TRILL Working Group                                      Donald
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                   D. Eastlake
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 Yizhou 3rd
Request for Comments: 8381                                         Y. Li
Intended status: Proposed Standard                            Weiguo
Category: Standards Track                                         W. Hao
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                   Huawei
                                                           Ayan
                                                             A. Banerjee
                                                                   Cisco
Expires: September 7, 2018                                 March 8,
                                                                May 2018

             TRILL: Vendor Specific TRILL

         Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
                Vendor-Specific RBridge Channel Protocol
                <draft-ietf-trill-vendor-channel-01.txt>

Abstract

   The IETF TRILL (TRansparent (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
   protocol is implemented by devices called TRILL switches or RBridges
   (Routing Bridges).  TRILL includes a general mechanism, called an
   RBridge Channel, for the transmission of typed messages between
   RBridges in the same campus and between RBridges and end stations on
   the same link.  This document specifies a method to send vendor vendor-
   specific messages over the RBridge Channel facility.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Distribution of this an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is unlimited. Comments should be sent
   to the TRILL working group mailing list.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
   time.  It
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8381.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is inappropriate subject to use Internet-Drafts 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 review these documents
   carefully, as reference
   material or they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to cite them other than this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as "work described in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list Section 4.e of Internet-Draft
   Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction............................................3
      1.1 Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Terminology and Acronyms...............................3 Acronyms ...................................3
   2. Vendor Channel Packet Format............................4 Format ....................................3
   3. Vendor Channel Errors...................................7
      3.1 Errors ...........................................6
      3.1. Sending an Error Response..............................8 Response ..................................7
   4. IANA Considerations....................................10 Considerations .............................................9
   5. Security Considerations................................11 Considerations .........................................9
   6. Normative References......................................12 References ...........................................10
   7. Informative References....................................12 References .........................................10
   Authors' Addresses........................................13

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel Addresses ................................................11

1.  Introduction

   The IETF TRILL (TRansparent (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
   protocol [RFC6325] [RFC7780] is implemented by devices called TRILL
   switches or RBridges (Routing Bridges).  It provides efficient least least-
   cost transparent routing in multi-hop networks with arbitrary
   topologies and link technologies, using link-state routing and a hop
   count.

   The TRILL protocol includes an RBridge Channel facility [RFC7178] to
   support typed message transmission between RBridges in the same
   campus and between RBridges and end stations on the same link.  This
   document specifies a method of sending messages specified by a
   particular organization, indicated by OUI (Organizationally Unique
   Identifier) [RFC7042] or CID (Company Identifier) [802], over the
   RBridge Channel facility.  Such organization specific organization-specific messages could,
   for example, be used for vendor specific diagnotic vendor-specific diagnostic or control
   messages.

   However, note that a range of RBridge Channel protocol numbers are
   available based on RFC publication.  Those intending to use the
   RBridge Channel facility are encouraged to document their use in a an
   RFC and to use RBridge Channel protocol numbers based on such RFC
   publication.

1.1

1.1.  Terminology and Acronyms

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   This document uses the acronyms defined in [RFC6325] supplemented by
   the following additional acronym: acronyms:

   CID - Company Identifier [802]

   FGL - Fine-Grained Labeling

   OUI - Organizationally Unique Identifier [RFC7042]

   TRILL switch - An alternative term for an RBridge

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel

2.  Vendor Channel Packet Format

   The general structure of an RBridge Channel packet on a link between
   TRILL switches (RBridges) is shown in Figure 1 below.  When an
   RBridge Channel message is sent between an RBridge and an end station
   on the same link, in either direction, it is called a Native RBridge
   Channel message and the TRILL Header (including the Inner Ethernet
   Addresses and Data Label area) is omitted as show shown in Figure 2.  The
   type of RBridge Channel packet is given by a Protocol field in the
   RBridge Channel Header that indicates how to interpret the Channel Protocol
   Specific Channel-
   Protocol-Specific Payload.  See [RFC7178].

                             Packet Structure

                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |           Link Header             |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |           TRILL Header            |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Inner Ethernet Addresses      |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Data Label (VLAN or FGL)      |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |      RBridge Channel Header       |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   | Channel Protocol Specific Channel-Protocol-Specific Payload |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |    Link Trailer (FCS if Ethernet) |
                   +-----------------------------------+

                Figure 1. 1: RBridge Channel Packet Structure

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel

                             Message Structure

                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |           Link Header             |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |      RBridge Channel Header       |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   | Channel Protocol Specific Payload |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |    Link Trailer (FCS if Ethernet) |
                   +-----------------------------------+

            Figure 2. 2: Native RBridge Channel Message Structure

   Figure 3 below expands the RBridge Channel Header and Channel
   Protocol Specific Payload above for the case of the Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific
   RBridge Channel Tunnel Protocol.  0x8946 is the Ethertype [RFC7042]
   assigned by the IEEE for the RBridge Channel protocol.

                           1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    RBridge Channel Header:
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    RBridge-Channel (0x8946)   |  0x0  | Channel Protocol= TBD | Protocol=0x008|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          Flags        |  ERR  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    RBridge Channel Protocol Specific:
                                      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                      |     Vendor ID = OUI/CID       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |OUI/CID (cont.)|     VERR      | Sub-Protocol  | Sub-Version   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |            Vendor Protocol Specific            Vendor-Protocol-Specific Data
      |
      |  ...

                Figure 3. 3: Channel Tunnel Message Structure

   The fields in Figure 3 related to the Vendor RBridge Channel Protocol
   are as follows:

      Channel Protocol:  The RBridge Channel Protocol value allocated
         for the Vendor Channel (see Section 4).

      Vendor ID: This field indicates the vendor specifying the
         particular use or uses of the Vendor Channel.  The vendor to
         whom the OUI or CID in this field has been allocated is in
         charge of specifying Vendor Channel messages using their
         identifier.  Depending on the first byte of this field as

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel
         follows:

         OUI: When the bottom two bits of the first byte of the Vendor
            ID are zero, that zero (that is, the first byte is
               0bXXXXXX00, then 0bXXXXXX00), the
            Vendor ID is an OUI.

         CID: When the bottom two bits of the first byte are a one
            followed by a zero, that zero (that is, the first byte is
               0bXXXXXX10, 0bXXXXXX10),
            the Vendor ID is a CID.

         Other: Other values of the bottom two bits of the first byte of
            the Vendor ID are invalid invalid, and a VERR of 2 MUST, MUST be returned,
            subject to possible rate limiting, be returned limiting (see Section 3).

      VERR:  Vendor Channel Error.  See Section 3.

      Sub-Protocol: Actually, the vendor specifying their use of the
         Vendor Channel can do whatever they want with the bits after
         the VERR field.  But it is strongly RECOMMENDED that they use
         the sub-protocol / sub-version fields indicated so that
         multiple and evolving uses can be specified based on a single
         OUI.

      Sub-Version: See explanation above of the Sub-Protocol field.
         This field is provided to indicate the version of the particuar
         particular vendor's Sub-Protocol.

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel

3.  Vendor Channel Errors

   The VERR field values from 0x0 through 0xF inclusive 0x0F (inclusive) and the value
   0xFF are reserved for specification by the IETF.  See Section 4.  All
   other values of VERR are available for whatever use the vendor specifies
   specifies, except that a Vendor Channel implementation MUST NOT send
   a Vendor Channel Error in response to a Vendor Channel message with a non-zero
   nonzero VERR.

   The VERR values thus far specified by the IETF are as follows:

   0.  The VERR field is zero in Vendor Channel messages unless the
       Vendor Channel packet is reporting an error.

   1.  The value one indicate indicates that the length of the RBridge Channel RBridge-Channel-
       Specific Data is less than 4 bytes.  This means that at least the
       VERR byte and possible possibly part or all of the OUI is truncated.  If
       an RBridge that implements the Vendor Channel facility receives
       such a Vendor Channel message, it MUST expand it to extend
       through the VERR field, set that field to one, and returns return the
       packet as described in Section 3.1.

   2.  The OUI/CID field value is unknown.  If an RBridge implements the
       Vendor Channel facility and receives a Vendor Channel packet with
       a zero VERR field and an OUI/CID field it does not recognize and
       the SL flag is zero in the RBridge Channel Header, it MUST set
       the VERR field to the value two and returns return the packet as
       described in Section 3.1.

   3.  The value 3 indicates that the Sub-Protocol field value is
       unknown. If an  An RBridge SHOULD set the VERR field to 3 and return
       the packet as described in Section 3.1 if it implements the
       Vendor Channel facility and it receives a Vendor Channel packet with
       meeting the following conditions:
       (a) a zero VERR field and in the RBridge Channel Header,
       (b) a zero SL flag in the RBridge Channel Header,
       (c) an OUI/CID that it implements, but and
       (d) a Sub-Protocol field value it does not recongize recognize even though
           it implements and uses the Sub-Protocol field, it
      SHOULD set the VERR field to 3 and returns the packet as described
      in Section 3.1. field.

   4.  The value 4 indicates that the Sub-Version field value is
       unknown.
      If an  An RBridge SHOULD set the VERR field to 4 and return
       the packet as described in Section 3.1 if it implements the
       Vendor RBridge Channel facility, the
      Sub-Protocol field, and the Sub-Version field facility and it receives a Vendor Channel
       packet with meeting the following conditions:
       (a) a zero VERR field and  in the RBridge Channel Header,
       (b) a zero SL flag in the RBridge Channel Header,
       (c) an OUI/CID and Sub-Protocol that it implements, but and
       (d) a Sub-Version fields field value it does not recongize, recognize even though
           it SHOULD set the VERR field to 4 implements and returns uses the packet as
      described in Section 3.1. Sub-Version field.

   Uniform error handling is generally advisable from a for the sake of
   maintenance and
   understandability point of view; understandability; however, "SHOULD" is chosen for
   errors 3 and 4 above because, as long as the messages are all

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel each message is
   distinguished by a vendor's OUI/CID, it is up to that vendor to
   decide between standard and non-standard nonstandard error handling.

3.1

3.1.  Sending an Error Response

   The IETF specified IETF-specified Vendor Channel errors are sent in response to a
   received RBridge Channel packet by setting the VERR field as
   specified above and modifying the packet as specified below.  (The
   ERR field will be zero because, if it was non-zero, were nonzero, the packet would
   have been handled at the general RBridge Channel level rather than
   being passed down to the Vendor Channel level.)

   The RBridge Channel Header is modified by setting the SL flag.  (The
   flags in the Channel Header and the semantics of the SL flag are
   specified in [RFC7178].)

   o  If an error 1 is being generated because of truncation, the
         RBridge Channel Specific
      RBridge-Channel-Specific Data area is extended to include the VERR
      byte.

   o  If a Vendor Channel message was sent between RBridges, the TRILL
      Header is modified by (1) clearing the M bit, (2) setting the
      egress nickname to the ingress nickname as received, (3) setting
      the ingress nickname to a nickname held by the TRILL switch
      sending the error packet, and (4) setting the hop count to the
      usual value on TRILL Data packets used by the TRILL switch sending
      the error packet.

   o  If a Vendor Channel message was sent between an RBridge and an end
      station in either direction, the outer MAC addresses are modified
      by (1) setting the Outer.MacDA to the Outer.MacSA as
         received, received and
      (2) setting the Outer.MacSA is set to the MAC address of the port of the
      TRILL switch or end station sending the error packet.

   o  The priority of the error response message MAY be reduced from the
      priority of the Vendor Chanel messge message causing the error, unless it
      was already minimum priority, and the Drop Eligibility Indicator
      bit MAY be set in an error response.  (See Section 4.1.1 of
      [RFC6325].)

   o  Vendor Channel error responses MAY be rate limited. rate-limited.

   It is generally anticipated that the entire packet in which an error
   was detected would be sent back, modified as above, as the protocol
   specifc
   specific payload, so that, for example, error responses could more
   easily be matched with messages sent; however, except for errors 1
   and 2, this is up to the vendor specifying how their Vendor RBridge

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel
   Channel messages are to be used.

   Note that if you receive a Vendor Channel error message with error 1,
   indicating a truncation error, you cannot trust the apparent
   "OUI/CID" in that Vendor Channel error message.

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate TBD has allocated 0x008 for the Vendor Specific Vendor-Specific RBridge Channel
   Protocol from the range of RBridge Channel protocols allocated by
   Standards Action.

   IANA is requested to establish has established a registry subregistry as follows on in the TRILL Parameters web page indented
   registry (indented under RBridge "RBridge Channel Error Codes Codes" after
   RBridge "RBridge
   Channel SubError Codes: Codes"):

   Registry: Vendor RBridge Channel Error Codes
   Registration Procedures: Standards Action
   Reference: (This document) RFC 8381

          Code      Description                     Reference
          ----      -----------                     ---------
          0x00      No error                        This document                        RFC 8381
          0x01      Message too short               This document               RFC 8381
          0x02      Unknown OUI/CID                 This document                 RFC 8381
          0x03      Unknown Sub-Protocol            This document            RFC 8381
          0x04      Unknown Sub-Version             This document             RFC 8381
         0x05-0x0F  Unassigned                      -
         0x10-0xFE  Reserved for vendor use         This document         RFC 8381
          0xFF      Reserved                        This document

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel                        RFC 8381

5.  Security Considerations

   See [RFC6325] for general TRILL Security Considerations.

   See [RFC7178] for general RBridge Channel Security Considerations.

   The Vendor Specific

   Neither the Vendor-Specific RBridge Channel Protocol provides no nor the basic
   RBridge Channel Protocol [RFC7178] provide any security assurances or
   features. (Its  (The basic RBridge Channel Protocol's first use was as an
   envelope for BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) messages [RFC7175]
   [RFC7175], which provide their own security.)  Any needed security
   can be provided by fields or processing within the Vendor
   Protocol Vendor-Protocol-
   Specific Data, which is outside the scope of this document.
   Alternatively or in addition, use of a Vendor Channel MAY be nested
   inside the RBridge Channel Header Extension Protocol [RFC7978] which [RFC7978]; this
   can provide some security services.

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel

6.  Normative References

   [802] -      IEEE Std 802-2014, 802, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
              Networks: Overview and Architecture", June 2014.
              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097, IEEE Std 802-2014.

   [RFC2119] -  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
              <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,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.

   [RFC7042] -  Eastlake 3rd, D. and J. Abley, "IANA Considerations and
              IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802
              Parameters", BCP 141, RFC 7042, DOI 10.17487/RFC7042,
              October 2013,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7042>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7042>.

   [RFC7178] -  Eastlake 3rd, D., Manral, V., Li, Y., Aldrin, S., and D.
              Ward, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
              (TRILL): RBridge Channel Support", RFC 7178,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7178, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7178>.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7178>.

   [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,
         <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7780>.

   [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>.

7.  Informative References

   [RFC7175] -  Manral, V., Eastlake 3rd, D., Ward, D., and A. Banerjee,
              "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
              Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Support", RFC
              7175, DOI 10.17487/RFC7175, May 2014, <https://www.rfc-
         editor.org/info/rfc7175>.
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7175>.

   [RFC7978] -  Eastlake 3rd, D., Umair, M., and Y. Li, "Transparent
              Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): RBridge Channel
              Header Extension", RFC 7978, DOI 10.17487/RFC7978,
              September 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7978>.

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7978>.

Authors' Addresses

   Donald E. Eastlake, Eastlake 3rd
   Huawei Technologies
   155 Beaver Street
   Milford, MA  01757 USA
   United States of America

   Phone: +1-508-333-2270
   EMail: d3e3e3@gmail.com

   Yizhou Li
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012, 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56622310
   Email: liyizhou@huawei.com

   Weiguo Hao
   Huawei Technologies
   101 Software Avenue,
   Nanjing 210012, 210012
   China

   Phone: +86-25-56623144
   Email: haoweiguo@huawei.com

   Ayan Banerjee
   Cisco

   Email: ayabaner@cisco.com

INTERNET-DRAFT                                     TRILL: Vendor Channel

Copyright, Disclaimer, and Additional IPR Provisions

   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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to 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 are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.  The definitive version of
   an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the
   IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties,
   including those that are translated into other languages, should not
   be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The
   definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions
   that are published by third parties, including those that are
   translated into other languages, should not be considered to be
   definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.  For the avoidance of
   doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each
   Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards
   Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No
   language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ
   from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under
   RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether
   published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such
   Contribution.