Synonymous Flow Label Framework
draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8957.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stewart Bryant , Mach Chen , Zhenbin Li , George Swallow , Siva Sivabalan , Greg Mirsky | ||
| Last updated | 2018-01-29 | ||
| Replaces | draft-bryant-mpls-sfl-framework | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-08)
by Pete Resnick
Ready w/issues
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-08)
by Bernard Aboba
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8957 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-01
MPLS Working Group S. Bryant
Internet-Draft M. Chen
Intended status: Informational Z. Li
Expires: August 2, 2018 Huawei
G. Swallow
S. Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
G. Mirsky
Ericsson
January 29, 2018
Synonymous Flow Label Framework
draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-01
Abstract
draft-ietf-mpls-flow-ident describes the requirement for introducing
flow identities within the MPLS architecture. This document
describes a method of accomplishing this by using a technique called
Synonymous Flow Labels in which labels which mimic the behaviour of
other labels provide the identification service. These identifiers
can be used to trigger per-flow operations on the on the packet at
the receiving label switching router.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Synonymous Flow Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. User Service Traffic in the Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Applications Label Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. Setting TTL and the Traffic Class Bits . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Single Label Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Setting TTL and the Traffic Class Bits . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Aggregation of SFL Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Equal Cost Multipath Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-mpls-flow-ident] describes the requirement for introducing
flow identities within the MPLS architecture.
This document describes a method of accomplishing this by using a
technique called Synonymous Flow Labels (SFL) (see (Section 2)) in
which labels which mimic the behaviour of other labels provide the
identification service. These identifiers can be used to trigger
per-flow operations on the packet at the receiving label switching
router.
2. Requirements Language
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 BCP
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Synonymous Flow Labels
An SFL is defined to be a label that causes exactly the same
behaviour at the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) as the label it
replaces, but in addition also causes an agreed action to take place
on the packet. There are many possible additional actions such as
the measurement of the number of received packets in a flow,
triggering IPFIX inspection, triggering other types of Deep Packet
Inspection, or identification of the packet source. In, for example,
a Performance Monitoring (PM) application, the agreed action could be
the recording of the receipt of the packet by incrementing a packet
counter. This is a natural action in many MPLS implementations, and
where supported this permits the implementation of high quality
packet loss measurement without any change to the packet forwarding
system.
Consider an MPLS application such as a pseudowire (PW), and consider
that it is desired to use the approach specified in this document to
make a packet loss measurement. By some method outside the scope of
this text, two labels, synonymous with the PW labels are obtained
from the egress terminating provider edge (T-PE). By alternating
between these SFLs and using them in place of the PW label, the PW
packets may be batched for counting without any impact on the PW
forwarding behaviour (note that strictly only one SFL is needed in
this application, but that is an optimization that is a matter for
the implementor).
Now consider an MPLS application that is multi-point to point such as
a VPN. Here it is necessary to identify a packet batch from a
specific source. This is achieved by making the SFLs source
specific, so that batches from one source are marked differently from
batches from another source. The sources all operate independently
and asynchronously from each other, independently co-ordinating with
the destination. Each ingress is thus able to establish its own SFL
to identify the sub-flow and thus enable PM per flow.
Finally we need to consider the case where there is no MPLS
application label such as occurs when sending IP over an LSP. In
this case introducing an SFL that was synonymous with the LSP label
would introduce network wide forwarding state. This would not be
acceptable for scaling reasons. We therefore have no choice but to
introduce an additional label. Where penultimate hop popping (PHP)
is in use, the semantics of this additional label can be similar to
the LSP label. Where PHP is not in use, the semantics are similar to
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
an MPLS explicit NULL. In both of these cases the label has the
additional semantics of the SFL.
Note that to achieve the goals set out in Section 1 SFLs need to be
allocated from the platform label table.
