RFC 8385
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transparent Transport over MPLS
Okay bestie, let's get into it ✨🎀
RFC 8385: Transparent Transport over MPLS 🦋
This one is RFC 8385, called Transparent Transport over MPLS, and it's all about TRILL (which stands for Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links 🌈). The authors are M. Umair (Cisco), S. Kingston Smiler (PALC Networks), D. Eastlake 3rd (Huawei), and L. Yong (Independent) 💅. It's classed as Informational, it came out of the IETF, its ISSN is 2070-1721, and the date is June 2018 🌸. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so no drama there 🙈.
Abstract ✨
Okay so the abstract says this doc explains how to hook up multiple TRILL sites through an MPLS network, using the TRILL and VPLS (Virtual Private LAN Service) standards that already exist 🔥. It tackles two problems. Problem one is connecting more than two TRILL sites that are split up by an MPLS provider network. Problem two is making one logical, virtualized TRILL network for different tenants who are also split up by that MPLS provider network 💜.
Status of This Memo 🌷
Heads up, this is not an Internet Standards Track spec. It's published just for informational purposes 🧚
It's still an IETF product, though, which means it reflects the consensus of the IETF community. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not every IESG-approved doc is a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, so check Section 2 of RFC 7841 if you want the full story 🤓
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8385 🔗
Copyright Notice 📜
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved 💖
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this doc. Any Code Components pulled out of this document must include the Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come with no warranty, as the Simplified BSD License describes 🫶
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
2. TRILL-over-MPLS Model ...........................................5
3. VPLS Model ......................................................5
3.1. Entities in the VPLS Model .................................6
3.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPLS Model .............................7
3.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPLS Model ..........................7
3.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS ................................7
3.5. Frame Processing ...........................................7
4. VPTS Model ......................................................7
4.1. Entities in the VPTS Model .................................9
4.1.1. TRILL Intermediate Router (TIR) ....................10
4.1.2. Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD) .........10
4.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPTS Model ............................10
4.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPTS Model .........................10
4.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS ...............................11
4.5. Frame Processing ..........................................11
4.5.1. Multi-destination Frame Processing .................11
4.5.2. Unicast Frame Processing ...........................11
5. VPTS Model versus VPLS Model ...................................11
6. Packet Processing between Pseudowires ..........................12
7. Efficiency Considerations ......................................12
8. Security Considerations ........................................12
9. IANA Considerations ............................................13
10. References ....................................................13
10.1. Normative References ....................................13
10.2. Informative References ..................................14
Acknowledgements ..................................................15
Authors' Addresses ................................................161. Introduction 🦋
Okay so TRILL, the protocol, is defined in [RFC6325] [RFC7177] [RFC7780]. It gives you transparent forwarding across multi-hop networks with any topology and any link technology 🌸. It works by using a header with a hop count and link-state routing. It gets you optimal pair-wise forwarding with zero configuration, stays safe even while temporary loops are happening, and supports multipathing for both unicast and multicast traffic 😭. The Intermediate Systems (ISs) that run TRILL are called Routing Bridges (RBridges) or TRILL switches 👑.
This document works together with [RFC7173], which covers TRILL transport over pseudowires, and it tackles two problems 💅:
- Connecting more than two TRILL sites that belong to one single TRILL network and are separated by an MPLS provider network, using [RFC7173]. (We'll call this "problem statement 1" from here on 🎀)
- Providing one logical, virtualized TRILL network for different tenants separated by an MPLS provider network. Basically, this is about connecting the TRILL sites that belong to a tenant (or tenants) across an MPLS provider network. (We'll call this "problem statement 2" 🍓)
Quick definition moment: a tenant is the administrative entity that manages its associated services on its behalf. In this doc, "tenant" means a TRILL campus that's kept separate from other tenants for security reasons 🔐.
Multi-tenancy has one big requirement, which is traffic isolation. One tenant's traffic must not be visible to any other tenant 👀. This document also takes on multi-tenancy by keeping one tenant's traffic isolated from the others 💖.
[RFC7173] explains how to connect a pair of TRILL switch ports using pseudowires. This document shows how to connect multiple TRILL sites (not just two!) by using the mechanisms and encapsulations defined in [RFC7173] 🧚
1.1. Terminology ✨
Here are the acronyms and terms this doc uses 📚:
AC - Attachment Circuit [RFC4664]
Data Label - VLAN Label or Fine-Grained Label
database - IS-IS link state database
ECMP - Equal-Cost Multipath
FGL - Fine-Grained Labeling [RFC7172]
IS-IS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS]
LAN - Local Area Network
MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching
PBB - Provider Backbone Bridging
PE - Provider Edge device
PSN - Packet Switched Network
PW - Pseudowire [RFC4664]
TIR - TRILL Intermediate Router (Device that has both IP/MPLS
and TRILL functionality)
TRILL - Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links OR Tunneled
Routing in the Link Layer
TRILL site - A part of a TRILL campus that contains at least one
RBridge.
VLAN - Virtual Local Area Network
VPLS - Virtual Private LAN Service
VPTS - Virtual Private TRILL Service
VSI - Virtual Service Instance [RFC4664]
VTSD - Virtual TRILL Switch Domain OR Virtual TRILL Service
Domain. A Virtual RBridge that segregates one tenant's
TRILL database as well as traffic from the other.
WAN - Wide Area Network2. TRILL-over-MPLS Model 🌈
Okay bestie, there are two different ways to get TRILL running over MPLS 🤩:
- a) the VPLS Model for TRILL
- b) the VPTS Model / TIR Model for TRILL
Both models can solve problem statements 1 and 2 ✨. From here on, the VPLS Model for TRILL is called "Model 1", and the VPTS Model / TIR Model is called "Model 2" 💜.
3. VPLS Model ✨
Okay bestie, Figure 1 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using the VPLS model 🦋 The PE routers in this picture should support all the functional components listed in [RFC4664] 💅
+-----+ +-----+
| RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb |
+-----+ | . . | +-----+
Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2
+----|PE1 | |PE2 |----+
+----+ MPLS Cloud +----+
. .
. +----+ .
..........|PE3 |...........
+----+ ^
| |
| +-- Emulated LAN
+-----+
| RBc |
+-----+
Site 3
Figure 1: Topological Model of TRILL over MPLS
Connecting 3 TRILL SitesNext up is Figure 2 🌸 This one shows how TRILL over MPLS can connect multiple TRILL sites that belong to one tenant. ("Tenant" here means a TRILL campus, not a specific Data Label, so don't mix them up 🙈) VSI1 and VSI2 are two Virtual Service Instances that keep Tenant1's traffic separate from everybody else's. VSI1 keeps its own database for Tenant1, and VSI2 keeps its own database for Tenant2. Iconic separation behavior 👑
+-----+ ............................ +-----+
|RBat1+---+ . ++++++++++++++++++++++++ . +---|RBbt1|
+-----+ | . + + . | +-----+
Tenant1 | +----+ +----+ | Tenant1
Site 1 +----|VSI1| |VSI1|----+ Site 2
+----|VSI2| MPLS Cloud |VSI2|----+
| +----+ +----+ |
+-----+ | . + + . | +-----+
|RBat2+---+ . +++++++++ +----+ ++++++++ . +---|RBbt2|
+-----+ ............|VSI1|........... +-----+
Tenant2 |VSI2| Tenant2
Site 1 +----+ Site 2
|
+-----+
|RBct2|
+-----+
Tenant2 Site 3
.... VSI1 Path
++++ VSI2 Path
Figure 2: Topological Model for VPLS Model
Connecting 2 Tenants with 3 Sites EachSo in this model, TRILL sites plug into VPLS-capable PE devices that give them a logical interconnect ✨ Basically all the RBridges for one tenant end up sitting on a single bridged Ethernet, which is so clean 🧚 These PE devices are the exact same ones described in [RFC4026]. The Attachment Circuit ports on PE routers are Layer 2 switch ports hooked up to the RBridges at a TRILL site. Each VPLS instance acts like an emulated LAN, and this whole setup is similar to connecting RBridges through a Layer 2 bridge domain (a multi-access link) like the one in [RFC6325] 💜 The best part? No changes are needed in the PE routers to carry TRILL packets, because TRILL packets just get transferred transparently. No notes, that's a whole vibe 🫶
3.1. Entities in the VPLS Model
The PE (VPLS-PE) and Customer Edge (CE) devices are defined in [RFC4026] 🎀
