[rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG?

Fri Feb 4 13:07:53 PST 2005

> Are there other conflicts which we must avoid?

Only that the name 'TRILL' is already taken - by a *birdseed* company!
(See: http://www.trill.com.)

Fred L. Templin
American Kestrel Consulting
sparrowhawk at falcosparverius.com
osprey67 at falcosparverius.com
fltemplin at acm.org

-----Original Message-----
From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
Subject: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG?

Are there other conflicts which we must avoid?

    Erik

This might be approved as a WG before the meeting, but we will schedule
it as a BoF for the time being.

    a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets:
	TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)
    b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears:
	INT
    c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible:
	multi6, shim6, ipv6, v6ops, is-is, ospf

    d. Expected Attendance (figures from the previous IETF are sent when
       WG/BOF scheduling opens)
	100 (based on IPVLX BoF)

    e. Special requests (i.e. multicast):
    f. Number of slots:
	1

    g. Length of slot:
       	2 1/2 hours

Bof Description: See proposed charter below.
This is a follow-on to the IPVLX BoF in Aug 2004

Bof Chair: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark at sun.com>

Mailing list: rbridge at postel.org
Subscribe: http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
Web page: http://www.postel.org/rbridge/
	With additional information as well as mailing list archives

Agenda:
-------

  - Welcome and Administrivia			5 minutes	Chair

  - Charter review				10 minutes	Chair

  - Problem statement discussion			30 minutes
Erik Nordmark
	Including the "service" that a cloud of hybrid devices will
	provide, whether it is equivalent to IEEE 802.1D devices, or
	handles IP packets differently
	When is it ok to reorder packets? MTU considerations?

  - Threats and security considerations		10 minutes	???
     	What should the goal be? What can we do better?

  - Requirements on routing protocols		20 minutes	???
     	For zero configuration
     	Carrying MAC addresses
     	Broadcast
     	IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else

  - Connecting different L2 types		30 minutes	Radia
Perlman?

  - Choices for ARP/ND				10 minutes	???
    	Constraints from security discussion (intentionally duplicate L2
	addresses), mobility, SeND support, etc.

  - Choices for broadcast/multicast		10 minutes	???
	Worth doing any optimizations? Spanning tree between rbridges?

Proposed charter:
-----------------

TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)

While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit
configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology,
they are more limited than IP routers since bridges only support IEEE
802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 interconnection method
(dynamically created spanning tree formation using bridges) is not as
flexible and robust as layer 3 routing.

The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of
configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies.

The design should have the following properties:
  - zero configuration of the hybrid devices
  - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address
  - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest
paths,
    and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased
    aggregate bandwidth
  - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets 
(potentially
    avoid flooding all the time)
  - support Secure Neighbor Discovery
  - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the
presence
    of temporary routing loops
  - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network
  - no delay when a new node is attached to the network
  - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to
    look at optimizations for IP multicast)
  - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the 
protocol
    can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect)

A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is
extended to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is
friendly to zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state
routing protocols since they can easily be extended to provide for
broadcast, which is 
believed
to be difficult for distance vector protocols.
This working group will define the requirements on such routing
protocol(s), and select the routing protocol(s) to be used.  The intent
is that the 
actual
extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with 
expertise
in the routing protocol(s).

The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect
different layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for
non-IP 
protocols,
even though one can not combine those two features together; the
interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer
2 address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of
protocols. Whether the same or different address formats are used, there
might be a 
need
to handle different MTUs.

The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges and
routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers and
bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6

The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide
  - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always
    flooded everywhere)
  - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might 
just
    fall out from supporting L2 multicast)
  - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 
technologies

The work consists of several, separable pieces:
  - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one
or
    more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the extensions
to
    a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the
    specific routing protocol WG.
  - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation header
for
    data packets, and how to map that information to various link types 
(e.g.,
    IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS)
  - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is 
performed,
    taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor
    Discovery.
  - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2
    technologies, that have different address format/length, are 
interconnected.

Deliverables
  - A short draft on the problem statement and goals
  - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing
    protocols to support the trill concept, and other requirements on
    the routing protocols.
  - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general
    and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs
  - ARP and ND draft
  - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies
  - Threat analysis document

Goals and Milestones

Jun 05  Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for Informational
Sep 05  Routing protocol support requirements to IESG for Informational
Dec 05  Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed Standard Sep 05  ARP
& ND to IESG for Proposed Standard Mar 06  Interconnecting Layer 2
Technologies document to IESG for
         Proposed Standard
Dec 05  Threat analysis to IESG for Informational

---

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge