One document matched: draft-ietf-trill-prob-00.txt
TRILL WG J. Touch
Internet Draft USC/ISI
Expires: December 2006 R. Perlman
Sun
June 9, 2006
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
Problem and Applicability Statement
draft-ietf-trill-prob-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents 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 for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2006.
Abstract
Current Ethernet (802.1) link layers use custom routing protocols
that have a number of challenges. The routing protocols need to
strictly avoid loops, even temporary loops during route propagation,
because of the lack of header loop detection support. Routing tends
not to take full advantage of alternate paths, or even non-
overlapping pairwise paths (in the case of spanning trees). The
convergence of these routing protocols and stability under link
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
changes and failures is also of concern. This document addresses
these concerns and suggests that they are related to the need to be
able to apply network layer routing (e.g., link state or distance
vector) protocols at the link layer. This document assumes that
solutions would not address issues of scalability beyond that of
existing bridged (802.1D) links, but that a solution would be
backward compatible with 802.1D, including hubs, bridges, and their
existing plug-and-play capabilities.
This document is a work in progress; we invite you to participate on
the mailing list at http://www.postel.org/rbridge
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. The TRILL Problem..............................................3
2.1. Inefficient Paths.........................................4
2.2. Convergence Under Reconfiguration.........................5
2.3. Robustness to Link Interruption...........................6
2.4. Other Ethernet Extensions.................................6
2.5. Problems Not Addressed....................................7
3. Desired Properties of Solutions to TRILL.......................8
3.1. No Change to Link Capabilities............................8
3.2. Zero Configuration and Zero Assumption....................8
3.3. Forwarding Loop Mitigation................................9
3.4. Spanning Tree Management..................................9
3.5. Multiple Attachments.....................................10
3.6. VLAN Issues..............................................10
3.7. Equivalence..............................................10
3.8. Optimizations............................................11
3.9. Internet Architecture Issues.............................11
4. Applicability.................................................12
5. Security Considerations.......................................13
6. IANA Considerations...........................................13
7. Conclusions...................................................13
8. Acknowledgments...............................................13
8.1. Normative References.....................................13
8.2. Informative References...................................14
Author's Addresses...............................................15
Intellectual Property Statement..................................15
Disclaimer of Validity...........................................15
Copyright Statement..............................................16
Acknowledgment...................................................16
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
1. Introduction
[CAVEAT: the terms 'campus', 'rbridge, 'inside', 'internal',
'outside', and 'external' intentionally do not appear in this
document]
Conventional Ethernet networks - known in the Internet as Ethernet
link subnets - have a number of attractive features, allowing hosts
and routers to relocate within the subnet without requiring
renumbering and are automatically configuring. Unfortunately, the
basis of the simplicity of these subnets is the spanning tree, which
although simple and elegant, can have substantial limitations. In
subnets where bridges are also frequently relocated, convergence of
the spanning tree protocol can be slow. Because all traffic flows
over a single tree, all traffic is concentrated on a subset of links,
increasing susceptibility to the effects of link failures and
limiting the bandwidth across the subnet.
The alternative to an Ethernet link subnet is often a network subnet.
Network subnets can use link-state routing protocols that allow
traffic to traverse least-cost paths rather than being aggregated on
a spanning tree backbone, providing higher aggregate capacity and
more resistance to link failures. Unfortunately, IP - the dominant
network layer technology - requires that hosts be renumbered when
relocated in different network subnets, interrupting network (e.g.,
tunnels, IPsec) and transport (e.g., TCP, UDP) associations that are
in progress during the transition.
It is thus useful to consider a new approach that combines the
features of these two existing solutions, hopefully retaining the
desirable properties of each. Such an approach would develop a new
kind of bridge system that was capable of using network-style
routing, while still providing Ethernet service. It allows reuse of
well-understood network routing protocols to benefit the link layer.
This document describes the challenge of such a combined approach in
detail. This problem is known as "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links" or "TRILL". The remainder of this document makes as few
assumptions about a solution to TRILL as possible.
2. The TRILL Problem
Ethernet subnets have evolved from 'thicknet' to 'thinnet' to twisted
pair with hubs to twisted pair with switches, becoming increasingly
simple to wire and manage. Each level has corresponding topology
restrictions; thicknet is inherently linear, whereas thinnet and hub-
connected twisted pair have to be wired as a tree. Switches, added in
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
802.1D, allow network managers to avoid thinking in trees, where the
spanning tree protocol finds a valid tree automatically;
unfortunately, this additional simplicity comes with a number of
associated penalties [7].
The spanning tree often results in inefficient use of the link
topology; traffic is concentrated on the spanning tree path, and all
traffic follows that path even when other more direct paths may be
available. The spanning tree configuration is affected by even small
topology changes, and small changes can have large effects. Each of
these inefficiencies can cause problems for current link layer
deployments.
2.1. Inefficient Paths
The Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) helps break cycles in a set of
interconnected bridges, but it also can limit the bandwidth among
that set and cause traffic to take circuitous paths.
Consider the network shown in Figure 1, which shows a number of
bridges and their interconnecting links. End hosts and routers are
not shown; they would connect to the bridges that are shown, labeled
A-H. Note that the network shown has cycles which would cause packet
storms if hubs (repeaters) were used instead of STP-capable bridges.
One possible spanning tree is shown by double lines.
A
// \ C
// \ / \\ D
// \ / \\ //
B=======H===== E
\ // ||
\ // ||
\ // ||
G----------F
Figure 1 Bridged subnet with spanning tree shown
The spanning tree limits the capacity of the resulting subnet. Assume
that the links are 100 Mbps. Figure 2 shows how traffic from hosts on
A to hosts on C goes via the spanning tree path A-B-H-E-C (links
replaced with '1' in the figure); traffic from hosts on G to F go via
the spanning three path G-H-E-F (links replaced by '2' in the
figure). The link H-E is shared by both paths (alternating '1's and
'2's), resulting in an aggregate capacity for both A..C and G..F
paths of a total of 100 Mbps.
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
A
1 C
1 1
1 1
B1111111H121212E
2 2
2 2
2 2
G F
Figure 2 Traffic from A..C (1) and G..F (2) share a link
If traffic from G to F were to go directly using full routing, e.g.,
from G-F, both paths could have 100 Mbps each, and the total
aggregate capacity could be 200 Mbps (Figure 3). In this case, the H-
F link carries only A-C traffic ('1's) and the G-F traffic ('2's) is
more direct.
A
1 C
1 1
1 1
B1111111H111111E
G2222222222F
Figure 3 Traffic from A..C (1) and G..F (2) with full routing
There are a number of features of modern layer 3 routing protocols
which would be beneficial if available at layer 2, but which cannot
be integrated into the spanning tree system. Multipath routing can
distribute load simultaneously among two different paths; alternate
path routing supports rapid failover to backup paths. Layer 3 routing
typically optimizes paths between pairs of endpoints, conventionally
based on hopcount but also including bandwidth, latency, or other
policy metrics.
2.2. Convergence Under Reconfiguration
The spanning tree is dependent on the way a set of bridges are
interconnected, i.e., the link layer topology. Small changes in this
topology can cause large changes in the spanning tree. Changes in the
spanning tree can take time to propagate and converge.
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
[QUESTION: is there a good visual example of this, one that we can
walk through in the description?]
[QUESTION: What is the timescale? O(# bridges)? O(#links?), etc?]
[QUESTION: is port autolearning in this category too? i.e., are TRILL
solutions trying to hide bridge reattachment from other nodes (or is
that even necessary?)]
The spanning tree protocol is inherently global to an entire layer 2
subnet; there is no current way to contain, partition, or otherwise
factor the protocol into a number of smaller, more stable subsets
that interact as groups. Contrast this with Internet routing, which
includes both intradomain and interdomain variants, split to provide
exactly that containment and scalability within a domain while
allowing domains to interact freely independent of what happens
within a domain.
[QUESTION: anybody have a convenient reference for a proof? Are new
spanning tree protocols not considering AS-like boundaries? (just
checking)]
2.3. Robustness to Link Interruption
Persistent changes to the link topology, as described in Section 2.2,
are not the only effects on subnet stability. Transient link
interruptions have similar effects, with similar scalability issues.
It would be more useful for subnet configuration to be tolerant of
such transients, e.g., supporting alternate, backup paths.
Contrast this to network layer intradomain and interdomain routing,
both of which include provisions for backup paths. These backups
allow routing to be more stable in the presence of transients, as
well as to recover more rapidly when the transient disappears.
2.4. Other Ethernet Extensions
There have been a variety of 802.1 protocols beyond the initial
shared-media variant, including:
o 802.1D - added bridges (i.e., switches) and a spanning tree
protocol (STP) [3]
o 802.1W - extension for rapid reconvergence of the spanning tree
protocol (RTSP) [11]
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
o 802.1Q - added VLAN support, where each link address maps to one
VLAN [12]
o 802.1V - added VLANs where segments map to VLANs based on link
address together with network protocol and transport port [? Is
that correct? It says protocol and port] [13]
o 802.1S - added support for multiple spanning trees, one per VLAN
(MSTP) [14]
These variants are further complicated by different versions updated
periodically.
It is useful to note that these extensions do not address the issue
of multipath routing in a single spanning tree - which is the focus
of TRILL. This document presumes the above variants are supported on
the Ethernet subnet, i.e., that a TRILL solution would support all of
the above.
2.5. Problems Not Addressed
There are other challenges to deploying Ethernet subnets that are not
addressed in this document. These include:
o increased Ethernet link subnet scale
o increased node relocation
o Ethernet link subnet management protocol security
o flooding attacks on a Ethernet link subnet
Solutions to TRILL are not intended to support increasingly larger
scales of Ethernet link subnets than current broadcast domains can
support (e.g., around 1,000 end-hosts in a single bridged LAN of 100
bridges, or 100,000 end-hosts inside 1,000 VLANs served by 10,000
bridges).
Similarly, solutions to TRILL are not intended to address link layer
node migration, which can complicate the caches in learning bridges.
Similar challenges exist in the ARP protocol, where link layer
forwarding is not updated appropriately when nodes move to ports on
other bridges. Again, the compartmentalization available in network
routing, like that of network layer ASes, can help hide the effect of
migration. That is a side effect, however, and not a primary focus of
this work.
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
Current link control plane protocols, including Ethernet link subnet
management (STP) and link/network integration (ARP), are vulnerable
to a variety of attacks. Solutions to TRILL are not intended to
directly address these vulnerabilities. Similar attacks exist in the
data plane, e.g., source address spoofing, single address traffic
attacks, traffic snooping, and broadcast flooding. TRILL solutions do
not address any of these issues, although it is critical that they do
not introduce new vulnerabilities in the process (see Section 5).
3. Desired Properties of Solutions to TRILL
This section describes some of the desirable or required properties
of any system that would solve the TRILL problems, independent of the
details of such an architecture. Most of these are based on retaining
useful properties of bridges, or maintaining those properties while
solving the problems listed in Section 2.
3.1. No Change to Link Capabilities
There must be no change to the service that Ethernet subnets already
provide as a result of deploying a TRILL solution. Ethernet supports
unicast, broadcast, and multicast natively. Although network
protocols, notably IP, can tolerate link layers that do not provide
all three, it would be useful to retain the support already in place
[4]. Zeroconf, as well as existing bridge autoconfiguration, are
dependent on broadcast as well.
Current Ethernet ensures in-order delivery and no duplicated packets
under normal operation (excepting transients during reconfiguration).
These criteria apply in varying degrees to the different variants of
Ethernet, e.g., basic Ethernet up through basic VLAN (802.1Q) ensures
that all packets between two link addresses have both properties, but
protocol/port VLAN (802.1V) ensures this only for packets with the
same protocol and port. [JUST CHECKING - OR AM I MISREADING WHAT
802.1V DOES?]
There are subtle implications to such a requirement. Bridge
autolearning already is susceptible to moving nodes between ports,
because previously learned associations between port and link address
change. A TRILL solution could be similarly susceptible to such
changes.
3.2. Zero Configuration and Zero Assumption
Both bridges and hubs are zero configuration devices; hubs having no
configuration at all, and bridges being automatically self-
configured. Bridges are further zero-assumption devices, unlike hubs.
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
Bridges can be interconnected in arbitrary topologies, without regard
for cycles or even (inadvertent) self-attachment. STP removes the
impact of cycles automatically, and port autolearning reduces
unnecessary broadcast of unicast traffic.
A TRILL solution should strive to have similar zero configuration,
zero assumption operation. This includes having TRILL solution
components automatically discover other TRILL solution components and
organize themselves, as well as to configure that organization for
proper operation (plug-and-play). It also includes zero configuration
backward compatibility with existing bridges and hubs, which may
include interacting with some of the bridge protocols, such as STP.
VLANs add a caveat to zero configuration; a TRILL solution should
support automatic use of a default VLAN (like non-VLAN bridges), but
should require explicit configuration where the VLANS require them as
well.
Autoconfiguration extends to optional services, such as multicast
support via IGMP snooping, broadcast support via serial copy, and
supporting multiple VLANs.
3.3. Forwarding Loop Mitigation
Spanning tree avoids forwarding loops by design, even during update
(?). Solutions to TRILL are intended to use adapted network layer
routing protocols which may introduce transient loops during routing
convergence. TRILL solutions thus need support for mitigating the
effect of such routing loops.
In the Internet, loop mitigation is provided by a decrementing
hopcounts (TTL); in other networks, packets include a trace
(serialized or unioned) of visited nodes [1]. These mechanisms
(respectively) limit the impact of loops or detect them explicitly. A
mechanism with similar effect should be included in TRILL solutions.
[QUESTION: anyone have a good reference for serialized or union
traces - or better names for them?]
3.4. Spanning Tree Management
In order to address convergence under reconfiguration and robustness
to link interruption (Sections 2.2 and 2.3), participation in the STP
must be carefully managed. The goal is to provide the desired
stability of the TRILL solution and of the entire Ethernet link
subnet while not interfering with the operation of STP of the
Ethernet on which the TRILL resides. This may involve TRILL solutions
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
participating in the STP, where a more stable protocol is used for
TRILL such that the interactions between the TRILL solution and the
STP is dampened, or it may involve severing the STP into separate
STPs on 'stub' external Ethernet link subnet segments.
A requirement is that a TRILL solution must not require modifications
or exceptions to the existing spanning tree protocols (STP, MSTP).
[we need pictures here; to appear]
3.5. Multiple Attachments
[QUESTION: I'm not sure what this refers to; is it the same NIC
attached at different points to a TRIL solution? If so, why should
this be possible where it seems ignored in bridges?]
3.6. VLAN Issues
A TRILL solution should support multiple VLANs (802.1Q, 802.1V, and
802.1S). This may involve ignorance, just as many bridge devices do
not participate in the VLAN protocols. It may alternately support
direct VLAN support, e.g., by the use of separate TRILL routing
protocol instances to separate traffic for each VLAN traversing a
TRILL solution.
3.7. Equivalence
As with any extension to an existing architecture, it would be useful
- though not strictly necessary - to be able to describe or consider
a TRILL solution as a model of an existing link layer component. Such
equivalence provides a validation model for the architecture, and a
way for users to predict the effect of the use of a TRILL solution on
a deployed Ethernet. In this case, 'user' refers to users of the
Ethernet protocol, whether at the host (data segments), bridge (ST
control segments), or VLAN (VLAN control).
This provides a sanity check, i.e., "we got it right if we can
replace a TRILL solution with an X" (where "X" might be a single
bridge, a hub, or some other link layer abstraction). It does not
matter whether "X" can be implemented on the same scale as the
corresponding TRILL solution. It also does not matter if it can -
there may be utility to deploying the TRILL solution components
incrementally, in ways that a single "X" could not be installed.
For example, if TRILL solution were equivalent to a single 802.1D
bridge, it would mean that the TRILL solution would - as a whole -
participate in the STP. This need not require that TRILL solution
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
would propagate STP, any more than a bridge need do so in its on-
board control. It would mean that the solution would interact with
BPDUs at the edge, where the solution would - again, as a whole -
participate as if a single node in the spanning tree. Note that this
equivalence is not required; a solution may act as if an 802.1 hub,
or may not have a corresponding equivalent link layer component at
all.
3.8. Optimizations
There are a number of optimizations that may be applied to TRILL
solutions. These must be applied in a way that does not affect
functionality as a tradeoff for increased performance. Such
optimizations address broadcast and multicast frame distribution,
VLAN support, and snooping of ARP and IPv6 neighbor discovery.
[NOTE: need to say more here.]
3.9. Internet Architecture Issues
TRILL solutions are intended to have no impact on the Internet
network layer architecture. In particular, the Internet and higher
layer headers should remain intact when traversing a TRILL solution,
just as they do when traversing any other link subnet technologies.
This means that the IP TTL field cannot be co-opted for forwarding
loop mitigation, as it would interfere with the Internet layer
assuming that the link subnet was reachable with no changes in TTL
(Internet TTLs are changed only at routers, as per RFC 1812, and even
if IP TTL were considered, TRILL is expected to support non-IP
payloads, and so requires a separate solution anyway) [1].
TRILL solutions should also have no impact on Internet routing or
signaling, which also means that broadcast and multicast, both of
which can pervade an entire Ethernet link subnet, must be able to
transparently pervade a TRILL solution. Changing how either of these
capabilities behaves would have significant effects on a variety of
protocols, including RIP (broadcast), RIPv2 (multicast), ARP
(broadcast), IPv6 neighbor discovery (multicast), etc.
Note that snooping of network layer packets may be useful, especially
for certain optimizations. These include snooping multicast control
plane packets (IGMP) to tune link multicast to match the network
multicast topology, as is already done in existing smart switches
[2]. This also includes snooping IPv6 neighbor discovery messages to
assist with governing TRILL solution edge configuration, as is the
case in some smart learning bridges [5]. Other layers may similarly
be snooped, notably ARP packets, for similar reasons for IPv4 [9].
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
[Need a ref for the router-router 'igmp' protocol]
4. Applicability
As might be expected, TRILL solutions are intended to be used to
solve the problems described in Section 2. However, not all such
installations are appropriate environments for such solutions. This
section outlines the issues in the appropriate use of these
solutions.
TRILL solutions are intended to address problems of path efficiency
and stability within a single Ethernet link subnet. Like bridges,
individual TRILL solution components may find other TRILL solution
components within a single Ethernet link subnet and aggregate into a
single TRILL solution.
TRILL solutions are not intended to span separate Ethernet link
subnets where interconnected by network layer (e.g., router) devices,
except via link layer tunnels that are in place prior to their
deployment, where such tunnels render the distinct subnet
undetectably equivalent from a single Ethernet link subnet.
A currently open question is whether a single Ethernet link subnet
should contain only one TRILL solution instance, either of necessity
of architecture or utility. Multiple TRILL solutions, like Internet
ASes, may allow TRILL routing protocols to be partitioned in ways
that help their stability, but this may come at the price of needing
the TRILL solutions to participate more fully as nodes (each modeling
a bridge) in the Ethernet link subnet STP. Each architecture solution
should decide whether multiple TRILL solutions are supported within a
single Ethernet link subnet and mechanisms should be included to
enforce whatever decision is made.
TRILL solutions are not intended to address scalability limitations
in bridged subnets. Although there may be scale benefits of other
aspects of solving TRILL problems, e.g., of using network layer
routing to provide stability under link changes or intermittent
outages, this is not a focus of this work.
As also noted earlier, TRILL solutions are not intended to address
security vulnerabilities in either the data plane or control plane of
the link layer. This means that TRILL solutions should not limit
broadcast frames, ARP requests, or spanning tree protocol messages
(if such are interpreted by the TRILL solution or solution edge).
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
5. Security Considerations
TRILL solutions should not introduce new vulnerabilities compared to
traditional bridged subnets.
TRILL solutions are not intended to be a solution to Ethernet link
subnet vulnerabilities, including spoofing, flooding, snooping, and
attacks on the link control plane (STP, flooding the learning cache)
and link-network control plane (ARP). Although TRILL solutions are
intended to provide more stable routing than STP, this stability is
limited to performance, and the subsequent robustness is intended to
address non-malicious events.
There may be some side-effects to the use of TRILL solutions that can
provide more robust operation under certain attacks, such as those
interrupting link service, but TRILL solutions should not be relied
upon for such capabilities.
Finally, TRILL solutions should not interfere with other protocols
intended to address these vulnerabilities, such as those under
development to secure IPv6 neighbor discovery.
[need a ref for secure ipv6 nd]
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
This section should be removed by the RFC Editor prior to final
publication.
7. Conclusions
(TBA)
8. Acknowledgments
Portions of this document are based on documents that describe a
preliminary solution, and on a related network layer solution
[6][8][10].
8.1. Normative References
None.
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
8.2. Informative References
[1] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812
(Standards Track), June 1995.
[2] Cain, B., S. Deering, I. Kouvelas, B. Fenner, A. Thyagarajan,
"Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3," RFC 3376
(Proposed Standard), October 2002.
[3] IEEE 802.1d bridging standard, "IEEE 802.1d bridging standard".
[4] P. Karn (ed.), C. Bormann, G.Fairhurst, D. Grossman, R. Ludwig,
J. Mahdavi, G. Montenegro, J. Touch, L. Wood, "Advice for
Internet Subnetwork Designers," RFC-3819 / BCP 89, July 2004.
[5] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461 (Standards Track), December
1998.
[6] Perlman, R., "RBridges: Transparent Routing", Proc. Infocom
2005, March 2004.
[7] Perlman, R., "Interconnection: Bridges, Routers, Switches, and
Internetworking Protocols", Addison Wesley Chapter 3, 1999.
[8] Perlman, R., J. Touch, A. Yegin, "RBridges: Transparent
Routing," (work in progress), Apr. 2004 - May 2005.
[9] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, RFC 826
(Standard), November 1982.
[10] Touch, J., Wang, Y., Eggert, L. and G. Finn, "A Virtual
Internet Architecture", ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-570,
Presented at the Workshop on Future Directions in Network
Architecture (FDNA) 2003 at Sigcomm 2003, March 2003.
[11] 802.1W
[12] 802.1Q
[13] 802.1V
[14] 802.1S
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
Author's Addresses
Joe Touch
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151
Email: touch@isi.edu
URL: http://www.isi.edu/touch
Radia Perlman
Sun Microsystems
Email: Radia.Perlman@sun.com
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TRILL: Problem and Applicability June 2006
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Touch & Perlman Expires December 9, 2006 [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 20:26:58 |