RFC 8243

Alternatives for Multilevel Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL), September 2017

File formats:
icon for text file icon for PDF icon for HTML
R. Perlman
D. Eastlake 3rd
M. Zhang
A. Ghanwani
H. Zhai
trill (rtg)

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML

DOI:  10.17487/RFC8243

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to trill@ietf.org

Other actions: Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF


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.

For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 8729.