4. User Service Traffic in the Data Plane
As noted in Section 3 it is necessary to consider two cases:
1. Applications label present
2. Single label stack
4.1. Applications Label Present
Figure 1 shows the case in which both an LSP label and an application
label are present in the MPLS label stack. Traffic with no SFL
function present runs over the "normal" stack, and SFL enabled flows
run over the SFL stack with the SFL used to indicate the packet
batch.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| LSP | | LSP | <May be PHPed
| Label | | Label |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| Application | | Synonymous Flow |
| Label | | Label |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| | | |
| Payload | | Payload |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
"Normal" Label Stack Label Stack with SFL
Figure 1: Use of Synonymous Labels In A Two Label MPLS Label Stack
At the egress LSR the LSP label is popped (if present). Then the SFL
is processed in exactly the same way as the corresponding application
label would have been processed.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
4.1.1. Setting TTL and the Traffic Class Bits
The TTL and the Traffic Class bits [RFC5462] in the SFL LSE would
normally be set to the same value as would have been set in the label
that the SFL is synonymous with. However it is recognised that there
may be an applications need to set the SFL to some other value. An
example would be where it was desired to cause the SFL to trigger an
action in the TTL expiry exception path as part of the label action.
4.2. Single Label Stack
Figure 2 shows the case in which only an LSP label is present in the
MPLS label stack. Traffic with no SFL function present runs over the
"normal" stack and SFL enabled flows run over the SFL stack with the
SFL used to indicate the packet batch. However in this case it is
necessary for the ingress LSR to first push the SFL and then to push
the LSP label.
+-----------------+
| |
| LSP | <= May be PHPed
| Label |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | | <= Synonymous with
| LSP | | Synonymous Flow | Explicit NULL
| Label | | Label |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| | | |
| Payload | | Payload |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
"Normal" Label Stack Label Stack with SFL
Figure 2: Use of Synonymous Labels In A Single Label MPLS Label Stack
At the receiving LSR it is necessary to consider two cases:
1. Where the LSP label is still present
2. Where the LSP label is penultimate hop popped
If the LSP label is present, it processed exactly as it would
normally processed and then it is popped. This reveals the SFL which
in the case of [RFC6374] measurements is simply counted and then
discarded. In this respect the processing of the SFL is synonymous
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
with an Explicit NULL. As the SFL is the bottom of stack, the IP
packet that follows is processed as normal.
If the LSP label is not present due to PHP action in the upstream
LSR, two almost equivalent processing actions can take place. Either
the SFL can be treated as an LSP label that was not PHPed and the
additional associated SFL action is taken when the label is
processed. Alternatively, it can be treated as an explicit NULL with
associated SFL actions. From the perspective of the measurement
system described in this document the behaviour of two approaches are
indistinguishable and thus either may be implemented.
4.2.1. Setting TTL and the Traffic Class Bits
The TTL and the Traffic Class considerations described in
Section 4.1.1 apply.
4.3. Aggregation of SFL Actions
There are cases where it is desirable to aggregate an SFL action
against a number of labels. For example where it is desirable to
have one counter record the number of packets received over a group
of application labels, or where the number of labels used by a single
application is large, and consequently the increase in the number of
allocated labels needed to support the SFL actions consequently
becomes too large to be viable. In these circumstances it would be
necessary to introduce an additional label in the stack to act as an
aggregate instruction. This is not strictly a synonymous action in
that the SFL is not replacing a existing label, but is somewhat
similar to the single label case shown in Section 4.2, and the same
signalling, management and configuration tools would be applicable.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
+-----------------+
| |
| LSP | < May be PHPed
| Label |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| LSP | | Aggregate |
| Label | | SFL |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| Application | | Application |
| Label | | Label |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| | | |
| Payload | | Payload |
| | | |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+
"Normal" Label Stack Label Stack with SFL
Figure 3: Aggregate SFL Actions
The Aggregate SFL is shown in the label stack depicted in Figure 3 as
preceding the application label, however the choice of position
before, or after, the application label will be application specific.
In the case described in Section 4.1, by definition the SFL has the
full application context. In this case the positioning will depend
on whether the SFL action needs the full context of the application
to perform its action and whether the complexity of the application
will be increased by finding an SFL following the application label.
5. Equal Cost Multipath Considerations
The introduction to an SFL to an existing flow may cause that flow to
take a different path through the network under conditions of Equal
Cost Multipath (ECMP). This is turn may invalidate the certain uses
of the SFL such as performance measurement applications. Where this
is a problem there are two solutions worthy of consideration:
1. The operator can elect to always run with the SFL in place in the
MPLS label stack.
2. The operator can elect to use [RFC6790] Entropy Labels in a
network that fully supports this type of ECMP. If this approach
is adopted, the intervening MPLS network MUST NOT load balance on
any packet field other than the entropy label. Note that this is
stricter than the text in Section 4.2 of [RFC6790]. In networks
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
in which the ECMP decision is independent of both the value of
any other label in the label stack, and the MPLS payload, the
path of the flow with the SFL will be congruent with the path
without the SFL.
6. Privacy Considerations
Recent IETF concerns on pervasive monitoring are described in
[RFC7258]. The inclusion of originating and/or flow information in a
packet provides more identity information and hence potentially
degrades the privacy of the communication. Whilst the inclusion of
the additional granularity does allow greater insight into the flow
characteristics it does not specifically identify which node
originated the packet other than by inspection of the network at the
point of ingress, or inspection of the control protocol packets.
This privacy threat may be mitigated by encrypting the control
protocol packets, regularly changing the synonymous labels and by
concurrently using a number of such labels. Minimizing the scope of
the identity indication can be useful in minimizing the observability
of the flow characteristics.
7. Security Considerations
The issue noted in Section 6 is a security consideration. There are
no other new security issues associated with the MPLS dataplane. Any
control protocol used to request SFLs will need to ensure the
legitimacy of the request.
8. IANA Considerations
This draft makes no IANA requests.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-flow-ident]
Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G.
Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations", draft-
ietf-mpls-flow-ident-06 (work in progress), December 2017.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7258] Farrell, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Pervasive Monitoring Is an
Attack", BCP 188, RFC 7258, DOI 10.17487/RFC7258, May
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258>.
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Huawei
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Mach Chen
Huawei
Email: mach.chen@huawei.com
Zhenbin Li
Huawei
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS FI January 2018
George Swallow
Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems
Email: msiva@cisco.com
Gregory Mirsky
Ericsson
Email: gregory.mirsky@eicsson.com
| not_a_ztp_offer | 21| 8.0| | Indicates |
| | | | | that the |
| | | | | level on the |
| | | | | LIE must not |
| | | | | be used to |
| | | | | derive a ZTP |
| | | | | level by the |
| | | | | receiving |
| | | | | node. |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------+
| you_are_flood_repeater | 22| 8.0| | Indicates to |
| | | | | northbound |
| | | | | neighbor that |
| | | | | it should be |
| | | | | reflooding |
| | | | | TIEs received |
| | | | | from this |
| | | | | node to |
| | | | | achieve flood |
| | | | | reduction and |
| | | | | balancing for |
| | | | | northbound |
| | | | | flooding. |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------+
| you_are_sending_too_quickly | 23| 8.0| | Indicates to |
| | | | | neighbor to |
| | | | | flood node |
| | | | | TIEs only and |
| | | | | slow down all |
| | | | | other TIEs. |
| | | | | Ignored when |
| | | | | received from |
| | | | | southbound |
| | | | | neighbor. |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------+
| instance_name | 24| 8.0| | Instance name |
| | | | | in case |
| | | | | multiple RIFT |
| | | | | instances |
| | | | | running on |
| | | | | same |
| | | | | interface. |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------+
| fabric_id | 35| 8.0| | It provides |
| | | | | the optional |
| | | | | ID of the |
| | | | | Fabric |
| | | | | configured. |
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 149]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
| | | | | This MUST |
| | | | | match the |
| | | | | information |
| | | | | advertised on |
| | | | | the node |
| | | | | element. |
+-----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------+
Table 39
10.2.18. Registry RIFT/encoding/LinkCapabilities
The name of the registry should be EncodingLinkCapabilities.
Link capabilities.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 40
+=========================+=====+=========+=========+==============+
| Name |Value| Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+=========================+=====+=========+=========+==============+
| bfd | 1| 8.0 | | Indicates |
| | | | | that the |
| | | | | link is |
| | | | | supporting |
| | | | | BFD. |
+-------------------------+-----+---------+---------+--------------+
| ipv4_forwarding_capable | 2| 8.0 | | Indicates |
| | | | | whether the |
| | | | | interface |
| | | | | will support |
| | | | | IPv4 |
| | | | | forwarding. |
+-------------------------+-----+---------+---------+--------------+
Table 41
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 150]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
10.2.19. Registry RIFT/encoding/LinkIDPair
The name of the registry should be EncodingLinkIDPair.
LinkID pair describes one of parallel links between two nodes.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 42
+============================+=====+=======+=========+==============+
| Name |Value| Min.| Max. | Description |
| | | Schema| Schema | |
| | |Version| Version | |
+============================+=====+=======+=========+==============+
| local_id | 1| 8.0| | Node-wide |
| | | | | unique |
| | | | | value for |
| | | | | the local |
| | | | | link. |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
| remote_id | 2| 8.0| | Received |
| | | | | remote link |
| | | | | ID for this |
| | | | | link. |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
| platform_interface_index | 10| 8.0| | Describes |
| | | | | the local |
| | | | | interface |
| | | | | index of |
| | | | | the link. |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
| platform_interface_name | 11| 8.0| | Describes |
| | | | | the local |
| | | | | interface |
| | | | | name. |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
| trusted_outer_security_key | 12| 8.0| | Indicates |
| | | | | whether the |
| | | | | link is |
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 151]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
| | | | | secured, |
| | | | | i.e. |
| | | | | protected |
| | | | | by outer |
| | | | | key, |
| | | | | absence of |
| | | | | this |
| | | | | element |
| | | | | means no |
| | | | | indication, |
| | | | | undefined |
| | | | | outer key |
| | | | | means not |
| | | | | secured. |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
| bfd_up | 13| 8.0| | Indicates |
| | | | | whether the |
| | | | | link is |
| | | | | protected |
| | | | | by |
| | | | | established |
| | | | | BFD |
| | | | | session. |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
| address_families | 14| 8.0| | Optional |
| | | | | indication |
| | | | | which |
| | | | | address |
| | | | | families |
| | | | | are up on |
| | | | | the |
| | | | | interface |
+----------------------------+-----+-------+---------+--------------+
Table 43
10.2.20. Registry RIFT/encoding/Neighbor
The name of the registry should be EncodingNeighbor.
Neighbor structure.
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 152]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 44
+============+=======+=============+=============+=================+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+============+=======+=============+=============+=================+
| originator | 1 | 8.0 | | System ID of |
| | | | | the originator. |
+------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
| remote_id | 2 | 8.0 | | ID of remote |
| | | | | side of the |
| | | | | link. |
+------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-----------------+
Table 45
10.2.21. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeCapabilities
The name of the registry should be EncodingNodeCapabilities.
Capabilities the node supports.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 46
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 153]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+========================+=====+=========+=========+================+
| Name |Value| Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+========================+=====+=========+=========+================+
| protocol_minor_version | 1| 8.0 | | Must |
| | | | | advertise |
| | | | | supported |
| | | | | minor version |
| | | | | dialect that |
| | | | | way. |
+------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------------+
| flood_reduction | 2| 8.0 | | indicates |
| | | | | that node |
| | | | | supports |
| | | | | flood |
| | | | | reduction. |
+------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------------+
| hierarchy_indications | 3| 8.0 | | indicates |
| | | | | place in |
| | | | | hierarchy, |
| | | | | i.e. top-of- |
| | | | | fabric or |
| | | | | leaf only (in |
| | | | | ZTP) or |
| | | | | support for |
| | | | | leaf-2-leaf |
| | | | | procedures. |
+------------------------+-----+---------+---------+----------------+
Table 47
10.2.22. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeFlags
The name of the registry should be EncodingNodeFlags.
Indication flags of the node.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 48
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 154]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+==========+=======+=========+=========+===========================+
| Name | Value | Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+==========+=======+=========+=========+===========================+
| overload | 1 | 8.0 | | Indicates that node is in |
| | | | | overload, do not transit |
| | | | | traffic through it. |
+----------+-------+---------+---------+---------------------------+
Table 49
10.2.23. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeNeighborsTIEElement
The name of the registry should be EncodingNodeNeighborsTIEElement.
neighbor of a node
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 50
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 155]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+===========+=======+=========+=========+==========================+
| Name | Value | Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+===========+=======+=========+=========+==========================+
| level | 1 | 8.0 | | level of neighbor |
+-----------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------------+
| cost | 3 | 8.0 | | Cost to neighbor. |
| | | | | Ignore anything larger |
| | | | | than `infinite_distance` |
| | | | | and `invalid_distance` |
+-----------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------------+
| link_ids | 4 | 8.0 | | can carry description of |
| | | | | multiple parallel links |
| | | | | in a TIE |
+-----------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------------+
| bandwidth | 5 | 8.0 | | total bandwith to |
| | | | | neighbor as sum of all |
| | | | | parallel links |
+-----------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------------+
Table 51
10.2.24. Registry RIFT/encoding/NodeTIEElement
The name of the registry should be EncodingNodeTIEElement.
Description of a node.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 52
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 156]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+=================+=======+=========+=========+====================+
| Name | Value | Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+=================+=======+=========+=========+====================+
| level | 1 | 8.0 | | Level of the node. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| neighbors | 2 | 8.0 | | Node's neighbors. |
| | | | | Multiple node TIEs |
| | | | | can carry disjoint |
| | | | | sets of neighbors. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| capabilities | 3 | 8.0 | | Capabilities of |
| | | | | the node. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| flags | 4 | 8.0 | | Flags of the node. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| name | 5 | 8.0 | | Optional node name |
| | | | | for easier |
| | | | | operations. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| pod | 6 | 8.0 | | PoD to which the |
| | | | | node belongs. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| startup_time | 7 | 8.0 | | optional startup |
| | | | | time of the node |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| miscabled_links | 10 | 8.0 | | If any local links |
| | | | | are miscabled, |
| | | | | this indication is |
| | | | | flooded. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| same_plane_tofs | 12 | 8.0 | | ToFs in the same |
| | | | | plane. Only |
| | | | | carried by ToF. |
| | | | | Multiple Node TIEs |
| | | | | can carry disjoint |
| | | | | sets of ToFs which |
| | | | | MUST be joined to |
| | | | | form a single set. |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
| fabric_id | 20 | 8.0 | | It provides the |
| | | | | optional ID of the |
| | | | | Fabric configured |
+-----------------+-------+---------+---------+--------------------+
Table 53
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 157]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
10.2.25. Registry RIFT/encoding/PacketContent
The name of the registry should be EncodingPacketContent.
Content of a RIFT packet.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 54
+======+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema Version | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | | Version | |
+======+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| lie | 1 | 8.0 | | |
+------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
| tide | 2 | 8.0 | | |
+------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
| tire | 3 | 8.0 | | |
+------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
| tie | 4 | 8.0 | | |
+------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
Table 55
10.2.26. Registry RIFT/encoding/PacketHeader
The name of the registry should be EncodingPacketHeader.
Common RIFT packet header.
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 158]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 56
+===============+=======+=========+=========+===================+
| Name | Value | Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+===============+=======+=========+=========+===================+
| major_version | 1 | 8.0 | | Major version of |
| | | | | protocol. |
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| minor_version | 2 | 8.0 | | Minor version of |
| | | | | protocol. |
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| sender | 3 | 8.0 | | Node sending the |
| | | | | packet, in case |
| | | | | of LIE/TIRE/TIDE |
| | | | | also the |
| | | | | originator of it. |
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| level | 4 | 8.0 | | Level of the node |
| | | | | sending the |
| | | | | packet, required |
| | | | | on everything |
| | | | | except LIEs. |
| | | | | Lack of presence |
| | | | | on LIEs indicates |
| | | | | UNDEFINED_LEVEL |
| | | | | and is used in |
| | | | | ZTP procedures. |
+---------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
Table 57
10.2.27. Registry RIFT/encoding/PrefixAttributes
The name of the registry should be EncodingPrefixAttributes.
Attributes of a prefix.
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 159]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 58
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 160]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+===================+=======+=========+=========+===================+
| Name | Value | Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+===================+=======+=========+=========+===================+
| metric | 2 | 8.0 | | Distance of the |
| | | | | prefix. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| tags | 3 | 8.0 | | Generic |
| | | | | unordered set of |
| | | | | route tags, can |
| | | | | be redistributed |
| | | | | to other |
| | | | | protocols or use |
| | | | | within the |
| | | | | context of real |
| | | | | time analytics. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| monotonic_clock | 4 | 8.0 | | Monotonic clock |
| | | | | for mobile |
| | | | | addresses. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| loopback | 6 | 8.0 | | Indicates if the |
| | | | | prefix is a node |
| | | | | loopback. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| directly_attached | 7 | 8.0 | | Indicates that |
| | | | | the prefix is |
| | | | | directly |
| | | | | attached. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| from_link | 10 | 8.0 | | link to which |
| | | | | the address |
| | | | | belongs to. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
| label | 12 | 8.0 | | Optional, per |
| | | | | prefix |
| | | | | significant |
| | | | | label. |
+-------------------+-------+---------+---------+-------------------+
Table 59
10.2.28. Registry RIFT/encoding/PrefixTIEElement
The name of the registry should be EncodingPrefixTIEElement.
TIE carrying prefixes
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 161]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 60
+==========+=======+=============+=============+================+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+==========+=======+=============+=============+================+
| prefixes | 1 | 8.0 | | Prefixes with |
| | | | | the associated |
| | | | | attributes. |
+----------+-------+-------------+-------------+----------------+
Table 61
10.2.29. Registry RIFT/encoding/ProtocolPacket
The name of the registry should be EncodingProtocolPacket.
RIFT packet structure.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 62
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 162]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+=========+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+=========+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| header | 1 | 8.0 | | |
+---------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
| content | 2 | 8.0 | | |
+---------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
Table 63
10.2.30. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIDEPacket
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIDEPacket.
TIDE with *sorted* TIE headers.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 64
+=============+=======+=============+=============+===============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+=============+=======+=============+=============+===============+
| start_range | 1 | 8.0 | | First TIE |
| | | | | header in the |
| | | | | tide packet. |
+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| end_range | 2 | 8.0 | | Last TIE |
| | | | | header in the |
| | | | | tide packet. |
+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
| headers | 3 | 8.0 | | _Sorted_ list |
| | | | | of headers. |
+-------------+-------+-------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 65
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 163]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
10.2.31. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEElement
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIEElement.
Single element in a TIE.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 66
+=========================================+=====+=======+=======+=================================+
|Name |Value| Min.| Max.|Description |
| | | Schema| Schema| |
| | |Version|Version| |
+=========================================+=====+=======+=======+=================================+
|node | 1| 8.0| | Used in case of enum|
| | | | | common.TIETypeType.NodeTIEType.|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
|prefixes | 2| 8.0| | Used in case of enum|
| | | | |common.TIETypeType.PrefixTIEType.|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
|positive_disaggregation_prefixes | 3| 8.0| | Positive prefixes (always|
| | | | | southbound).|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
|negative_disaggregation_prefixes | 5| 8.0| | Transitive, negative prefixes|
| | | | | (always southbound)|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
|external_prefixes | 6| 8.0| | Externally reimported prefixes.|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
|positive_external_disaggregation_prefixes| 7| 8.0| | Positive external disaggregated|
| | | | | prefixes (always southbound).|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
|keyvalues | 9| 8.0| | Key-Value store elements.|
+-----------------------------------------+-----+-------+-------+---------------------------------+
Table 67
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 164]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
10.2.32. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEHeader
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIEHeader.
Header of a TIE.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 68
+======================+=======+=========+=========+================+
| Name | Value | Min. | Max. | Description |
| | | Schema | Schema | |
| | | Version | Version | |
+======================+=======+=========+=========+================+
| tieid | 2 | 8.0 | | ID of the |
| | | | | tie. |
+----------------------+-------+---------+---------+----------------+
| seq_nr | 3 | 8.0 | | Sequence |
| | | | | number of |
| | | | | the tie. |
+----------------------+-------+---------+---------+----------------+
| origination_time | 10 | 8.0 | | Absolute |
| | | | | timestamp |
| | | | | when the |
| | | | | TIE was |
| | | | | generated. |
+----------------------+-------+---------+---------+----------------+
| origination_lifetime | 12 | 8.0 | | Original |
| | | | | lifetime |
| | | | | when the |
| | | | | TIE was |
| | | | | generated. |
+----------------------+-------+---------+---------+----------------+
Table 69
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 165]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
10.2.33. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEHeaderWithLifeTime
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIEHeaderWithLifeTime.
Header of a TIE as described in TIRE/TIDE.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 70
+====================+=======+=============+=========+=============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. | Description |
| | | Version | Schema | |
| | | | Version | |
+====================+=======+=============+=========+=============+
| header | 1 | 8.0 | | |
+--------------------+-------+-------------+---------+-------------+
| remaining_lifetime | 2 | 8.0 | | Remaining |
| | | | | lifetime. |
+--------------------+-------+-------------+---------+-------------+
Table 71
10.2.34. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEID
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIEID.
Unique ID of a TIE.
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 72
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 166]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
+============+=======+=============+=============+=============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+============+=======+=============+=============+=============+
| direction | 1 | 8.0 | | direction |
| | | | | of TIE |
+------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| originator | 2 | 8.0 | | indicates |
| | | | | originator |
| | | | | of the TIE |
+------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| tietype | 3 | 8.0 | | type of the |
| | | | | tie |
+------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| tie_nr | 4 | 8.0 | | number of |
| | | | | the tie |
+------------+-------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Table 73
10.2.35. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIEPacket
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIEPacket.
TIE packet
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 74
+=========+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+=========+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| header | 1 | 8.0 | | |
+---------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
| element | 2 | 8.0 | | |
+---------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
Table 75
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 167]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
10.2.36. Registry RIFT/encoding/TIREPacket
The name of the registry should be EncodingTIREPacket.
TIRE packet
+=============================+========================+
| Schema Range | Registration Procedure |
+=============================+========================+
| Major or Minor Change per | Expert Review |
| Rules in section Appendix B | |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
| All Other Assignments | Specification Required |
+-----------------------------+------------------------+
Table 76
+=========+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| Name | Value | Min. Schema | Max. Schema | Description |
| | | Version | Version | |
+=========+=======+=====================+=============+=============+
| headers | 1 | 8.0 | | |
+---------+-------+---------------------+-------------+-------------+
Table 77
11. Acknowledgments
A new routing protocol in its complexity is not a product of a parent
but of a village as the author list shows already. However, many
more people provided input, fine-combed the specification based on
their experience in design, implementation or application of
protocols in IP fabrics. This section will make an inadequate
attempt in recording their contribution.
Many thanks to Naiming Shen for some of the early discussions around
the topic of using IGPs for routing in topologies related to Clos.
Russ White to be especially acknowledged for the key conversation on
epistemology that allowed to tie current asynchronous distributed
systems theory results to a modern protocol design presented in this
scope. Adrian Farrel, Joel Halpern, Jeffrey Zhang, Krzysztof
Szarkowicz, Nagendra Kumar, Melchior Aelmans, Kaushal Tank, Will
Jones, Moin Ahmed, Sandy Zhang, Donald Eastlake provided thoughtful
comments that improved the readability of the document and found good
amount of corners where the light failed to shine. Kris Price was
first to mention single router, single arm default considerations.
Jeff Tantsura helped out with some initial thoughts on BFD
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 168]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
interactions while Jeff Haas corrected several misconceptions about
BFD's finer points and helped to improve the security section around
leaf considerations. Artur Makutunowicz pointed out many possible
improvements and acted as sounding board in regard to modern protocol
implementation techniques RIFT is exploring. Barak Gafni formalized
first time clearly the problem of partitioned spine and fallen leaves
on a (clean) napkin in Singapore that led to the very important part
of the specification centered around multiple ToF planes and negative
disaggregation. Igor Gashinsky and others shared many thoughts on
problems encountered in design and operation of large-scale data
center fabrics. Xu Benchong found a delicate error in the flooding
procedures and a schema datatype size mismatch.
Last but not least, Alvaro Retana, John Scudder and Andrew Alaton
guided the undertaking as ADs by asking many necessary procedural and
technical questions which did not only improve the content but did
also lay out the track towards publication.
12. Contributors
This work is a product of a list of individuals which are all to be
considered major contributors independent of the fact whether their
name made it to the limited boilerplate author's list or not.
+======================+===+==================+===+================+
+======================+===+==================+===+================+
| Tony Przygienda, Ed. | | | | | | Pascal Thubert |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Juniper | | | | | | Cisco |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Bruno Rijsman | | | Jordan Head, Ed. | | | Dmitry |
| | | | | Afanasiev |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Individual | | | Juniper | | | Yandex |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Don Fedyk | | | Alia Atlas | | | John Drake |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Individual | | | Individual | | | Individual |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Ilya Vershkov | | | | | | | | |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
| Mellanox | | | | | | | | |
+----------------------+---+------------------+---+----------------+
Table 78: RIFT Authors
13. References
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 169]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
13.1. Normative References
[EUI64] IEEE, "Guidelines for Use of Extended Unique Identifier
(EUI), Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI), and
Company ID (CID)", IEEE EUI,
<http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/tut/eui.pdf>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", BCP 23,
RFC 2365, DOI 10.17487/RFC2365, July 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2365>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC5120] Przygienda, T., Shen, N., and N. Sheth, "M-ISIS: Multi
Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to
Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)", RFC 5120,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5120, February 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5120>.
[RFC5709] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
[RFC5881] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)", RFC 5881,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5881, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5881>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 170]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
[RFC7987] Ginsberg, L., Wells, P., Decraene, B., Przygienda, T., and
H. Gredler, "IS-IS Minimum Remaining Lifetime", RFC 7987,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7987, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7987>.
[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>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC8202] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and W. Henderickx, "IS-IS
Multi-Instance", RFC 8202, DOI 10.17487/RFC8202, June
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8202>.
[RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C.
Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power
Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor
Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>.
[RFC9300] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos, Ed., "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", RFC 9300, DOI 10.17487/RFC9300, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9300>.
[RFC9301] Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
Ed., "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control
Plane", RFC 9301, DOI 10.17487/RFC9301, October 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9301>.
[thrift] Apache Software Foundation, "Thrift Language
Implementation and Documentation",
<https://github.com/apache/thrift/tree/0.15.0/doc>.
13.2. Informative References
[APPLICABILITY]
Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Afanasiev, D., Thubert, P., and T.
Przygienda, "RIFT Applicability", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rift-applicability-12, 25
December 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-rift-applicability-12>.
Przygienda, et al. Expires 3 October 2024 [Page 171]
Internet-Draft RIFT April 2024
[CLOS] Yuan, X., "On Nonblocking Folded-Clos Networks in Computer
Communication Environments", IEEE International Parallel &
Distributed Processing Symposium, 2011.
[DayOne] Aelmans, M., Vandezande, O., Rijsman, B., Head, J., Graf,
C., Alberro, L., Mali, H., and O. Steudler, "Day One:
Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT)", Juniper DayOne .
[DIJKSTRA] Dijkstra, E. W., "A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with
Graphs", Journal Numer. Math. , 1959.
[DYNAMO] De Candia et al., G., "Dynamo: amazon's highly available
key-value store", ACM SIGOPS symposium on Operating
systems principles (SOSP '07), 2007.
[EPPSTEIN] Eppstein, D., "Finding the k-Shortest Paths", 1997.
[FATTREE] Leiserson, C. E., "Fat-Trees: Universal Networks for
Hardware-Efficient Supercomputing", 1985.
[IEEEstd1588]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization
Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems",
IEEE Standard 1588,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4579760/>.
[IEEEstd8021AS]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks - Timing and Synchronization for Time-Sensitive
Applications in Bridged Local Area Networks",
IEEE Standard 802.1AS,
Bryant, et al. Expires August 2, 2018 [Page 10]