug= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=BC7Zpw2Yy7Rt3/7EPmF6c6Es9y/Ruaq9wRklz8MQUoxxmSCMPW0b+xNp32lIek9RdP Lbsluvz9yjF5prLWwLe43icOHtEgfALtbyK+PAXNqHaJW0CjoI1BJ1TA+9Z5nqN+UrVi KFklXbpDDni/Zdx14fmDZO3K48243Roy84+EU= Received: by 10.141.162.9 with SMTP id p9mr3104854rvo.202.1227738393715; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.208.6 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:26:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811261426m12b34f4bx8cf08cf6c6c0b2b5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:26:33 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_21997_30575635.1227738393709" X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Subject: [rbridge] draft protocol-10 WGLC Security Considerations BPDU/Hello DoS addition X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:26:57 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5649 ------=_Part_21997_30575635.1227738393709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline This is the last of my three comments on the draft. I propose to add a section to the Security Considerations of the protocol-10 draft as pasted at the end of this message. Comments welcome. Thanks,Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com The TRILL protocol requires that an appointed forwarder on an RBridge port be temporarily inhibited if it sees a Hello from another RBridge claiming to be the appointed forwarder or sees a root bridge change out that port. Thus it would seem that forged BPDUs showing repeated root bridge changes and forged Hellos with the Appointed Forwarder flag set could represent a significant denial of service attack. However, the situation is not as bad as it seems. The best defense against forged Hellos or other IS-IS messages is the use of IS-IS security [RFC5304]. Rogue end-stations would not normally have access to the required IS-IS keying material needed to forge authenticatible messages. Authentication similar to IS-IS security is usually unavailable for BPDUs. However, it is also the case that in typical modern wired LANs, all the links are point-to-point. If you have an all RBridged campus, then the worst that an end-station can do by forging BPDUs is to deny itself service. This could be either through falsely inhibiting the forwarding of native frames by the RBridge to which it is connected or by falsely activating the optional decapsulation check (see Section 4.2.3.3). However, when an RBridge campus contains bridged LANs, those bridged LANs appear to any connected RBridges to be multi-access links. The forging of BPDUs by an end-station attached to such a bridged LAN could affect service to other end-stations attached to the bridged LAN. Note that bridges do not forward BPDUs but process them, although this processing may result in the issuance of further BPDUs. Thus, for an end-station to forge BPDUs to cause continuing changes in the root bridge as seen by an RBridge through intervening bridges would typically require it to cause root bridge thrashing throughout the bridged LAN which would be disruptive even in the absence of RBridges. Some bridges can be configured to ignore BPDUs on particular ports and RBridges can be configured not to inhibit appointed forwarding on a port; however, such configuration should be used with caution as it can be unsafe. ------=_Part_21997_30575635.1227738393709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline This is the last of my three comments on the draft.<div><br></div><div>I propose to add a section to the Security Considerations of the protocol-10 draft as pasted at the end of this message. Comments welcome.<br clear="all"> <br>Thanks,<div>Donald<br>=============================<br> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)<br> 155 Beaver Street<br> Milford, MA 01757 USA<br> <a href="mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com" target="_blank">d3e3e3@gmail.com</a><br> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The TRILL protocol requires that an appointed forwarder on an RBridge port be temporarily inhibited if it sees a Hello from another RBridge claiming to be the appointed forwarder or sees a root bridge change out that port. Thus it would seem that forged BPDUs showing repeated root bridge changes and forged Hellos with the Appointed Forwarder flag set could represent a significant denial of service attack. However, the situation is not as bad as it seems.</div> <div><br></div><div>The best defense against forged Hellos or other IS-IS messages is the use of IS-IS security [RFC5304]. Rogue end-stations would not normally have access to the required IS-IS keying material needed to forge authenticatible messages.</div> <div><br></div><div>Authentication similar to IS-IS security is usually unavailable for BPDUs. However, it is also the case that in typical modern wired LANs, all the links are point-to-point. If you have an all RBridged campus, then the worst that an end-station can do by forging BPDUs is to deny itself service. This could be either through falsely inhibiting the forwarding of native frames by the RBridge to which it is connected or by falsely activating the optional decapsulation check (see Section <a href="http://4.2.3.3"><font color="red"><b>MailScanner warning: numerical links are often malicious:</b></font> 4.2.3.3</a>).</div> <div><br></div><div>However, when an RBridge campus contains bridged LANs, those bridged LANs appear to any connected RBridges to be multi-access links. The forging of BPDUs by an end-station attached to such a bridged LAN could affect service to other end-stations attached to the bridged LAN. Note that bridges do not forward BPDUs but process them, although this processing may result in the issuance of further BPDUs. Thus, for an end-station to forge BPDUs to cause continuing changes in the root bridge as seen by an RBridge through intervening bridges would typically require it to cause root bridge thrashing throughout the bridged LAN which would be disruptive even in the absence of RBridges.</div> <div><br></div><div>Some bridges can be configured to ignore BPDUs on particular ports and RBridges can be configured not to inhibit appointed forwarding on a port; however, such configuration should be used with caution as it can be unsafe.</div> </div> ------=_Part_21997_30575635.1227738393709-- Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.235]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQM8b00007486 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id b25so626898rvf.45 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:08:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=yslpN2DLnOlC2/UULdq1X0FOe/xJthgEeFbqPYSSkGo=; b=es4nMZ38+lMIuy3bsCysWnJGVdmkx6UsObKkpFO0baCX5USX2O63GF0kBf1XPOJ6k7 G+W6mvQogc6vGnOpoygY6vj73b2gF3d+tZqvjIHolH+IwSHUaG/0uoJ3t5SCdrvLPo+K 9xfM4TqreFEQfD9OAxI0j+dMH27qoAq/A+mWM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=clEsn9GaSiEEGSkrhyQksep3yXCir7w6qLEtLYWND+l2LO70JQ1T+aWB+vR8lMW7sP 9M7LsebrGojj3ojvarwdxeHmA+vlhFaRdONlRzAi/a8ETfDa2eFbnwSIwwUIeFbBNCkJ DERxowmjFbEpMRli/vKaGTWk6E1AXYWz1vbMk= Received: by 10.141.34.12 with SMTP id m12mr3106592rvj.118.1227737317613; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:08:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.208.6 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:08:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811261408o459c3d19jc23b3235bf2f9ef4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:08:37 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_21853_18661479.1227737317617" X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Subject: [rbridge] draft protocol-10 WGLC Multicast Addresses X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:08:48 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4390 ------=_Part_21853_18661479.1227737317617 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi, When TRILL started, it had only one multicast address: All-RBridges. Then it was decided that encapsulated IS-IS frames would have an Inner.MacDA of All-IS-IS-RBridges and there were two. Now there are three multicast address: (1) IS-IS frames are not longer encapsulated and All-IS-IS-RBridges is their Outer.MacDA, (2) All-RBridges is the Outer.MacDA for ESADI and multi-destination data frames, and (3) All-ESADI-RBridges is the Inner.MacDA for ESADI frames. I don't think we are going to need any more than these three multicast addresses for the Base Protocol Specification but multicast addresses are cheap. 802.1 initially allocated itself a block of 16 addresses for bridging and link protocols (see, for example, 802.1D-2004 Figure 7-10 or the more recent 802.1Q-2005 Table 8-1) with the defined behavior being that a bridge was required to drop any frame sent to one of these addresses if the bridge did not understand the protocol(s) indicated by that address. This sort of behavior has to be specified at the beginning. Once you start shipping devices that are transparent to some addresses, you can't practically later say they have to drop them if they don't know the protocol(s) associated with those addresses. (This behavior for bridges has been somewhat modified for more recent complicated cases like provider bridging.) So, I propose that, when we apply, we get a block of 16 addresses with the ones listed in the first paragraph above being the first three addresses in this block and the remaining 13 being reserved for future use. And that the protocol specification require RBridges to drop frames with Outer.MacDA being any of these 13 addresses (unless the RBridge understands some future use of that address). Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com ------=_Part_21853_18661479.1227737317617 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi,<div><br></div><div>When TRILL started, it had only one multicast address: All-RBridges. Then it was decided that encapsulated IS-IS frames would have an Inner.MacDA of All-IS-IS-RBridges and there were two. Now there are three multicast address: (1) IS-IS frames are not longer encapsulated and All-IS-IS-RBridges is their Outer.MacDA, (2) All-RBridges is the Outer.MacDA for ESADI and multi-destination data frames, and (3) All-ESADI-RBridges is the Inner.MacDA for ESADI frames.</div> <div> <br><div>I don't think we are going to need any more than these three multicast addresses for the Base Protocol Specification but multicast addresses are cheap. 802.1 initially allocated itself a block of 16 addresses for bridging and link protocols (see, for example, 802.1D-2004 Figure 7-10 or the more recent 802.1Q-2005 Table 8-1) with the defined behavior being that a bridge was required to drop any frame sent to one of these addresses if the bridge did not understand the protocol(s) indicated by that address. This sort of behavior has to be specified at the beginning. Once you start shipping devices that are transparent to some addresses, you can't practically later say they have to drop them if they don't know the protocol(s) associated with those addresses. (This behavior for bridges has been somewhat modified for more recent complicated cases like provider bridging.) </div> <div><div><br></div><div>So, I propose that, when we apply, we get a block of 16 addresses with the ones listed in the first paragraph above being the first three addresses in this block and the remaining 13 being reserved for future use. And that the protocol specification require RBridges to drop frames with Outer.MacDA being any of these 13 addresses (unless the RBridge understands some future use of that address).<br> <br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Donald<br>=============================<br> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)<br> 155 Beaver Street<br> Milford, MA 01757 USA<br> <a href="mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com" target="_blank">d3e3e3@gmail.com</a><br> </div></div> </div> ------=_Part_21853_18661479.1227737317617-- Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.237]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQLUxn9025195 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:30:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g9so1454773rvb.0 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:30:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=vkAzi4q19kO7d2tkakJPG7le1sgld+eD4XesbBKv9JQ=; b=m7MjG7rd6OnNaqDnANd6lSSccHFMLp6uTRubeod1B9l/3WFwWFVtZHCWftYc+STFEf gNTzHCYs6xawDJs1deMiXK6b/vAr8msVd6ClrJ7kXtxLeaRd/eTiUkyf4r6lk0cTh+LJ A+AaXYUTYpF2Gcgx4nNXOI712qUfuJGLbeHhw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=Faw29qxUIp4nI9RuA1PDaEh9J1iM8Q8JaW2Fy2D/bJHTAaKERnJfCAjyCEJ3+WtLgS cgba92rf6AqBw8b/KCayhnMCVGr/TLy9r1K3pX+wGR0Fb2xsIYI+i/uaiOv8sfqaYyjP 0f0P9d0Y/pTN76NxZJS7omIXhwkNbONIiOe1k= Received: by 10.140.127.13 with SMTP id z13mr3091065rvc.145.1227735058911; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:30:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.208.6 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 13:30:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811261330g60d54735r732b7cad02caa450@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:30:58 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_21520_7245256.1227735058906" X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Subject: [rbridge] draft protocol-10 WGLC Maximum Bridge Transit Delay X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:31:15 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1828 ------=_Part_21520_7245256.1227735058906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I've reviewed the draft and will be posting a few suggested changes. This is the first. 802.1 bridges have a Maximum Bridge Transit Delay. They are required to discard frames that have been inside the bridge for longer than this time. It is configurable with a recommended value of 1 second and maximum value of 4 second. (802.1D-2004 Table 7-3) It would seem like a good idea to put in a sentence or two to indicate that RBridges have this parameter configurable per RBridge and enforce a maximum RBridge transit delay. Thanks,Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com ------=_Part_21520_7245256.1227735058906 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I've reviewed the draft and will be posting a few suggested changes. This is the first.<div><br></div><div>802.1 bridges have a Maximum Bridge Transit Delay. They are required to discard frames that have been inside the bridge for longer than this time. It is configurable with a recommended value of 1 second and maximum value of 4 second. (802.1D-2004 Table 7-3) It would seem like a good idea to put in a sentence or two to indicate that RBridges have this parameter configurable per RBridge and enforce a maximum RBridge transit delay.<br clear="all"> <br>Thanks,<div>Donald<br>=============================<br> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)<br> 155 Beaver Street<br> Milford, MA 01757 USA<br> <a href="mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com" target="_blank">d3e3e3@gmail.com</a><br> </div></div> ------=_Part_21520_7245256.1227735058906-- Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQJPLPZ014387 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:25:22 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,670,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="202278960" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2008 19:25:21 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAQJPKE9016982; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:25:20 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQJPKau003158; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:25:20 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.106]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:25:19 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:25:18 -0800 Message-ID: <AE36820147909644AD2A7CA014B1FB5206D5AF79@xmb-sjc-222.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <492D92F5.4000902@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt Thread-Index: AclP9jObGzJO07H/RhGq1YK9qJmHmwABZYnQ References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> <492D92F5.4000902@cisco.com> From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> To: "Mike Shand (mshand)" <mshand@cisco.com>, "Erik Nordmark" <erik.nordmark@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2008 19:25:19.0773 (UTC) FILETIME=[B836ECD0:01C94FFC] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5945; t=1227727521; x=1228591521; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ginsberg@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Les=20Ginsberg=20(ginsberg)=22=20<ginsberg@cisc o.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[rbridge]=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20dra ft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt |Sender:=20; bh=QvtPKUHxfWJkcaQIUnr76H8OfAGJF9Wc3rbpBHyegIg=; b=Fr+YkfbrojUYpWiqrJrBLEqIhRcQqm7p6HfzPubBraf5SBqlLoFSVxQjNy p44rjkFP7+ghrvjr852JihPgp6aMsfjc8sMvwdvHYM5Q4ip3BUFgPyOUXrwI qw2uL1s0a19NhU6iigKAuB2wBzmoIszexK9bPOg/yUnS2UYrDbgUk=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=ginsberg@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ginsberg@cisco.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id mAQJPLPZ014387 Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:26:05 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5764 In support of Mike's comments, I would also suggest we look at this in the context of the recent agreement that draft-ward-l2isis be the home for all L2 IS-IS extensions. We therefore want to minimize the overlap between the architecture document and draft-ward-l2isis so as to avoid even the appearance of diverging specifications. It may make sense for the architecture document to discuss the required functionality at a high level, but currently there is considerable text which specifies the procedural extensions of an L2-IS-IS instance - and that clearly is the province of draft-ward-l2isis. So in addition to working out the technical issues on points Mike describes below, the architecture document needs to be revised in such a way as to not duplicate or be in conflict with the protocol extensions draft as it develops. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Shand (mshand) > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:18 AM > To: Erik Nordmark > Cc: rbridge@postel.org > Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt > > I have reviewed the draft from the viewpoint of IS-IS, and I have the > following comments. In view of the dependency on IS-IS protocol encoding > AND protocol operation changes, I believe it is important that we get > agreement with the IS-IS WG on those aspects that affect the operation > of the IS-IS protocol before this draft is set in stone. > > The points where I believe some discussion between the working groups is > required include, but may not be limited to, the items I have enumerated > below. > > 1. The problem of IIH space limitations (typically a maximum of < 1500 > octets) and potential number of VLAN tags (4.2.3.1.1) is not discussed. > Even if some range based compression is used there is the possibility of > pathological distributions of VLAN ids (e.g. just the odd ones) causing > problems. There needs to be some guidance on what limitations this may > impose etc. > > 2. The number of IIHs required to be sent when large numbers of VLANs > are in use (4.2.3.1.1) is of some concern. Again there needs to be some > discussion of what impact this may have in terms of limiting the > scaleability of the protocol, and whether such limitations are acceptable. > > 3. The loop avoidance mechanisms described in 4.2.3.3 needs to be > verified by the IS-IS WG. In addition the last bullet needs some further > explanation as to what aspect "already provided in IS-IS" is being > referenced. IS-IS will normally only elect a single DIS in such > circumstances, but there is no provision for disabling forwarding as is > implied here. > > 4. The VLAN mapping detection (4.2.3.1.3) needs to be verified by IS-IS > WG. In particular the mechanism of setting the mapping detected bit in > the next 5 hellos seems dangerous, since such messages could be lost in > the looping which would ensue when mapping was configured. This should > either be latched until reset, or at the very least latched until it is > detected that it has been actioned by the DRB. > > 5. It is not clear how the existing VLAN mapping detection will > interoperate with the proposed VLAN mapping extensions discussed in > Minneapolis. > > 6. Section 4.2.1 states that a pseudonode is assigned a 7-octet ID > USUALLY by appending another octet to the 6 octet system ID owned by the > DRB. This suggests that the possibility of some other way is intended. > If so this needs to be described. > > 7. The second para of 4.2.4.1 (ESADI participation) needs some rational > for the sending of CSNPs by the non-DRB. > > 8. Section 4.4.2.1 (TRILL IS-IS frames) states "If the frame protocol is > not IS-IS NSAP..." What does this mean? > > > Mike > > > Erik Nordmark wrote: > > This message begins a working group last call on > > draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt. Because of the size of the > > document, it will run for three weeks until Wednesday, November 26th. > > > > There are three issues in connection with this draft that you may wish > > to note: > > 1. A method of doing VLAN mapping was discussed on the working > > group mailing list. This protocol draft is compatible with that method > > which has been written up in > > draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-00. This separate draft could > > be considered for adoption as a working group draft and be progressed > > separately or it could be considered as material to add to the > > protocol draft, perhaps as an appendix. > > 2. The protocol draft does incorporate a change in the > > encapsulation of TRILL IS-IS frames (they are no longer encapsulated > > but are always sent to a different multicast address) and a minor > > change in the encapsulation of TRILL ESADI frames (they have a > > different new inner multicast address). There was discussion of this > > on the mailing list but sufficiently little that it was hard to gauge > > working group opinion. > > 3. There was discussion on the mailing list of alternatives for > > distribution tree root selection and announcement but no changes along > > these lines were made in the draft. > > > > At least items 1 and 3 above are expected to be discussed at the > > working group meeting in Minneapolis. Should those discussions result in > > any changes to the base draft then we will separately last call those > > changes. > > > > Erik and Donald > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.29]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQJ5JCA008409 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 5so285753ywh.75 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:05:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=VDBNZQcyX5kXSwJzPxtMCVR3wcyPWGmGzDGt2AQkzIQ=; b=QH90RJKFOEFkYmPnQqtQAcypQfR2vFWQYLWLY48awjJOSMZjmZXhSQYlooVqBaOcm6 Ses4Naorm7UMShQiEizkG37U2UEwFuV+d939h49E/r0POv144oJeWeAJuNaO9d4Uh+CR o4LDiehbGNLnqJKXUBq7htK7174IVEnqsLJnw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=xtcqNM5gCEDdymUgh4LUFDYjX/9tc0oCbnwAQZ1up7qGOikM3k8q074E03lNUIn9uT L9F6VPqHpTpmYiYnOafQerX5qLuPnJsAhP9RK1HN+JWAYrDSmmQt2TvLzQcM2F5BRUwl 9VHIig21id8VDYk1GrTk+cPHo2RpzSGfrBiO4= Received: by 10.90.102.14 with SMTP id z14mr5222agb.44.1227726318487; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.137.8 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:05:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811261105t523f02cdpc1e5537518c6f0d4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:05:18 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_31247_14338146.1227726318463" X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Subject: [rbridge] draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:05:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3005 ------=_Part_31247_14338146.1227726318463 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline - *To*: i-d-announce at ietf.org <i-d-announce@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> - *Subject*: I-D ACTION:draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt - *From*: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org <Internet-Drafts@DOMAIN.HIDDEN> - *Date*: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:45:02 -0800 (PST) - *List-archive*: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/i-d-announce> - *List-id*: Internet Draft Announcements only <i-d-announce.ietf.org> ------------------------------ A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Rbridges: TRILL Header Options Author(s) : D. Eastlake 3rd Filename : draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2008-11-24 The TRILL base protocol specification, draft-ietf-trill-rbridge- protocol-10.txt, specifies minimal hooks for options. This draft more fully describes the format for options and an initial set of options. A URL for this Internet-Draft is:http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ------=_Part_31247_14338146.1227726318463 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; font-size: 16px; "><ul><li><em>To</em>: <a href="mailto:i-d-announce@DOMAIN.HIDDEN">i-d-announce at ietf.org</a></li><li><em>Subject</em>: I-D ACTION:draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt</li> <li><em>From</em>: <a href="mailto:Internet-Drafts@DOMAIN.HIDDEN">Internet-Drafts at ietf.org</a></li><li><em>Date</em>: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:45:02 -0800 (PST)</li><li><em>List-archive</em>: <<a href="http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/i-d-announce">http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/i-d-announce</a>><br> </li><li><em>List-id</em>: Internet Draft Announcements only <<a href="http://i-d-announce.ietf.org">i-d-announce.ietf.org</a>></li></ul><hr><pre>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Rbridges: TRILL Header Options Author(s) : D. Eastlake 3rd Filename : draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2008-11-24 The TRILL base protocol specification, draft-ietf-trill-rbridge- protocol-10.txt, specifies minimal hooks for options. This draft more fully describes the format for options and an initial set of options. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-options-01.txt</a> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: <a rel="nofollow" href="ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/">ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/</a></pre></span> ------=_Part_31247_14338146.1227726318463-- Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQImgpC001989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:48:42 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,670,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="54297164" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2008 18:48:41 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAQImfC6008764; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:48:41 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQImfk2028126; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:48:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.112]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:48:41 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:48:40 -0800 Message-ID: <4C76BEA6DA349A4EBE240D97BBE4546404C57CCD@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt Thread-Index: AclBAIv/xHh6e9VhR7Ki0wLefo4ciQOjhrcQABoJ4zA= References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> From: "Ayan Banerjee (ayabaner)" <ayabaner@cisco.com> To: "Erik Nordmark" <erik.nordmark@sun.com>, <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Nov 2008 18:48:41.0334 (UTC) FILETIME=[99D7C160:01C94FF7] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=9908; t=1227725321; x=1228589321; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=ayabaner@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Ayan=20Banerjee=20(ayabaner)=22=20<ayabaner@cis co.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[rbridge]=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20dra ft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt |Sender:=20; bh=lVhtmhj+zBUn/jvs/LAvxZwTUkWIjx9L0nXQ8jogz/s=; b=Da3Vpl94JJtmT0bgybWngg1OQtub9ubFw4uAEGV28apWPXrQ/fUiGPGbb0 StVABkqtGfh/N/lEsuAJA2/HW48ntLFoJfUyzsc66t1/HC4P2KWktuzHo3yI uZbwBpb+vo; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=ayabaner@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ayabaner@cisco.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id mAQImgpC001989 Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:49:32 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 9608 All, Please see attached comments to the last call on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt. Thanks, Ayan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- Item 1: Section 1.3, can we change the order of control frame/trill-frame/native-frame (editing nits) Item 2: Section 2.1 has reference to ESADI as an IS-IS instance. I believe we said that this is no longer an IS-IS protocol. Can we please update the draft accordingly. Item 3: Section 2.3.1 - Spraying of hellos, scalability concerns, text is unclear Consider the following topology and the following scenarios. | | | RB1--------- RB2 ---------- RB3 | | | |p1 |p2 |p3 The Rbi's are connected on the top to a TRILL cloud consisting of only Rbridges (for ease of discussion). They are connected on the bottom to CE switches/network via ports p1, p2, and p3. Scenario 1: All ports (p1, p2, and p3) are configured to be access ports (as defined in Appendix A of the draft). In this case, Rbi's will spray with hellos on all VLANs configured on their respective ports. The intent is if a hello is received by other Rbi's and an "adjacency" can be formed, then we want to block ports to prevent loops. The intent is such a link should not get in the LSP-DB; this is inverse of the operation desired with a traditional-isis-hello. Only one port remains forwarding and the others are blocked; if so I could not figure out from the draft which one is forwarding (is system-id etc used as a tie?). Once this is blocked, it remains blocked till we "loose" the adjacency again. It is possible that the requirement will be to send in the order of 10,000s hellos/per sec per node. This solution of spraying poses scalability concerns for the protocol. Also, the announcement of the vlan list (however compressed) may not fit within the isis-hello-pdu. Scenario 2: All ports (p1, p2, and p3) are configured to be trunk ports (as defined in Appendix A of the draft). Once again, Rbi's spray hello on all VLANs. In this case, forming of adjacencies is desired, in the sense this links gets in the LSP-DB. Once a DRB is elected, only the DRB continues spraying with hellos such that future nodes can discover and join the designated vlan to send hellos. Nodes other than the DIS after the initial spraying will move to sending hellos on the designated vlan only. Question: What happens if the DRB does not capture all the vlans, for example RB1 became DRB, but has vlans 2,3 on p1 and the others p2 and p3, have vlan 2,3,4. Can a new RB4, with vlan 4 configured on it enter this Rbridge LAN and create issues? Can we have some text to clearly show the desired operation. Scenario 3: Some ports are configured to be trunk and some others access (could be due to mis-configuration or error in cabling) Not sure what is the desired behavior? Are we saying that "adjacency" must not be formed with hellos that have the access "AC" bit set, however, must be formed with others. If p1 is the only with AC set, then does it "block" or "forward" traffic? I believe that the above scenarios needs to be addressed in the TRILL base spec. Item 4: Section 3.7.3 - An RBridge that will not act as an ingress, egress, or tree root need not have a nickname. Do we really want this statement in the base spec ? What if it does vlan-mapping, etc. Can we just delete this statement from the dradt. Item 5: Section 4.1 - please replace on Ethernet links with (on multi-access links). I am hoping that we can be sensitive to running a P2P mode (configured albeit) on Ethernet links. Item 6: Section 4.1.2 - ESADI is a single instance or multiple instances per vlan as currently defined. I believe that I had raised scalability concerns with ESADI being multiple instances. Item 7: Section 4.1.3 - There is talk about TRILL-IS-IS Hellos and outer encapsulation. [This is to be removed as per the last call note 2]. Item 8: Section 4.2.2 - TRILL-IS-IS frames must be ALL-Rbridges multicast address (unicast address how?) Updates to this section are not in sync with 4.1.3 Item 9: Section 4.2.3.1 - one rbridge is elected DRB for LAN case, but in P2P case there should be no such thing. I believe that the confusion could be due to the fact the base spec talks about TRILL-IS-IS in terms of LAN IIHs, however, P2P IIHs (with a config option) need to be accounted. We want text in the base protocol spec that says that in the event a link is configured to be P2P, such DRB election is not needed (as per base IS-IS protocol). Also, with P2P mode configuration, there need not be any spraying of hellos. Item 10: Section 4.2.3.5 - New section -- I think that we are better served with a P2P IIH section in the draft. Item 11: Section 4.2.3.1.1 - Are Core IS-IS hellos tagged ? Maybe okay for LAN, but is this true for P2P Item 12: Section 4.2.3.1.1 - Last sentence ?? Not sure I follow this, can this be re-written please. Item 13: Section 4.2.3.1.2 - Wording of bullet 5 is unclear. Item 14: Section 4.2.3.1.2 - Based on feedback from the IS-IS WG should we remove this optimization (delete last 3 paras) Item 15: section 4.2.3.2 - (note 1) - designated vlan to be used for trill data frames, does this imply that vlans are getting tunneled with a different outer vlan-id. Just want to make this explicit. Item 16: Section 4.2.3.3 - (last note - should this must be the ext-ckt-id for P2P, and in a lan. This implies that we should mandate 3-way handshake for P2P links. Item 17: Section 4.2.3.4 - (note 5) - not announcing allows to choose all (see note 3 in the last call) Item 18: Section 4.3 - Distribution tree (see note 3 in last call and please see draft-ward) Item 19: Section 4.3.1 - Talk about parallel links and what needs to break them Item 20: Section 4.3.4 - (note 3 - how - it will hit the group address and go everywhere) Item 21: Section 4.4.1.2 - Second last paragraph - please change the last sentence. Item 22: Section 4.4.2.2 - the forwarding rbridge need not be a AF on the link (paragraph 2, consider a P2P case). Or make a statement, that on a P2P, rbridges are automatically AFs. Item 23: Section 4.5 needs more text on forwarding of various classes of multicast control plane packets some are forwarded using a special address while other are flooded. Item 24: Section 4.6.2 - Last paragraph, first sentence is not clear. Item 25: Section 4.6.3 - Not sure if mis-configuration detection being carried in the LSP is a good idea. Assuming that it stays there, I do not see any text on what to do when things are mis-configured. If this is just a log, I would suggest that we take this out-of-band and configuration mismatch issues be handled separately. Item 26: Section 4.7.1 - Text is confusing since we are talking about creating adjacencies, pseudo-node LSPs etc. Please see item 3 above and text needs to make the scenarios outlined there clearer. Item 27: Section 4.7.3.3 - Last sentence, do rbridges with access ports, run STP ? If not, why not? I am guessing that statement is talking about trunk ports; if so can we make that explicit. Item 28: Section A.2 - Solution 4 to problem 1- what optional feature? -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:48 AM To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt This message begins a working group last call on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt. Because of the size of the document, it will run for three weeks until Wednesday, November 26th. There are three issues in connection with this draft that you may wish to note: 1. A method of doing VLAN mapping was discussed on the working group mailing list. This protocol draft is compatible with that method which has been written up in draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-00. This separate draft could be considered for adoption as a working group draft and be progressed separately or it could be considered as material to add to the protocol draft, perhaps as an appendix. 2. The protocol draft does incorporate a change in the encapsulation of TRILL IS-IS frames (they are no longer encapsulated but are always sent to a different multicast address) and a minor change in the encapsulation of TRILL ESADI frames (they have a different new inner multicast address). There was discussion of this on the mailing list but sufficiently little that it was hard to gauge working group opinion. 3. There was discussion on the mailing list of alternatives for distribution tree root selection and announcement but no changes along these lines were made in the draft. At least items 1 and 3 above are expected to be discussed at the working group meeting in Minneapolis. Should those discussions result in any changes to the base draft then we will separately last call those changes. Erik and Donald _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQIIg2X022606 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:18:44 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,670,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="26912189" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2008 18:18:31 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mAQIIVhv017480; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:18:31 +0100 Received: from [10.61.85.135] (ams3-vpn-dhcp5512.cisco.com [10.61.85.135]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQIIUUT012238; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:18:31 GMT Message-ID: <492D92F5.4000902@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:18:29 +0000 From: mike shand <mshand@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> References: <49147147.50605@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <49147147.50605@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4409; t=1227723511; x=1228587511; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mshand@cisco.com; z=From:=20mike=20shand=20<mshand@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20WG=20last=20call=20on=20dra ft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt |Sender:=20; bh=M5Xoace3QtoUEQy5C1k6DbfJx6d9+VIdjAwMhH8MmFA=; b=aiGrZorSMsi2VBeaH79M2EV+ZT/tUXH8+Pi7Y5fSp2M2h7hL2CPgEpdOLJ 7WDaIvTC3QBsSqJeDI5f1i/62l/XMXpEb+kS57jkgst8OrEax4WQcsUxBvC6 OS9f6Jfuw9; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=mshand@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: mshand@cisco.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:19:16 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4318 I have reviewed the draft from the viewpoint of IS-IS, and I have the following comments. In view of the dependency on IS-IS protocol encoding AND protocol operation changes, I believe it is important that we get agreement with the IS-IS WG on those aspects that affect the operation of the IS-IS protocol before this draft is set in stone. The points where I believe some discussion between the working groups is required include, but may not be limited to, the items I have enumerated below. 1. The problem of IIH space limitations (typically a maximum of < 1500 octets) and potential number of VLAN tags (4.2.3.1.1) is not discussed. Even if some range based compression is used there is the possibility of pathological distributions of VLAN ids (e.g. just the odd ones) causing problems. There needs to be some guidance on what limitations this may impose etc. 2. The number of IIHs required to be sent when large numbers of VLANs are in use (4.2.3.1.1) is of some concern. Again there needs to be some discussion of what impact this may have in terms of limiting the scaleability of the protocol, and whether such limitations are acceptable. 3. The loop avoidance mechanisms described in 4.2.3.3 needs to be verified by the IS-IS WG. In addition the last bullet needs some further explanation as to what aspect "already provided in IS-IS" is being referenced. IS-IS will normally only elect a single DIS in such circumstances, but there is no provision for disabling forwarding as is implied here. 4. The VLAN mapping detection (4.2.3.1.3) needs to be verified by IS-IS WG. In particular the mechanism of setting the mapping detected bit in the next 5 hellos seems dangerous, since such messages could be lost in the looping which would ensue when mapping was configured. This should either be latched until reset, or at the very least latched until it is detected that it has been actioned by the DRB. 5. It is not clear how the existing VLAN mapping detection will interoperate with the proposed VLAN mapping extensions discussed in Minneapolis. 6. Section 4.2.1 states that a pseudonode is assigned a 7-octet ID USUALLY by appending another octet to the 6 octet system ID owned by the DRB. This suggests that the possibility of some other way is intended. If so this needs to be described. 7. The second para of 4.2.4.1 (ESADI participation) needs some rational for the sending of CSNPs by the non-DRB. 8. Section 4.4.2.1 (TRILL IS-IS frames) states "If the frame protocol is not IS-IS NSAP..." What does this mean? Mike Erik Nordmark wrote: > This message begins a working group last call on > draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt. Because of the size of the > document, it will run for three weeks until Wednesday, November 26th. > > There are three issues in connection with this draft that you may wish > to note: > 1. A method of doing VLAN mapping was discussed on the working > group mailing list. This protocol draft is compatible with that method > which has been written up in > draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-00. This separate draft could > be considered for adoption as a working group draft and be progressed > separately or it could be considered as material to add to the > protocol draft, perhaps as an appendix. > 2. The protocol draft does incorporate a change in the > encapsulation of TRILL IS-IS frames (they are no longer encapsulated > but are always sent to a different multicast address) and a minor > change in the encapsulation of TRILL ESADI frames (they have a > different new inner multicast address). There was discussion of this > on the mailing list but sufficiently little that it was hard to gauge > working group opinion. > 3. There was discussion on the mailing list of alternatives for > distribution tree root selection and announcement but no changes along > these lines were made in the draft. > > At least items 1 and 3 above are expected to be discussed at the > working group meeting in Minneapolis. Should those discussions result in > any changes to the base draft then we will separately last call those > changes. > > Erik and Donald > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAL0VMMZ018631 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:31:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.228.50]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id mAL0VL7u003893 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:31:21 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAL0VG26209983 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:31:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4926014F.1090000@sun.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:31:11 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081023) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Merging of draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-isis and draft-ward-l2isis X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:31:45 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 996 The allocation of IS-IS code-points and the specification of encoding for information in IS-IS to support Layer-2 routing were discussed in the TRILL and ISIS working group meetings earlier this week. There were also presentations in the ISIS working group meeting on TRILL and on IEEE 802.1aq. (The IEEE 802.1aq project has expanded to include Layer-2 use of IS-IS.) The conclusion was that the existing draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-isis draft should be merged into draft-ward-l2isis and corrected and, in addition, the IEEE 802.1aq requirements should also be merged into the resulting "kitchen sink" document which would be processed as an ISIS working group document. The plan is that Ayan Banerjee, a current author of ward-l2isis, and Donald Eastlake would be two of the co-authors of the resulting document. People should indicate sometime in the next week if they object to this plan. If there are no objections we will request that ISIS make this a WG document. Erik and Donald Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.247]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAI41MEX000196 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:01:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d11so1154182and.30 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:01:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=QhUuD/oGnUnBB6TXIK7PiObF835j1uepwn6AWvAmC9Y=; b=W1Z0m6/Wkm+mpxtwQwzkdTNYcr52rWc10OT6++mVZmW6/70L2bFYNzWeQFP1dpnP6R RIzNxPfs48khaQA6w55t1quen56hAyfBbZoLAU8pGhXlKvC6BATLIuz6DcDYISoGvTNI sbssR7kRvb+P+B4xtZowhna2/o9+qSeEE10BI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=b2cLxqG3yMd8vHq+1WPrTtKa28huZsF0AvZdv0bzp4EAWh9GOVmFLQ5tRZHcQbzXic vH33LwuEVwn4qUIZhMwqa0AF4ABlsQBNc5CsXhJL0c9ce97gVvUb9Lb56TGuxq6NduQF N+U/1C7WxfTzXyrvejjoYsDKEavFlobUdmpG0= Received: by 10.100.131.13 with SMTP id e13mr1947879and.57.1226980882483; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.13.4 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:01:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811172001g79d17de9oe09971413e916aad@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:01:22 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Subject: [rbridge] Minneapolis Presentations X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:01:56 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 335 Hi, All of the presentations given at today's TRILL WG meeting have been uploaded/updated on the Meeting Materials page at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/73/materials.html. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAHLcd6s009236 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 57DC828C0F3; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:08 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Message-Id: <20081117213809.57DC828C0F3@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:38:09 -0800 (PST) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] Last Call: draft-ietf-trill-prob (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability Statement) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:39:14 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 856 The IESG has received a request from the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links WG (trill) to consider the following document: - 'Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability Statement ' <draft-ietf-trill-prob-05.txt> as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-12-01. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-prob-05.