[rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (trill)
margaret at thingmagic.com
Thu Jun 23 05:19:31 PDT 2005
I was about to insert this text into the TRILL charter, but I wanted
to tune it a bit and was looking at the CCAMP charter for reference,
and now I am confused...
The CCAMP WG does not have any non-completed charter items, and I
don't see any of it current charter items that relate to flooding
topology information for Ethernet networks. From the public
appearance of the charter, it seems that CCAMP has completed its work
and should be shutting down.
What work is currently on-going in CCAMP, and when are we expecting
to review a charter that contains those work items?
I am somewhat concerned about listing tasks for the CCAMP WG in the
TRILL charter that are not reflected in the CCAMP charter. Would it
be acceptable to work out any overlap between TRILL and future CCAMP
charter items when/if we charter the CCAMP WG to do that work?
At 5:07 PM -0400 6/16/05, W. Mark Townsley wrote:
>Including the IAB, CCAMP chairs, and Dimitri
>You're not the first who has brought up possible overlap with CCAMP.
>Taking some of the wording from your concern in your email and
>adding to it a bit after talking with Loa, I crafted this sentence
>as a proposed addition to the charter to help capture the concern:
>"It is recognized that CCAMP may be solving similar issues that
>TRILL may encounter, specifically with respect to the use of routing
>protocols (in this case OSPF-TE) to flood topology information that
>pertains to an Ethernet Network. The TRILL WG will work closely with
>the CCAMP WG to reduce duplication of effort and resolve any
>interoperability concerns that may arise due to this."
>Does this at least satisfy your concern that the potential issues
>are identified up front? Of course, it is then incumbant for the
>chairs, ADs, and folks participating in ccamp and trill to do the
>The TRILL WG will work closely with CCAMP
>IGPs to flood topology
>information that pertains to the Ethernet network. I suggest that this
>means that CCAMP and TRILL need to work together closely to ensure that
>there is no duplication of effort.
>Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> I do not oppose the creation of this WG, but I would like to draw to your
>> attention that CCAMP covers (through GMPLS) the installation of forwarding
>> state on devices within Ethernet arbitrary networks. This is (of course)
>> not limited to shortest path, but includes constrained shortest path such
>> as might be used to achieve traffic engineering within an Ethernet
>> network. CCAMP currently has a design team looking at the necessary
>> framework and deployment scenarios with the following charter:
>> Charter for the CCAMP Layer 2 Ethernet Design Team
>> GMPLS signaling and routing is applicable to Layer 2.
>> However, up to now, very little attention has been given to the
>> control of Ethernet switches using GMPLS protocols.
>> This Design Team is chartered to start the work of applying
>> GMPLS to Ethernet devices by developing a framework draft that
>> covers possible deployment scenarios, identifies the consequent
>> requirements, and highlights possible interactions with other
>> The sole objective of the Design Team is to produce this
>> framework draft which should be around 10 pages in length.
>> Solutions work is out of scope at this time.
>> The draft will be ready for discussion at the Paris IETF.
>> It is not clear to me whether there is any overlap with TRILL, but there
>> may be since both WGs are proposing to use IGPs to flood topology
>> information that pertains to the Ethernet network. I suggest that this
>> means that CCAMP and TRILL need to work together closely to ensure that
>> there is no duplication of effort.
>> PS. Lovely acronym, but is "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links"
>> really a good description of what the WG is chartered to do?
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
>> To: <IETF-Announce at ietf.org>
>> Cc: <rbridge at postel.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:52 PM
>> Subject: WG Review: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (trill)
>>>A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The
>> IESG has
>>>not made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was
>>>and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send your
>> comments to
>>>the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by June 22nd.
>>>Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (trill)
>>>Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>>>Internet Area Director(s):
>>>Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>
>>>Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>
>>>Internet Area Advisor:
>>>Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>
>>>Bill Fenner <fenner at research.att.com>
>>>General Discussion: rbridge at postel.org
>>>To Subscribe: http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>>>Description of Working Group:
>>>The TRILL WG will design a solution for shortest-path frame routing in
>>>multi-hop IEEE 802.1 Ethernet networks with arbitrary topologies,
>>>using the link-state routing protocol technology.
>>>This work will initially be based on draft-perlman-rbridge-03.txt.
>>>The design should have the following properties:
>>>- Minimal or no configuration required
>>>- Load-splitting among multiple paths
>>>- Routing loop mitigation (possibly through a TTL field)
>>>- Support of multiple points of attachment
>>>- Support for broadcast and multicast
>>>- No significant service delay after attachment
>>>- No less secure than existing bridged solutions
>>>Any changes introduced to the Ethernet service model should be
>>>analyzed and clearly documented. To ensure compatibility with IEEE
>>>VLANs and the Ethernet service model, the WG will request an IEEE
>>>liaison relationship with IEEE 802.1.
>>>It is not an explicit requirement that the solution should be able to
>>>run on existing IP routers or IEEE 802 switches as a software upgrade.
>>>However, the working group should take deployment considerations into
>>>account, to ensure that the solution can interwork with bridges in a
>>>flexible manner (e.g., to allow incremental deployment into LANs that
>>>currently use 802.1D bridges).
>>>The TRILL working will work with the L2VPN WG and IEEE 802.1 to
>>>develop interworking between TRILL and 802.1D bridges at the edge, such
>>>that a bridged sub-cloud could be attached to TRILL devices in more than
>>>one place for redundancy.
>>>The solution must not interfere with the end-to-end transparency of
>>>the Internet architecture or with end-to-end congestion control and
>>>The WG will work on the following items:
>>>(1) Develop a problem statement and architecture document that
>>>describes the high-level TRILL architecture, discusses the
>>>scalability of that architecture, describe the threat model
>>>and security impacts of the TRILL solution, and describes the
>>>expected impacts (if any) of the TRILL solution on the Ethernet
>>>(2) Define the requirements for a TRILL-capable routing protocol, and
>>>select one or more existing routing protocols that could meet
>>>(3) Work with the appropriate Routing area working group to extend an
>>>existing routing protocol to meet the TRILL working group
>>>Note: The TRILL working group is not chartered to develop a new
>>>routing protocol or to make substantial modifications to an
>>>existing routing protocol. If, during the requirements definition
>>>and selection phase, the TRILL working group discovers that no
>>>existing routing protocol will meet their needs, we will need to
>>>re-assess the TRILL WG charter to determine how/if this work
>>>(4) Produce a (set of) TRILL specification(s) for standards track
>>>publication that defines what information must be carried in an
>>>encapsulation header for data packets, and determine how to map
>>>that information to various link types (only IEEE 802 links
>>>The TRILL working group is chartered to undertake all of the above
>>>tasks and may begin work on more than one of these tasks in parallel.
>>>However, the problem statement and architecture document should be
>>>completed before the details of the base protocol are finalized, while
>>>there is still time to consider changes to the architecture without
>>>major impacts on established specifications.
>>>Goals and Milestones:
>>>Aug 05 Accept Problem statement and architecture document as a WG
>>>Aug 05 Accept base protocol specification as a WG document
>>>Oct 05 Accept routing protocol requirements as a WG work item
>>>Dec 05 Submit problem statement and architecture document to the IESG
>>>for publication as an Informational RFC
>>>Mar 06 Submit routing protocol requirements to the IESG for
>>>publication as an Informational RFC
>>>Mar 06 Choose routing protocol(s) that can meet the requirements.
>>>Apr 06 Start work with routing area WG(s) to undertake TRILL extensions.
>>>Sep 06 Base protocol specification submitted to the IESG for
>>>publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>>>Dec 06 Re-charter or shut down the WG
>>>IETF-Announce mailing list
>>>IETF-Announce at ietf.org
More information about the rbridge