RFC 8397
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Multilevel Using Unique Nicknames
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Multilevel Using Unique Nicknames 🦋
okay bestie, here's the title block deets 💖
- RFC: 8397
- Category: Standards Track
- Date: May 2018
- ISSN: 2070-1721
- Stream: Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
- Authors: M. Zhang (Huawei), D. Eastlake 3rd (Huawei), R. Perlman (Dell EMC), H. Zhai (JIT), D. Liu (China Telecom Co., Ltd)
- Obsoletes / Updates: nothing is listed in this header 🙈
Abstract ✨
TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) routing can go multilevel by building on the multilevel feature of IS-IS routing 🔥. How you manage nicknames is what decides which of the two main routes you take: the unique nickname approach or the aggregated nickname approach, both discussed in RFC 8243. This doc is all about the unique nickname approach 💅. It gives unique nicknames to every TRILL switch across the whole multilevel TRILL campus, and that's the iconic part 👑.
Status of This Memo 📜
This is an Internet Standards Track document, so it's official-official 💅.
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). If you want more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841 🌸.
For the current status, any errata, and how to send feedback, go to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8397 ✨.
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) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document 🧚. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they're provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents 🗂️
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Acronyms and Terminology ........................................4
3. Data Routing ....................................................4
3.1. Unicast Routing ............................................4
3.2. Multi-destination Routing ..................................5
3.2.1. Local Distribution Trees ............................6
3.2.2. Global Distribution Trees ...........................6
4. Protocol Basics and Extensions ..................................8
4.1. Multilevel TRILL Basics ....................................8
4.2. Nickname Allocation ........................................9
4.3. Nickname Announcements .....................................9
4.4. Capability Indication .....................................11
5. Mix with Aggregated Nickname Areas .............................11
6. Security Considerations ........................................12
7. IANA Considerations ............................................13
8. References .....................................................13
8.1. Normative References ......................................13
8.2. Informative References ....................................14
Contributors ......................................................15
Authors' Addresses ................................................151. Introduction ✨
The multiple-level feature of [IS-IS] can boost TRILL's scalability, as [RFC8243] explains 💖. Multilevel IS-IS still needs some extensions to support the TRILL multilevel feature, though. The two biggest ones are how TRILL switch nicknames get managed and how distribution trees get handled [RFC8243].
There are two main ways to realize TRILL multilevel [RFC8243]. The first is the "aggregated nickname" approach. It assigns nicknames to areas and lets nicknames get reused in different areas, because border TRILL switches rewrite the nickname fields when packets enter or leave an area. For more on that, check [RFC8243] and [SingleN] 📚. The second is the "unique nickname" approach, and that's what this document specifies 🦋. It gives unique nicknames to all the TRILL switches in the multilevel campus. It does this by having the TRILL switches at the Level 1 / Level 2 border advertise two things. Into the Level 1 area, they advertise the nicknames that aren't available for assignment in that area. Into the Level 2 area, they advertise the nicknames used by the Level 1 area, so other areas can't use them anymore. Advertising Level 1 nicknames tells the rest of the campus how to reach the nicknames living in that area. This document specifies the protocol extensions that support that advertisement.
Each RBridge in a unique nickname area calculates two types of trees: local distribution trees and global distributions trees 🌳. Multi-destination traffic that's limited to an area gets flooded on a local distribution tree. Anything else gets flooded along a global distribution tree 🌊.
With the unique nickname approach, nicknames are globally valid. That means border RBridges don't rewrite the nickname field of TRILL data packets moving between Level 1 and Level 2, which is different from the aggregated approach 💅. If a border RBridge is a transit node on a forwarding path, it doesn't learn the MAC addresses of the TRILL data packets forwarded along that path 🙈. Testing and maintenance operations that start in one area and end in a different area are also simplified [RFC8243]. Because of all this, the unique nickname approach might realize simpler border RBridges than the aggregated nickname approach. The catch is that it's less scalable, and it may be less well suited for very large campuses 😭.
2. Acronyms and Terminology 📚
- Border RBridge: An RBridge that's located on the border between two or more RBridge areas.
- Data Label: VLAN or FGL [RFC7172]
- IS-IS: Intermediate System to Intermediate System [IS-IS]
- RBridge: A device implementing the TRILL protocol.
- TRILL: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links or Tunneled Routing in the Link Layer [RFC6325].
- TRILL switch: An alternative name for an RBridge.
Okay, now the caps-lock rule 🔒. When the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" show up in this document in all capitals, as they do here, they're to be read as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]. Only in all capitals, though. Lowercase is just regular English 💜.
3. Data Routing 🗺️
Area X level 2 Area Y
+-----------------+ +---------------------+ +------------+
| | | | | |
S---RB27---Rx--Rz---RB2---Rb---Rc--Rd---Re--RB3---Rk--RB44---D
| 27 | | | | 44 |
| | | | | |
+-----------------+ +---------------------+ +------------+Figure 1: An Example Topology for TRILL Multilevel
Figure 1 is adapted from the example topology in [RFC8243], where S is the Source and D is the Destination 🧚. The routing processes are described in the following two subsections.
3.1. Unicast Routing 🎯
Plain RBridge RB27 sees the TRILL campus differently than its border RBridge RB2 does 👀. Say a path leaves for an RBridge that isn't in the same area, like RB44. Then RB27 works out the segment of that path inside Area X. Border RBridge RB2 calculates the segment in Level 2. And the border RBridge into the destination area, RB3, calculates the segment from itself to RB44 ✨.
Let's say S sends a frame to D, and the relevant TRILL switches have already learned where D is. Here's what they know:
- RB27 has learned that D is connected to nickname 44.
- RB2 has learned that nickname 44 is accessible through RB3.
Here's the sequence of events that happens next 💖:
- S transmits an Ethernet frame with
source MAC = Sanddestination MAC = D. - RB27 encapsulates it with a TRILL header with ingress RBridge nickname 27 and egress RBridge nickname 44, producing a TRILL Data packet.
- RB2 has announced in the Level 1 IS-IS instance in Area X that it owns all nicknames of other areas, including 44. So IS-IS routes the packet to RB2 🚚.
- The packet is forwarded through Level 2, from RB2 to RB3, which has advertised in Level 2 that it owns nickname 44.
- When RB3 forwards into Area Y, it doesn't change the ingress nickname 27 or the egress nickname 44.
- When RB44 decapsulates, it learns that S is attached to nickname 27 🎉.
3.2. Multi-destination Routing 📣
The scope of multi-destination routing is defined by the tree root nickname. A tree with a Level 2 tree root nickname is global, and a tree with a Level 1 tree root nickname is local. Check Section 4.2 for the Level 1 and Level 2 nickname allocation 🦋.
Border RBridges only announce the global trees to be calculated for those Data Labels that span across areas. APPsub-TLVs as specified in Section 3.2 of [RFC7968] will be advertised for this purpose 📢. Based on the Data Label, an ingress RBridge can figure out whether a global tree or a local tree should be used for a TRILL multi-destination Data packet 🧠.
Heads up, this part is a big deal 😬. If there are legacy TRILL switches that don't understand the APPsub-TLVs for tree selection, configuration MUST guarantee that Data Labels [RFC7172] being used globally in Level 2 are disabled on those legacy TRILL switches. Otherwise, the legacy TRILL switches might use local trees for multi-destination traffic that's supposed to have a global scope. Those legacy switches may still use global trees to flood multi-destination packets scoped to the local area. But those global trees MUST be pruned at the border TRILL switches based on Data Labels 🚫.
3.2.1. Local Distribution Trees 🌳
The root RBridge RB1 of a local distribution tree lives in the area. RBridges in this area calculate this local tree from the link state information of the area, using RB1's nickname as the root. The protocol behaviors for local distribution trees are specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC6325]. The only difference is that the local distribution tree spans this area only 💅. A multi-destination packet whose egress nickname is the root RBridge of a local tree MUST NOT be leaked into Level 2 at the border RBridge 🙅♀️✨.
3.2.2. Global Distribution Trees ✨
Okay so, bestie, this is where the global trees come in and it's giving multi-area drama 🌍💅. Within Level 2, the RBridge with the highest tree root priority advertises the set of global trees by providing a list of Level 2 RBridge nicknames, as defined in Section 4.5 of [RFC6325]. 🦋
According to [RFC6325], the RBridge with the highest root priority advertises the tree roots for a Level 1 area. There has to be a border RBridge with the highest root tree priority in each area so that it can advertise the global tree root nicknames into the area 🎀. Also, this border RBridge MUST advertise the set of local distribution trees by providing another set of nicknames. Since nicknames of global tree roots and local tree roots indicate different flooding scopes, these two sets MUST NOT overlap 🙈. If a border RBridge has been assigned both as a global tree root and a local tree root, it MUST acquire both global tree root nickname(s) and local tree root nickname(s). However, non-border RBridges in an area do not differentiate between a global tree root nickname and a local tree root nickname. Lowkey simple once you see it 🧚
Suppose RB3 is the RBridge with the highest tree root priority within Level 2, and RB2 is the highest tree root priority in Area X. RB2 advertises in Area X that nickname RB3 is the root of a distribution tree. Figures 2 through 5 illustrate how different RBridges view the global distribution tree 👑.
RB2,RB3,Rb,Rc,Rd,Re,Rk,RB44
o
/
Rz o
/
Rx o
/
RB27 o
Figure 2: RB27's View of the Global Distribution Tree RB3,Rk,RB44
o
/
Re o
/
Rd o
/
Rc o
/
Rb o
/
RB2 o
/
Rz o
/
Rx o
/
RB27 o
Figure 3: RB2's View of the Global Distribution Tree RB3
o
/ \
Re o o Rk
/ \
Rd o o RB44
/
Rc o
/
Rb o
/
R27,Rx,Rz,RB2 o
Figure 4: RB3's View of the Global Distribution Tree RB3,RB27,RBx,RBz,RB2,Rb,Rc,Rd,Re
o
\
o Rk
\
o RB44
Figure 5: RB44's View of the Global Distribution TreeThe following sequence of events will occur when a multi-destination TRILL Data packet is forwarded using the global distribution tree: 🌸
- RB27 produces a multi-destination (M bit is one) TRILL Data packet with ingress RBridge nickname 27 and egress RBridge nickname 3. RB27 floods this packet using the segment of the global distribution tree that resides in Area X. 💖
- RB2, when flooding the packet in Level 2, uses the segment of the global distribution tree that resides in Level 2. ✨
- RB3, when flooding the packet into Area Y, uses the segment of the global distribution tree that resides in Area Y. 🫶
- The multicast listener RB44, when decapsulating the received packet, learns that S is attached to nickname 27. 😭
4. Protocol Basics and Extensions 🌈
4.1. Multilevel TRILL Basics 🍓
Okay, multilevel TRILL is literally built on the multilevel feature of [IS-IS] 💜. Border RBridges are in both a Level 1 area and in Level 2. They establish adjacency with Level 1 RBridges as specified in [RFC7177] and [RFC6325]. They establish adjacency with Level 2 RBridges in exactly the same way, except that (1) for a LAN link, the IS-IS Hellos used are Level 2 Hello PDUs [IS-IS] and (2) for a point-to-point link, the Level is configured and indicated in flags in the point-to-point Hello. The state machines for Level 1 and Level 2 adjacency are independent, and two RBridges on the same LAN link can have any adjacency state for Level 1 and, separately, any adjacency state for Level 2. Level 1 and Level 2 link state flooding are independent, using Level 1 and Level 2 versions of the relevant IS-IS PDUs (LSP, CSNP, PSNP, FS-LSP, FS-CSNP, and FS-PSNP [RFC7356] [RFC7780]). Thus, Level 1 link state information stays within a Level 1 area and Level 2 link state information stays in Level 2, unless there are specific provisions for leaking (copying) information between levels. This is why multilevel can address the TRILL scalability issues as specified in Section 2 of [RFC8243] 🔥.
The former "campus wide" minimum acceptable link size Sz is calculated as before: by Level 1 RBridges (including border RBridges) using the originatingLSPBufferSize advertised in the Level 1 LSP, so it is area local in multilevel TRILL 🌸. A minimum acceptable link size in Level 2, called Sz2, is calculated by the RBridges participating in Level 2 in the same way as Sz is calculated, but using the originatingLSPBufferSize distributed in Level 2 LSPs 🎀.
4.2. Nickname Allocation 💅
Level 2 RBridges contend for nicknames in the range from 0xF000 through 0xFFBF the same way as specified in [RFC6325]: using Level 2 LSPs. The highest-priority border router for a Level 1 area should contend with others in Level 2 for blocks of nicknames for the range from 0x0001 to 0xEFFF. Blocks of 64 aligned on boundaries of multiples of 64 are RECOMMENDED in this document 🧚.
The nickname contention in Level 2 will determine which blocks of nicknames are available for an area and which blocks of nicknames are used elsewhere. The NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV as specified in Section 4.3 will be used by the border RBridge(s) to announce the nickname availability 🦋.
4.3. Nickname Announcements 📣
Border RBridges need to exchange nickname information between Level 1 and Level 2; otherwise, forwarding paths inward or outward will not be calculated. For this purpose, border RBridges need to fabricate nickname announcements. Sub-TLVs used for such announcements are specified as follows ✨.
Besides its own nickname(s), a border RBridge MUST announce, in its area, the ownership of all external nicknames that are reachable from this border RBridge. These external nicknames include nicknames used in other unique nickname areas and nicknames in Level 2. Non-border RBridge nicknames within aggregated nickname areas are excluded. Also, a border RBridge MUST announce, in Level 2, the ownership of all nicknames within its area. From listening to these Level 2 announcements, border RBridges can figure out the nicknames used by other areas 👑.
RBridges in the TRILL base protocol use the Nickname Sub-TLV as specified in Section 2.3.2 of [RFC7176] to announce the ownership of nicknames. However, it becomes uneconomic to use this Sub-TLV to announce a mass of internal/external nicknames. To address this issue, border RBridges SHOULD make use of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to advertise into the Level 1 area the inclusive range of nicknames that are or are not available for self allocation by the Level 1 RBridges in that area. Its structure is as follows 🌈:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Type = 24 |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Length |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
|OK| RESV |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Nickname Block 1 |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ...
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Nickname Block K |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- Type: 24 (TRILL NickBlockFlags)
- Length: 2 + 4*K, where K is the number of nickname blocks.
- OK:
- When this bit is set to 1, the blocks of nicknames in this APPsub-TLV are associated to the border RBridge's attached Level 1 area. The APPsub-TLV will be advertised in both Level 1 and Level 2. For nicknames that fall in the ranges of the nickname blocks, RBridges of Level 2 always route to the originating border RBridge, just as if this border RBridge owns these nicknames. 💖
- When this bit is set to 0, it indicates that the nicknames covered by the nickname blocks are being used in Level 2 or other areas, so that they are not available for use in the border RBridge's attached Level 1 area. The APPsub-TLV will be advertised into Level 1 only. For nicknames that fall in the ranges of the nickname blocks, RBridges of the area always route to the originating border RBridge, just as if this border RBridge owns these nicknames. For nicknames in these ranges, other RBridges will deem that they are owned by the originating border RBridge. The paths to nicknames that fall in these ranges will be calculated to reach the originating border RBridge. TRILL Data packets with egress nicknames that are neither in these ranges nor announced by any RBridge in the area MUST be discarded. 🙈
- RESV: reserved for future flag allocation. MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. 🫶
- Nickname Block: a starting and ending nickname as follows:
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| starting nickname |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| ending nickname |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+Nickname Sub-TLV as specified in Section 2.3.2 of [RFC7176] is still allowed to be used, given the above NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV is being used 🥰.
There might be multiple border RBridges connected to the same area. Each border RBridge may advertise a subset of the entire internal/external nickname space in order to realize load balance. However, optimization of such load balance is an implementation issue and is outside the scope of this document 🧁.
As specified in Section 4.2.6 of [RFC6325], multiple border RBridges may claim the same nicknames outwardly and/or inwardly. Other RBridges add those nicknames as if they are attached to all of those border RBridges. 💜
4.4. Capability Indication 🦋
okay so bestie, this part is about who has to know about the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV 💅✨ All border RBridges MUST understand the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV. Non-border RBridges in an area should understand it too 🫶 And if an RBridge in an area does understand the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV, it MUST show that by announcing it in its TRILL-VER Sub-TLV 🎀 (See Section 7.)
Now, if there are RBridges that don't understand the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV, the border RBridges of the area MUST also use the traditional Nickname Sub-TLV [RFC7176] to announce into the area those nicknames covered by the nickname blocks of the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV whose OK is 0 🌸 The available range of nicknames for this area should be configured on these traditional RBridges.