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=14771&rfc_flag=0 Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.43.21]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA7GmGC8022703 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:48:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.108.38]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id mA7GmGNj023187 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:48:16 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA7Gm8dX698881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:48:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49147147.50605@sun.com> Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:48:07 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080923) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:48:31 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1510 This message begins a working group last call on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt. Because of the size of the document, it will run for three weeks until Wednesday, November 26th. There are three issues in connection with this draft that you may wish to note: 1. A method of doing VLAN mapping was discussed on the working group mailing list. This protocol draft is compatible with that method which has been written up in draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-vlan-mapping-00. This separate draft could be considered for adoption as a working group draft and be progressed separately or it could be considered as material to add to the protocol draft, perhaps as an appendix. 2. The protocol draft does incorporate a change in the encapsulation of TRILL IS-IS frames (they are no longer encapsulated but are always sent to a different multicast address) and a minor change in the encapsulation of TRILL ESADI frames (they have a different new inner multicast address). There was discussion of this on the mailing list but sufficiently little that it was hard to gauge working group opinion. 3. There was discussion on the mailing list of alternatives for distribution tree root selection and announcement but no changes along these lines were made in the draft. At least items 1 and 3 above are expected to be discussed at the working group meeting in Minneapolis. Should those discussions result in any changes to the base draft then we will separately last call those changes. Erik and Donald Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.28]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA4HsddG012125 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 5so1158623ywh.75 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:54:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=o8BqTFoR9HQ9iamqhUkIERM4FNWBEEjSA6VHvN5TyF0=; b=DH5Mfh1qWWwd67OfBitG496BY7uPsTj6bzrf+2lr6AwKstUjDtlpaLj/su2ibuKnDt UXiIEIpZf4Ta7RqfpuId1g8ObMZIsNBnjTmfWH9q3/Q1401BeibTqV/cyC/mbCyJKTFa fER+flSIxBA9ZKqS5x1zHYO4tQckwuQQrKbiA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=eGHdgbLntTTYKPYbpXSA0qZEY5MdhbFJeYmS5p5DyKVCsA9NKeSLUS2Bxu6ROuLkmB wzT7JcZ0H2eJtJskWUOVDkf6BsCMfWolWXF1T0G/pS3mcY5TRhPi69a51hh+CpkT3YSd 1qwogVXMUcp8HzrRzehJQ8NjTKxEcXWYtAIwQ= Received: by 10.100.125.9 with SMTP id x9mr881139anc.139.1225821279299; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:54:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.13.4 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:54:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1028365c0811040954t23d9f9b6xe28b6ff7288ab9ab@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:54:39 -0500 From: "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: d3e3e3@gmail.com Subject: [rbridge] draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-isis-02.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:55:18 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1015 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : RBridges: Use of IS-IS Author(s) : D. Eastlake 3rd, R. Perlman, D. Dutt Filename : draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-isis-02.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2008-11-3 RBridges implement the TRILL protocol, which in turn makes use of an extended version of the IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System) routing protocol to determine topology and frame forwarding and for the distribution and synchronization of data. RBridges provide optimal pair-wise forwarding with zero configuration, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and multipathing for both unicast and multicast traffic. Rbridges also support VLANs. This document specifies some details of IS-IS PDUs used in TRILL. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eastlake-trill-rbridge-isis-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mA3NUU0T009276 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 4556528C3AD; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:30:00 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20081103233001.4556528C3AD@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:30:01 -0800 (PST) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: root@core3.amsl.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:30:42 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1923 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Working Group of the IETF. Title : Rbridges: Base Protocol Specification Author(s) : R. Perlman Filename : draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt Pages : 86 Date : 2008-11-3 RBridges provide optimal pair-wise forwarding with zero configuration, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and support for multipathing of both unicast and multicast traffic. They achieve these goals using IS-IS routing and encapsulation of traffic with a header that includes a hop count. RBridges are compatible with previous IEEE 802.1 customer bridges as well as IPv4 and IPv6 routers and end nodes. They are as invisible to current IP routers as bridges are and, like routers, they terminate the bridge spanning tree protocol. The design supports VLANs and optimization of the distribution of multi-destination frames based on VLAN and IP derived multicast groups. It also allows forwarding tables to be sized according to the number of RBridges (rather than the number of end nodes), which allows internal forwarding tables to be substantially smaller than in conventional bridges. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-10.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-11-3152113.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart--
- [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge-pro… Erik Nordmark
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… mike shand
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Ayan Banerjee (ayabaner)
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Radia Perlman
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Radia Perlman
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Radia Perlman
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Dinesh G Dutt
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Silvano Gai
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Anoop Ghanwani
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] MUST not send spanning tree BPDUs? Joe Touch
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Joe Touch
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Radia Perlman
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Ayan Banerjee
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [rbridge] WG last call on draft-trill-rbridge… Ayan Banerjee