RFC 5556: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability Statement
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Current IEEE 802.1 LANs use spanning tree protocols that have a number of challenges. These protocols need to strictly avoid loops, even temporary ones, 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). This document addresses these concerns and suggests applying modern network-layer routing protocols at the link layer. This document assumes that solutions would not address issues of scalability beyond that of existing IEEE 802.1 bridged links, but that a solution would be backward compatible with 802.1, including hubs, bridges, and their existing plug-and-play capabilities. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5556
- Published
- May 2009
- Authors
- J. Touch; R. Perlman
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5557Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent OptimizationCurrent
July 2009
- RFC 5553Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Path Key SupportCurrent
May 2009
- RFC 5561LDP CapabilitiesCurrent
July 2009
- RFC 5548Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy NetworksCurrent
May 2009
- RFC 5542Definitions of Textual Conventions for Pseudowire (PW) ManagementCurrent
May 2009
- RFC 5541Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)Current
June 2009
- RFC 5575Dissemination of Flow Specification RulesObsoleted
August 2009
- RFC 5586MPLS Generic Associated ChannelUpdated
June 2009
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?