The generic L2VPN transport functional components, like Attachment Circuits, pseudowires, VSI, and so on, are defined in [RFC4664] 🌈
The RB (RBridge) and TRILL campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated by [RFC7780] 💅
3.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPLS Model
As specified in Section 3, the MPLS cloud looks like an emulated LAN, which is also called a multi-access link or a broadcast link 🦋 So RBridges at different sites end up looking like they're all connected by one multi-access link, and honestly it's giving connected 😭 With that setup, TRILL adjacencies over the link get discovered and set up automatically through TRILL IS-IS control messages in [RFC7177] 🔥 Those IS-IS control messages get passed along transparently by the VPLS domain, after MPLS encapsulation as described in Section 3.3.
3.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPLS Model
Using VPLS [RFC4762] [RFC4761] to interconnect TRILL sites doesn't need any changes to a VPLS implementation 🌸 In particular, you can use Ethernet pseudowires between VPLS PEs, and that's it 💖 A VPLS PE receives normal Ethernet frames from an RBridge (aka a CE), and it has no idea the CE is an RBridge device. Lowkey mysterious 🙈 For example, an MPLS-encapsulated TRILL packet inside the MPLS network can use the format shown in Appendix A of [RFC7173] for the non-PBB case. For the PBB case, the entry PE can add extra header fields shown in [RFC7041], and the exit PE can remove them 🧚
3.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS
No explicit handling is needed to keep the topology loop-free ✨ The "split horizon" technique specified in [RFC4664] takes care of avoiding loops in the provider PSN network. Loop prevention, handled 💅
3.5. Frame Processing
The PE devices transparently process TRILL control and data frames 🫶 The procedures for forwarding those frames are defined in [RFC4664] 🌈
4. VPTS Model 🦋
The Virtual Private TRILL Service (VPTS) is a Layer 2 TRILL service that emulates a TRILL service across a Wide Area Network (WAN) 🌍 VPTS is kind of like what VPLS does for a bridged core, except it gives you a TRILL core instead 💖 VPLS stands for "Virtual Private LAN Service" and gives different customers their own private LAN. VPTS stands for "Virtual Private TRILL Service" and gives different TRILL tenants their own private TRILL service. Same energy, different vibe ✨
Figure 3 shows the topological model of TRILL over MPLS using VPTS 👑 In this model, the PE routers get replaced with TRILL Intermediate Routers (TIRs), and the VSIs get replaced with Virtual TRILL Switch Domains (VTSDs). The TIR devices must be capable of supporting both MPLS and TRILL, as specified in Section 4.1.1. The TIR devices are connected via PWs and show up as one unified emulated TRILL campus, with each VTSD inside a TIR acting like an RBridge 🧚
Here are some of the reasons why you'd interconnect TRILL sites without isolating the TRILL control plane of one site from the others 🎀
- Nickname uniqueness: One of the basic TRILL requirements is that RBridge nicknames are unique within the campus [RFC6325]. If you split the control plane of one TRILL site away from the other TRILL sites and then connect those sites together, it may result in nickname collision 💀
- Distribution trees and their pruning: When a TRILL Data packet traverses a Distribution Tree, it will stay on that tree even in other TRILL sites. If no end-station service is enabled for a particular Data Label in a TRILL site, the distribution tree may be pruned, and TRILL data packets of that particular Data Label might never reach another TRILL site where the packets had no receivers. The TRILL Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) check will always be performed on the packets that TIRs receive through pseudowires 🔥
- Hop count values: When a TIR receives a TRILL data packet over a pseudowire, the TIR does the processing of Hop Count defined in [RFC6325] and will not perform any resetting of Hop Count 🍓
+-----+ +-----+
| RBa +---+ ........................... +---| RBb |
+-----+ | . . | +-----+
Site 1 | +----+ +----+ | Site 2
+----|TIR1| |TIR2|----+
+----+ MPLS Cloud +----+
. .
. +----+ .
..........|TIR3|...........
+----+ ^
| |
| +-- Emulated TRILL
+-----+
| RBc |
+-----+
Site 3
Figure 3: Topological Model of VPTS/TIR Connecting 3 TRILL SitesIn Figure 3, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3 (all running the TRILL protocol) connect to TIR devices 💜 Those TIR devices, along with the MPLS cloud, look like one unified emulated TRILL network 🦋 Only the PE devices in the MPLS network should be replaced with TIRs, so the intermediate provider routers stay agnostic to the TRILL protocol. They don't even need to know TRILL exists 🙈
Figure 4 extends the TRILL over MPLS topological model so it can connect multiple TRILL sites belonging to one tenant ("tenant" here means a campus, not a Data Label) using the VPTS model 🌸 VTSD1 and VTSD2 are two Virtual TRILL Switch Domains (Virtual RBridges) that keep Tenant1's traffic separate from Tenant2's traffic. VTSD1 maintains its own TRILL database for Tenant1, and VTSD2 maintains its own TRILL database for Tenant2 👑
+-----+ ............................ +-----+
|RBat1+---+ . ######################## . +---|RBbt1|
+-----+ | . # # . | +-----+
Tenant1 | +-----+ +-----+ | Tenant1
Site 1 +----|VTSD1| |VTSD1|----+ Site 2
+----|VTSD2| MPLS Cloud |VTSD2|----+
| +-----+ +-----+ |
+-----+ | . # # . | +-----+
|RBat2+---+ . #########+-----+######### . +---|RBbt2|
+-----+ ...........|VTSD1|........... +-----+
Tenant2 |VTSD2| ^ Tenant2
Site 1 +-----+ | Site 2
| |
+-----+ +-----Emulated
|RBct2| TRILL
+-----+
Tenant2 Site 3
.... VTSD1 Connectivity
#### VTSD2 Connectivity
Figure 4: Topological Model of VPTS/TIR
Connecting 2 Tenants with 3 TRILL Sites4.1. Entities in the VPTS Model
The CE devices are defined in [RFC4026] 🎀
The generic L2VPN transport functional components, like Attachment Circuits and pseudowires, are defined in [RFC4664] 🌈
The RB (RBridge) and TRILL campus are defined in [RFC6325] as updated by [RFC7780] 💅
This model introduces two new entities, TIR and VTSD, which are described below 🦋
4.1.1. TRILL Intermediate Router (TIR)
TIRs must be capable of running both the VPLS and TRILL protocols 💖 TIR devices are a superset of the VPLS-PE devices defined in [RFC4026], with the extra functionality of TRILL on top ✨ The VSI that provides transparent bridging functionality in the PE device gets replaced with a VTSD in a TIR 👑
4.1.2. Virtual TRILL Switch/Service Domain (VTSD) 💖
okay so the VTSD is basically the VPLS model's VSI (Layer 2 bridge) but it's giving TRILL RBridge 🦋 It's a superset of the VSI, so it has to do everything the VSI does as defined in [RFC4026] ✨ On top of that, the VTSD must be capable of supporting TRILL protocols and forming TRILL adjacencies. Honestly it's a whole main character 💅 It must be able to do everything a standard TRILL switch can do.
One VTSD instance per tenant must be maintained when multiple tenants are connected to a TIR 👑 The VTSD must keep all the info an RBridge keeps, but on a per-tenant basis. It also has to keep one tenant's traffic separate from another's 🫶 Each VTSD gets its own nickname for each tenant. So if a TIR supports 10 TRILL tenants, it needs 10 TRILL nicknames, one for the nickname space of each tenant, and it runs 10 copies of TRILL protocols, one per tenant 🌈 It's possible it ends up with the same nickname for two or more tenants, but since the TRILL data and control traffic are separated per tenant, there's no confusion 🙈
4.2. TRILL Adjacency for VPTS Model 🎀
The VTSD must be capable of forming a TRILL adjacency with the corresponding VTSDs in its peer VPTS neighbor, and also with the neighboring RBridges of the TRILL sites 💜 The procedure for forming a TRILL adjacency is specified in [RFC7173] and [RFC7177].
4.3. MPLS Encapsulation for VPTS Model 🧚
The VPTS model uses PPP or Ethernet pseudowires for MPLS encapsulation as specified in [RFC7173], and it requires no changes in the packet format in that RFC 🌸 Per [RFC7173], PPP encapsulation is the default ✨
4.4. Loop-Free Provider PSN/MPLS 🌊
This model isn't required to use the "split horizon" mechanism in the provider PSN network, because TRILL handles the loop-free topology with distribution trees 🍓 Any multi-destination packet traverses a distribution tree path. All distribution trees are calculated based on the TRILL base protocol standard [RFC6325] as updated by [RFC7780] 🔥
4.5. Frame Processing 💅
This section specifies multi-destination and unicast frame processing in the VPTS/TIR model 🦋
4.5.1. Multi-destination Frame Processing 🌈
Any multi-destination packet (unknown unicast, multicast, or broadcast, as indicated by the multi-destination bit in the TRILL header) inside a VTSD gets processed or forwarded through the distribution tree it was encapsulated for on TRILL ingress 🫶 If a multi-destination packet arrives from the wrong pseudowire at a VTSD, the TRILL protocol running in the VTSD performs an RPF check as specified in [RFC7780] and drops the packet 💀
The pruning mechanism in distribution trees, as specified in [RFC6325] and [RFC7780], can also be used to avoid forwarding multi-destination data packets down branches with no potential destinations ✨
4.5.2. Unicast Frame Processing 💖
Unicast packets get forwarded the same way they would in a standard TRILL campus, as specified in [RFC6325] 🎀 If multiple equal-cost paths are available over pseudowires to reach the destination, then the VTSD should be capable of doing ECMP for those equal-cost paths 🌸
5. VPTS Model versus VPLS Model 🦋
The VPLS model uses a simpler loop-breaking rule: the "split horizon" rule, where a PE must not forward traffic from one PW to another in the same VPLS mesh 💅 The VPTS model is different, since it uses distribution trees for a loop-free topology. Because this is an emulated TRILL service, the VPTS model is the default for interoperability purposes 👑
6. Packet Processing between Pseudowires 🧚
Whenever a packet is received over a pseudowire, a VTSD decapsulates the MPLS headers and then checks the TRILL header 💖 If the egress nickname in the TRILL header is for a TRILL site located beyond another pseudowire, then the VTSD encapsulates the packet with new MPLS headers and sends it across the proper pseudowire 🌈
For example, in Figure 3, say the pseudowire between TIR1 and TIR2 fails. Then TIR1 talks to TIR2 via TIR3 🫶 Whenever packets destined for TIR3 arrive from the pseudowire between TIR1 and TIR3, the VTSD inside TIR3 decapsulates the MPLS headers and then checks the TRILL header's egress nickname field 👀 If the egress nickname indicates the RBridge in Site 3, the packet goes to RBc. If the egress nickname is located at Site 2, the VTSD adds MPLS headers for the pseudowire between TIR3 and TIR2 and forwards the packet on that pseudowire 🔥
7. Efficiency Considerations ⭐
Since the VPTS model uses distribution trees to process multi-destination data packets, it is always advisable to have at least one distribution tree root located in every TRILL site 🍓 That stops data packets from landing at TRILL sites where end-station service isn't enabled for that data packet 🙈
8. Security Considerations 🔒
This document specifies methods using existing standards and facilities in ways that do not create new security problems 💜
For general VPLS security considerations, including isolating customers from each other, see [RFC4761] and [RFC4762] 🛡️