5. Mix with Aggregated Nickname Areas 🌈
TRILL multilevel is designed so you can mix unique nickname areas with aggregated nickname areas, and yes it's giving flexible 🧚 (see Section 1.2 of [RFC8243]). Usage of nickname space MUST be planned so that nicknames used in any one unique nickname area and Level 2 are never used in any other areas, including unique nickname areas as well as aggregated nickname areas. In other words, nickname reuse is only allowed among aggregated nickname areas 💜
Border RBridges of an aggregated area MUST announce nicknames heard from Level 2 into their area just like a unique nickname border RBridge does 👑 However, these RBridges do not announce nicknames of their area into Level 2, so they're kinda keeping their own tea 🫖
Each border RBridge of the aggregated areas will appear on the global tree, as specified in Section 4.1, as a single node 🦋 The global trees for unique nickname areas span unique nickname areas and Level 2, but they never reach the inside of aggregated areas. Boundaries, babe 🚧
6. Security Considerations 💀
Okay this section is serious, so get comfy 🙈 Since TRILL multilevel uses the existing IS-IS multilevel facilities [IS-IS], flooding of control traffic for link-state information is automatically confined to a Level 1 area or to Level 2 (except for limited types of information that can be specifically flagged for wider flooding). This addresses the TRILL scalability issues as specified in Section 2 of [RFC8243], and also, except for the wider flooding case, it confines the scope of the effects of malicious events that could be communicated through the link state. However, because unique nickname areas share a common nickname space, border RBridges still have to leak nickname information between levels 😬 That leaking means that nickname-related events in one area can affect other areas. Not ideal, not ideal 💅
For this purpose, border RBridges need to fabricate the nickname announcements as specified in Section 4.3 🎭 Malicious devices may also fake the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV to announce a range of nicknames. By doing this, the attacker can attract TRILL data packets that were originally sent to a bunch of other RBridges. Literally villain behavior 😭 For this reason, RBridges SHOULD be configured to use the IS-IS Authentication TLV (10) in the IS-IS PDUs, particularly those containing the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV, so that IS-IS security [RFC5310] can be used to authenticate those PDUs and discard them if they are forged 🔐
If border RBridges do not prune multi-destination distribution tree traffic in Data Labels that are configured to be area local, then traffic that should have been contained within an area might be wrongly delivered to end stations in that Data Label in other areas. That is, the Data Label would no longer be area local. This would generally violate security constraints that require traffic to be delivered only to end stations in that Data Label in a single area. Do NOT let your traffic leak, it's a whole disaster 🚨
For general TRILL Security Considerations, see [RFC6325] 💜
7. IANA Considerations 🎀
IANA has registered a new flag bit under the "TRILL-VER Sub-TLV Capability Flags" registry 🌷
Bit Description Reference
--- ----------- ---------
5 Able to handle the RFC 8397
NickBlockFlags
APPsub-TLVIANA has assigned a new type for the NickBlockFlags APPsub-TLV from the range available below 256, and added the following entry to the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application Identifier 1" registry, as follows 📋✨
Type Name Reference
---- ------ ---------
24 NickBlockFlags RFC 83978. References 📚
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
D., and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7176, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.
[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>.
[RFC7968] Li, Y., Eastlake 3rd, D., Hao, W., Chen, H., and S.
Chatterjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Using Data Labels for Tree Selection for Multi-
Destination Data", RFC 7968, DOI 10.17487/RFC7968, August
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7968>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[IS-IS] International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- Intermediate
System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network
service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition,
November 2002.8.2. Informative References
[SingleN] Zhang, M., Eastlake, D., et al, "Transparent
Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Single Area
Border RBridge Nickname for Multilevel", draft-ietf-trill-
multilevel-single-nickname-05, Work in Progress, January
2018.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[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>.
[RFC8243] Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., Zhang, M., Ghanwani, A.,
and H. Zhai, "Alternatives for Multilevel Transparent
Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)", RFC 8243,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8243, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8243>.Contributors 🫶
Margaret Cullen
Painless Security
14 Summer St. Suite 202
Malden, MA 02148
United States of America
Email: margaret@painless-security.comAuthors' Addresses 💖
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing 100095
China
Phone: +86-13810702575
Email: zhangmingui@huawei.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
Radia Perlman
Dell EMC
176 South Street
Hopkinton, MA 01748
United States of America
Email: radia@alum.mit.edu
Hongjun Zhai
Jinling Institute of Technology
99 Hongjing Avenue, Jiangning District
Nanjing, Jiangsu 211169
China
Email: honjun.zhai@tom.com
Dongxin Liu
China Telecom Co., Ltd
109 West Zhongshan Ave, Tianhe District
Guangzhou 510630
China
Email: liudx@gsta.com📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc8397 2018-05
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms