💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc8249.gmi captured on 2022-07-17 at 00:05:45. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-06-12)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Updates:
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Zhang
Request for Comments: 8249 X. Zhang
Updates: 6325, 7177, 7780 D. Eastlake 3rd
Category: Standards Track Huawei
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Perlman
Dell EMC
S. Chatterjee
Cisco
September 2017
Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
MTU Negotiation
Abstract
The base IETF TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links)
protocol has a TRILL campus-wide MTU feature, specified in RFCs 6325
and 7177, that assures that link-state changes can be successfully
flooded throughout the campus while being able to take advantage of a
campus-wide capability to support jumbo packets. This document
specifies recommended updates to that MTU feature to take advantage,
for appropriate link-local packets, of link-local MTUs that exceed
the TRILL campus MTU. In addition, it specifies an efficient
algorithm for local MTU testing. This document updates RFCs 6325,
7177, and 7780.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for 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 this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8249.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(https://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 ....................................................3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size ........................................4
2.1. Operations .................................................5
3. Testing Link MTU Size ...........................................6
4. Refreshing Sz ...................................................8
5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz, and Sz .......................9
6. LSP Synchronization ............................................10
7. Recommendations for Traffic Link Testing of MTU Size ...........10
8. Backward Compatibility .........................................11
9. Security Considerations ........................................11
10. Additions to Configuration ....................................12
10.1. Per-RBridge Configuration ................................12
10.2. Per-RBridge Port Configuration ...........................12
11. IANA Considerations ...........................................12
12. References ....................................................12
12.1. Normative References .....................................12
12.2. Informative References ...................................14
Acknowledgements ..................................................14
Authors' Addresses ................................................14
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
1. Introduction
[RFC6325] describes the way RBridges agree on the campus-wide minimum
acceptable inter-RBridge MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size (called
"Sz") to ensure that link-state flooding operates properly and all
RBridges converge to the same link state. For the proper operation
of TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) IS-IS, all
RBridges format their Link State Protocol Data Units (LSPs) to fit
in Sz.
[RFC7177] diagrams the state transitions of an adjacency. If MTU
testing is enabled, "Link MTU size is successfully tested" is part of
an event (event A6) causing the transition from the "2-Way" state
[RFC7177] to the "Report" state for an adjacency. This means that
the link MTU testing of size x succeeds, and x is greater than or
equal to Sz [RFC6325]. If this link cannot support an MTU of Sz, it
will not be reported as part of the campus topology.
In this document, a new RECOMMENDED link-wide minimum inter-RBridge
MTU size, "Lz", is specified. As further discussed in Section 2, by
calculating and using Lz as specified herein, link-scoped Protocol
Data Units (PDUs) can be formatted greater than Sz, up to the
link-wide minimum acceptable inter-RBridge MTU size, potentially
improving the efficiency of link utilization and speeding link-state
convergence.
An optional TRILL MTU size-testing algorithm is specified in
Section 3 as an efficient method to update the old MTU testing method
described in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325] and in [RFC7177]. The new
MTU size-testing method specified in this document is backward
compatible with the old one. Multicasting the MTU-probes is
recommended when there are multiple RBridges on a link responding to
the probing with an MTU-ack [RFC7177]. The testing method and rules
of this document are devised in a way that minimizes the number of
MTU-probes for testing, therefore reducing the number of multicast
packets for MTU testing.
This document updates RFCs 6325, 7177, and 7780. The update to
[RFC6325] and [RFC7177] is specified in Section 3. The update to
[RFC7780] is specified in Section 4.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
2. Link-Wide TRILL MTU Size
This document specifies a new value "Lz" for the minimum acceptable
inter-RBridge link MTU size on a local link. Link-wide Lz is the
minimum Lz supported and agreed upon amongst all RBridges on a
specific link. If the link is usable, Lz will be greater than or
equal to Sz.
Some TRILL IS-IS PDUs are exchanged only between neighbors instead of
throughout the whole campus. They are confined by the link-wide Lz
instead of Sz. Complete Sequence Number PDUs (CSNPs) and Partial
Sequence Number PDUs (PSNPs) are examples of such PDUs. These PDUs
are exchanged only on the local link. (While TRILL IS-IS Hellos are
also link local, they are always limited to 1470 bytes for
robustness.)
[RFC7356] defines the PDUs that support flooding scopes in addition
to area-wide scopes and domain-wide scopes. As specified in
[RFC8139], RBridges support the Extended L1 Circuit Scope (E-L1CS)
Flooding Scope LSP (FS-LSP) [RFC7780]. The originatingSNPBufferSize
for a port is the minimum of the following two quantities but
not less than 1470 bytes: (1) the MTU of the port and (2) the maximum
LSP size that the TRILL IS-IS implementation can handle. They use
that flooding to exchange their maximum supported value of "Lz". The
smallest value of the Lz advertised by the RBridges on a link, but
not less than Sz, is the link-wide Lz. An RBridge on a local link
will be able to tell which other RBridges on that link support E-L1CS
FS-LSPs because, as required by [RFC7780], all RBridges include the
Scope Flooding Support TLV [RFC7356] in their TRILL Hellos.
The maximum size for a level-1 link-local PDU (such as a PSNP or
CSNP) that may be generated by a system is controlled by the value of
the management parameter originatingL1SNPBufferSize. This value
determines Lz. The TRILL APPsub-TLV shown in Figure 1 SHOULD be
included in a TRILL GENINFO TLV [RFC7357] in an E-L1CS FS-LSP
fragment zero. If it is missing from an E-L1CS FS-LSP fragment zero
or there is no E-L1CS FS-LSP fragment zero, it is assumed that its
originating IS is implicitly advertising its originatingSNPBufferSize
value as Sz octets.
E-L1CS FS-LSPs are link local and can also be sent up to a size of Lz
but, for robustness, E-L1CS FS-LSP fragment zero MUST NOT exceed
1470 bytes.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = 21 | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length = 2 | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| originatingSNPBufferSize | (2 bytes)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: The originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV
Type: Set to the originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV (TRILL
APPsub-TLV type 21). Two bytes, because this APPsub-TLV appears
in an extended TLV [RFC7356].
Length: Set to 2.
originatingSNPBufferSize: The local value of
originatingL1SNPBufferSize as an unsigned integer, limited to the
range from 1470 to 65,535 bytes. (A value less than 1470 will be
ignored.)
2.1. Operations
Lz MAY be reported using an originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV that
occurs in fragment zero of the RBridge's E-L1CS FS-LSP. An
originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV occurring in any other fragment
is ignored. If more than one originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV
occurs in fragment zero, the one advertising the smallest value for
originatingSNPBufferSize, but not less than 1470 bytes, is used.
Even if all RBridges on a specific link have reached consensus on the
value of link-wide Lz based on advertised originatingSNPBufferSize,
it does not mean that these RBridges can safely exchange PDUs between
each other. Figure 2 shows such a corner case. RB1, RB2, and RB3
are three RBridges on the same link and their Lz is 1800, so the
link-wide Lz of this link is 1800. There is an intermediate bridge
(say B1) between RB2 and RB3 whose port MTU size is 1700. If RB2
sends PDUs formatted in chunks of size 1800, those PDUs will be
discarded by B1.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
Lz:1800 Lz:1800
+---+ | +---+
|RB1|(2000)---|---(2000)|RB2|
+---+ | +---+
|
Lz:1800 |
+---+ +--+
|RB3|(2000)---(1700)|B1|
+---+ +--+
|
Figure 2: Link-Wide Lz = 1800 vs. Tested Link MTU Size = 1700
Therefore, the link MTU size SHOULD be tested. After the link MTU
size of an adjacency is successfully tested, those link-local PDUs,
such as CSNPs, PSNPs, and E-L1CS FS-LSPs, will be formatted
no greater than the tested link MTU size and will be safely
transmitted on this link.
As for Sz, RBridges continue to propagate their
originatingL1LSPBufferSize across the campus through the
advertisement of LSPs as defined in Section 4.3.2 of [RFC6325]. The
smallest value of Sz advertised by any RBridge, but not less than
1470, will be deemed as Sz. Each RBridge formats their "campus-wide"
PDUs -- for example, LSPs -- no greater than what they determine
as Sz.
3. Testing Link MTU Size
[RFC7177] defines event A6 as indicating that the MTU test was
successful if MTU testing is enabled. As described in Section 4.3.2
of [RFC6325], this is a combination of the following event and
condition:
o Event: The link MTU size has been tested.
o Condition: The link can support Sz.
This condition can be efficiently tested by the following "binary
search algorithm" and rules. This updates [RFC6325] and [RFC7177].
x, lowerBound, and upperBound are local integer variables. The
MTU-probe and MTU-ack PDUs are specified in Section 3 of [RFC7176].