For security considerations on transporting TRILL over pseudowires, see [RFC7173]. In particular, since pseudowires are supported by MPLS or IP, which are in turn supported by a link layer, that document recommends using IP security, such as IPsec [RFC4301] or DTLS [RFC6347], or lower link-layer security, such as MACSEC [802.1AE] for Ethernet links 😭
Sending traffic outside the customer environment through the provider environment, as described in this document, increases the risk of compromise or injection of false data, either through a failure of tenant isolation or by the provider itself 🚨
In the VPLS model (Section 3), using link encryption and authentication between the CEs of a tenant connected through provider facilities should be a good defense 🛡️ In the VPTS model (Section 4), it's assumed that the CEs peer with virtual TRILL switches of the provider network. That means link security between TRILL switch ports is inadequate, since it terminates at the edge PE 💀 So encryption and authentication from end station to end station, plus authentication, are more appropriate for the VPTS model 🫶
For added protection against compromise of data, end-to-end encryption and authentication should be considered, meaning encryption and authentication from source end station to destination end station. This would typically be provided by IPsec [RFC4301] or DTLS [RFC6347], or other protocols that are convenient for protecting the information of concern 🔐
For general TRILL security considerations, see [RFC6325] 🌸
9. IANA Considerations 🎀
This document has no IANA actions ✨
10. References 📚
10.1. Normative References 💜
[IS-IS] ISO, "Intermediate system to Intermediate system routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the Protocol for providing the Connectionless-mode Network
Service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, 2002.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed., and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed., and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Dutt, D., Gai, S., and A.
Ghanwani, "Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol
Specification", RFC 6325, DOI 10.17487/RFC6325, July 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[RFC7173] Yong, L., Eastlake 3rd, D., Aldrin, S., and J. Hudson,
"Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
Transport Using Pseudowires", RFC 7173,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7173, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7173>.
[RFC7177] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and
V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.
[RFC7780] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Perlman, R., Banerjee, A.,
Ghanwani, A., and S. Gupta, "Transparent Interconnection
of Lots of Links (TRILL): Clarifications, Corrections, and
Updates", RFC 7780, DOI 10.17487/RFC7780, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.10.2. Informative References 📖
[802.1AE] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Security", IEEE Std
802.1AE, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2006.245590.
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., and E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for
Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4664, September 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4664>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7041] Balus, F., Ed., Sajassi, A., Ed., and N. Bitar, Ed.,
"Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone Bridging",
RFC 7041, DOI 10.17487/RFC7041, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7041>.
[RFC7172] Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Agarwal, P., Perlman, R., and
D. Dutt, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Fine-Grained Labeling", RFC 7172,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7172, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7172>.Acknowledgements 🫶
The contributions of Andrew G. Malis are gratefully acknowledged in improving the quality of this document 💖
Authors' Addresses 🎀
Mohammed Umair
Cisco Systems
SEZ, Cessna Business Park
Sarjapur - Marathahalli Outer Ring road
Bengaluru - 560103
India
Email: mohammed.umair2@gmail.com
S. Kingston Smiler
PALC NETWORKS PVT LTD
Envision Technology Center
#119, 1st Floor, Road No.3
EPIP Area Phase 1, Whitefield
Near Vydehi Hospital
Bengaluru - 560066, Karnataka
India
Email: kingstonsmiler@gmail.com
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
United States of America
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Lucy Yong
Independent
Phone: +1-469-227-5837
Email: lucyyong@gmail.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8385 2018-06
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms