@misc{rfc8243,
    series =    {Request for Comments},
    number =    8243,
    howpublished =  {RFC 8243},
    publisher = {RFC Editor},
    doi =       {10.17487/RFC8243},
    url =       {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8243},
    author =    {Radia Perlman and Donald E. Eastlake 3rd and Mingui Zhang and Anoop Ghanwani and Hongjun Zhai},
    title =     {{Alternatives for Multilevel Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL)}},
    pagetotal = 29,
    year =      2017,
    month =     sep,
    abstract =  {Although TRILL is based on IS-IS, which supports multilevel unicast routing, extending TRILL to multiple levels has challenges that are not addressed by the already-existing capabilities of IS-IS. One issue is with the handling of multi-destination packet distribution trees. Other issues are with TRILL switch nicknames. How are such nicknames allocated across a multilevel TRILL network? Do nicknames need to be unique across an entire multilevel TRILL network? Or can they merely be unique within each multilevel area? This informational document enumerates and examines alternatives based on a number of factors including backward compatibility, simplicity, and scalability; it makes recommendations in some cases.},
}