It is RECOMMENDED that one Round-Trip Time (RTT) between the two
adjacent RBridges be used as the minimum interval between two
successive probes. Note that RTT estimation is out of scope for this
document. If operators cannot estimate the RTT, the default value of
5 milliseconds should be assumed.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
Step 0: RB1 sends an MTU-probe padded to the size of link-wide Lz.
1) If RB1 successfully receives the MTU-ack from RB2 to the probe
of the value of link-wide Lz within k tries (where k is a
configurable parameter whose default is 3), the link MTU size
is set to the size of link-wide Lz. Stop.
2) RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to 1470 bytes.
a) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries
(an MTU-ack should be considered to have failed two RTTs
after the probe is sent out), RB1 sets the "failed minimum
MTU test" flag for RB2 in RB1's Hello. Stop.
b) The link MTU size is set to 1470; lowerBound is set to 1470;
upperBound is set to the link-wide Lz; x is set to
[(lowerBound + upperBound) / 2], rounded down to the nearest
integer.
Step 1: RB1 tries to send an MTU-probe padded to the size x.
1) If RB1 fails to receive an MTU-ack from RB2 after k tries:
upperBound is set to x - 1; x is set to
[(lowerBound + upperBound) / 2], rounded down to the nearest
integer.
2) If RB1 receives an MTU-ack to a probe of size x from RB2:
The link MTU size is set to x; lowerBound is set to x; x is set
to [(lowerBound + upperBound) / 2], rounded down to the nearest
integer. If lowerBound equals upperBound - 1, then x is set to
upperBound.
3) If lowerBound >= upperBound or Step 1 has been repeated n times
(where n is a configurable parameter whose default value is 5),
stop.
4) Repeat Step 1.
After the testing, the two connected RBridges agree on the value of
the link MTU size. MTU testing is only done in the Designated VLAN
[RFC7177]. Since the execution of the above algorithm can be
resource consuming, it is RECOMMENDED that the Designated RBridge
(DRB) [RFC7177] take the responsibility to do the testing. Multicast
MTU-probes are used instead of unicast when multiple RBridges are
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
desired to respond with an MTU-ack on the link. The binary search
algorithm given here is a way to minimize the probing attempts; it
reduces the number of multicast packets for MTU-probing.
The following rules are designed to determine whether the
aforementioned "Condition" holds.
RBridges have figured out the upper bound and lower bound of the link
MTU size from the execution of the above algorithm. If Sz is smaller
than the lower bound or greater than the upper bound, RBridges can
directly judge whether the link supports Sz without MTU-probing.
(a) If lowerBound >= Sz, this link can support Sz.
(b) Else if upperBound <= Sz, this link cannot support Sz.
Otherwise, RBridges SHOULD test whether the link can support Sz as in
item (c) below. If they do not, the only safe assumption will be
that the link cannot support Sz. This assumption, without testing,
might rule out the use of a link that can, in fact, handle packets up
to Sz. In the worst case, this might result in unnecessary network
partition.
(c) lowerBound < Sz < upperBound. RBridges probe the link with
MTU-probe messages padded to Sz. If an MTU-ack is received
within k tries, this link can support Sz. Otherwise, this link
cannot support Sz. Through this test, the lower bound and upper
bound of the link MTU size can be updated accordingly.
4. Refreshing Sz
RBridges may join or leave the campus; this may change Sz.
1) Joining
a) When a new RBridge joins the campus and its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than the current Sz,
reporting its originatingL1LSPBufferSize in its LSPs will cause
other RBridges to decrease their Sz. Then, any LSP greater
than the reduced Sz MUST be split, and/or the LSP contents in
the campus MUST be otherwise redistributed so that no LSP is
greater than the new Sz.
b) If the joining RBridge's originatingL1LSPBufferSize is greater
than or equal to the current Sz, reporting its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize will not change Sz.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
2) Leaving
a) From the specification of the Joining process, we know that if
an RBridge's originatingL1LSPBufferSize is smaller than Sz,
this RBridge will not join this campus.
b) When an RBridge leaves the campus and its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize equals Sz, its LSPs are purged from
the remainder of the campus after reaching MaxAge [IS-IS]. Sz
MAY be recalculated and MAY increase. In other words, while in
most cases RB1 ignores link-state information for IS-IS
unreachable RBridge RB2 [RFC7780], originatingL1LSPBufferSize
is meaningful. Its value, even from IS-IS unreachable
RBridges, is used in determining Sz. This updates [RFC7780].
c) When an RBridge leaves the campus and its
originatingL1LSPBufferSize is greater than Sz, Sz will not be
updated, since Sz is determined by another RBridge with a
smaller originatingL1LSPBufferSize.
Frequent LSP "resizing" is harmful to the stability of the TRILL
campus, so, to avoid this, upward resizing SHOULD be dampened. When
an upward resizing event is noticed by an RBridge, it is RECOMMENDED
that a timer be set at that RBridge via a configurable parameter --
LSPresizeTime -- whose default value is 300 seconds. Before this
timer expires, all subsequent upward resizing will be dampened
(ignored). Of course, in a well-configured campus with all RBridges
configured to have the same originatingL1LSPBufferSize, no resizing
will be necessary. It does not matter if different RBridges have
different dampening timers or if some RBridges resize upward more
quickly than others.
If the refreshed Sz is smaller than the lower bound or greater than
the upper bound of the tested link MTU size, the issue of resource
consumption from testing the link MTU size can be avoided according
to rule (a) or (b) as specified in Section 3. Otherwise, RBridges
test the link MTU size according to rule (c).
5. Relationship between Port MTU, Lz, and Sz
When the port MTU of an RBridge is smaller than the local
originatingL1SNPBufferSize of an RBridge (an inconsistent
configuration), that port SHOULD be disabled, since, in any case, an
adjacency cannot be formed through such a port. On the other hand,
when an RBridge receives an LSP or E-L1CS FS-LSP with size greater
than the link-wide Lz or Sz but not greater than its port MTU size,
this LSP is processed normally. If the size of an LSP is greater
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
than the MTU size of a port over which it is to be propagated, this
LSP MUST NOT be sent over the port and an LSPTooLargeToPropagate
alarm shall be generated [IS-IS].
6. LSP Synchronization
An RBridge participates in LSP synchronization on a link as soon as
it has at least one adjacency on that link that has advanced to at
least the 2-Way state [RFC7177]. On a LAN link, CSNPs and PSNPs are
used for synchronization. On a point-to-point link, only PSNPs are
used.
The CSNPs and PSNPs can be formatted in chunks of size (at most)
link-wide Lz but are processed normally if received having a larger
size. Since the link MTU size may not have been tested in the 2-Way
state, link-wide Lz may be greater than the supported link MTU size.
In that case, a CSNP or PSNP may be discarded. After the link MTU
size is successfully tested, RBridges will begin to format these PDUs
with a size no greater than that MTU; therefore, these PDUs will
eventually get through.
Note that the link MTU size is frequently greater than Sz.
Link-local PDUs are limited in size by the link MTU size rather than
Sz, which, when Lz is greater than Sz, promises a reduction in the
number of PDUs and a faster LSP synchronization process.
7. Recommendations for Traffic Link Testing of MTU Size
Sz and link-wide Lz are used to limit the size of most TRILL IS-IS
PDUs. They are different from the MTU size restricting the size of
TRILL Data packets. The size of a TRILL Data packet is restricted by
the physical MTU of the ports and links the packet traverses. It is
possible that a TRILL Data packet successfully gets through the
campus but its size is greater than Sz or link-wide Lz values.
The algorithm defined for testing the link MTU size can also be used
in TRILL traffic MTU size testing; in that case, the link-wide Lz
used in that algorithm is replaced by the port MTU of the RBridge
sending MTU-probes. The successfully tested size x MAY be advertised
as an attribute of this link, using the MTU sub-TLV defined in
[RFC7176].
Unlike RBridges, end stations do not participate in the exchange of
TRILL IS-IS PDUs; therefore, they cannot grasp the traffic link MTU
size from a TRILL campus automatically. An operator may collect
these values using network management tools such as TRILL ping or
TraceRoute. Then, the path MTU can be set as the smallest tested
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
link MTU on this path, and end stations should not generate frames
that -- when encapsulated as TRILL Data packets -- exceed this
path MTU.
8. Backward Compatibility
There can be a mixture of Lz-ignorant and Lz-aware RBridges on a
link. This configuration will behave properly, although it may
not be as efficient as it would be if all RBridges on the link are
Lz aware.
For an Lz-ignorant RBridge, TRILL IS-IS PDUs are always formatted
no greater than Sz. Lz-aware RBridges as receivers can handle these
PDUs, since they cannot be greater than the link-wide Lz.
For an Lz-aware RBridge, in the case that link-wide Lz is greater
than Sz, larger link-local TRILL IS-IS PDUs can be sent out to
increase efficiency. Lz-ignorant RBridges as receivers will have
no problem handling them, since the originatingL1LSPBufferSize value
of these RBridges had been tested and the link-wide Lz is not greater
than that value.
An Lz-ignorant RBridge might not support the link MTU size-testing
algorithm defined in Section 3 but could be using some algorithm just
to test for the Sz MTU on the link. In any case, if an RBridge per
[RFC6325] receives an MTU-probe, it MUST respond with an MTU-ack
padded to the same size as the MTU-probe.
9. Security Considerations
This document raises no significant new security issues for TRILL.
In TRILL, RBridges are generally considered to be trusted devices.
Protection against forged TRILL IS-IS PDUs, including forged Hellos
containing originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLVs, can be obtained
through IS-IS PDU cryptographic authentication [RFC5310]. The worst
that an RBridge can do by reporting an erroneous
originatingSNPBufferSize is reduce Lz to Sz and thus make unavailable
the optimization of being able to use link MTUs that exceed the
campus-wide MTU for link-local TRILL IS-IS PDUs.
For general and adjacency-related TRILL security considerations, see
[RFC6325] and [RFC7177].
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
10. Additions to Configuration
Implementation of the features specified in this document adds two
RBridge configuration parameters, as follows:
10.1. Per-RBridge Configuration
Each RBridge implementing the RECOMMENDED LSP resizing damping
strategy specified in Section 4 has an LSPresizeTime parameter that
is an integer in the range of 0-65,535 and that defaults to 300. It
is the number of seconds for which an RBridge determines that Sz has
increased before it will create any LSP or E-L1FS FS-LSP fragments.
10.2. Per-RBridge Port Configuration
Each RBridge port on which the calculation and use of Lz are
implemented has an originatingL1SNPBufferSize parameter that is an
integer in the range of 1470-65,535. This parameter defaults to the
minimum of the size that the port can accommodate and the link-local
IS-IS PDU size that the TRILL implementation can accommodate.
11. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned a new APPsub-TLV type for the TRILL
originatingSNPBufferSize APPsub-TLV defined in Section 2 of this
document. This new type has been assigned from the range less than
256 in the "TRILL APPsub-TLV Types under IS-IS TLV 251 Application
Identifier 1" registry. The entry is as follows:
Type Name Reference
---- ------------------------ ---------
21 originatingSNPBufferSize RFC 8249
12. References
12.1. 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>.
[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310,
February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6325>.
[RFC7176] Eastlake 3rd, D., Senevirathne, T., Ghanwani, A., Dutt,
D., and A. Banerjee, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots
of Links (TRILL) Use of IS-IS", RFC 7176,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7176, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7176>.
[RFC7177] Eastlake 3rd, D., Perlman, R., Ghanwani, A., Yang, H., and
V. Manral, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): Adjacency", RFC 7177, DOI 10.17487/RFC7177,
May 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7177>.
[RFC7356] Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S., and Y. Yang, "IS-IS Flooding
Scope Link State PDUs (LSPs)", RFC 7356,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7356, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7356>.
[RFC7357] Zhai, H., Hu, F., Perlman, R., Eastlake 3rd, D., and O.
Stokes, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links
(TRILL): End Station Address Distribution Information
(ESADI) Protocol", RFC 7357, DOI 10.17487/RFC7357,
September 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7357>.
[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,
<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>.
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
12.2. Informative References
[IS-IS] International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- Intermediate
System to Intermediate System intra-domain routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode network
service (ISO 8473)", ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition,
November 2002.
[RFC8139] Eastlake 3rd, D., Li, Y., Umair, M., Banerjee, A., and F.
Hu, "Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL):
Appointed Forwarders", RFC 8139, DOI 10.17487/RFC8139,
June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8139>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Vishwas Manral for his comments and
suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Mingui Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
Beijing 100095
China
Phone: +86-13810702575
Email: zhangmingui@huawei.com
Xudong Zhang
Huawei Technologies
No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Haidian District
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhangxudong@huawei.com
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 8249 MTU Negotiation September 2017
Donald Eastlake 3rd
Huawei Technologies
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757
United States of America
Phone: +1-508-333-2270
Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com
Radia Perlman
Dell EMC
505 1st Ave South
Seattle, WA 98104
United States of America
Email: radia@alum.mit.edu
Somnath Chatterjee
Cisco Systems
SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park
Outer Ring Road
Bangalore 560087
India
Email: somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com
Zhang, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]