| Internet-Draft | draft-ietf-rift-kv-tie-structure-and-pro | March 2024 |
| Head & Przygienda | Expires 5 September 2024 | [Page] |
The RIFT (Routing in Fat-Trees) protocol allows for key/value pairs to be advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements (KV-TIEs). The data contained within these KV-TIEs can be used for any imaginable purpose. This document defines the various Key-Types (i.e. Well-Known, OUI, and Experimental) and a method to structure corresponding values.¶
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 asdescribed in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
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 https://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 5 September 2024.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
The Routing in Fat-Trees RIFT [RIFT] protocol allows for key/value pairs to be advertised within Key-Value Topology Information Elements (KV-TIEs). There are no restrictions placed on the type of data that is contained in KV-TIEs nor what the data is used for.¶
For example, it might be beneficial to advertise overlay protocol state from leaf nodes to the Top-of-Fabric (ToF) nodes. This would make it possible to view critical state of a fabric-wide service from a single ToF node rather than retrieving and reconciling the same state from multiple leaf nodes.¶
This section describes the generic Key structure and semantics, Figure 1 further illustrates these components.¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Key-Type | Key Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Values (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
where:¶
A 1-byte value that identifies the Key-Type. It MUST be a reserved value from the RIFT Key-Type Registry that is defined later in this document.¶
The range of valid values is 1 - 255 (2^8-1).¶
0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any implementation. It MUST be ignored on receipt.¶
A 3-byte value that identifies the specific key and describes the structure of the contained values.¶
The range of valid values is 1 - 16777215 (2^24-1).¶
0 is an illegal value and MUST NOT be allocated to or used by any implementation. It MUST be ignored on receipt.¶
This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to indicate an Experimental Key-Type.¶
As shown in Figure 2, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key-Type as Experimental. The Key Identifier will be used to identify the specific key and describe the structure of the contained values.¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 1 | Experimental Key Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Experimental Values (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to indicate Well-Known Key-Types that all implementations SHOULD support.¶
As shown in Figure 3, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key-Type as Well-Known. The Key Identifier will be used to identify the specific key and describe the structure of the contained values.¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 2 | Well-Known Key Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Well-Known Values (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This section reserves a value in the RIFT Key-Type Registry to indicate an OUI (vendor-specific) Key-Type that any implementation MAY support.¶
As shown in Figure 4, the Key-Type will be used to identify the Key-Type as OUI. The Key Identifier MUST use the implementing organization's reserved OUI space to indicate the key and value structure.¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 3 | OUI Key Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Specific Values (variable) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
While no restrictions are placed on Key-Value data or what it is used for, it is RECOMMENDED that a serialized Thrift [THRIFT] model be used for simpler interoperability. [RIFT-AUTO-EVPN] is an example of this type of implementation.¶
Key-Value elements SHOULD NOT be used to carry topology information used by RIFT itself to perform distributed computations.¶
In cases where KV-TIEs are flooded from north to south, policies SHOULD be implemented in order to avoid network-wide flooding.¶
For networks with more than one ToF node, it is RECOMMENDED that those ToF nodes contain identical KV-TIE information when being distributed from north to south. RIFT [RIFT] requires that only one KV-TIE is selected when identical keys are received from multiple northbound neighbors. If this is not considered then the tie-breaking rules may cause a node to select a suboptimal KV-TIE. Consider a case where failure conditions cause the ToF nodes to become split-brained. While the Key-Type and Key Identifier will be identical, the value(s) contained within may differ. The node(s) receiving these differing KV-TIEs will select the one from the ToF node with the highest System ID, potentially leading to unintended effects.¶
This Key/Value pair contains information that allows for verification of proper tie-breaking for the Southbound Key store.¶
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Well-Known | Southbound Tie-Break (Global) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | (System ID, | | Level), | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+¶
where:¶
The Key Target is an optional value that identifies group(s) of node(s) that are intended to receive a given Key-Value TIE. Key Targets are 64-bits in length with a valid range of 0 - 18446744073709551615 (2^64-1), this will reduce the chances that Key Target values collide.¶
A value of all 0s represent that every node is intended to receive this Key-Value TIE and MUST NOT be used for any other reason.¶
A value of all 1s represent that all leaf nodes are intended to receive this Key-Value TIE and MUST NOT be used for any other reason.¶
Any other value MUST be derived from the following normative algorithm.¶
/// random seeds used in algorithms to increase entropy
pub const RANDOMSEEDS: [UnsignedSystemID; 3] = [
67438371571u64,
37087353685,
88675895388,
];
/// given a system ID delivers the bits set by the according Bloom Filter in the southbound
/// key value target.
///
/// @note: This is standardized and cannot be changed between releases!
pub (crate) fn target2bits(target: UnsignedSystemID) -> KeyValueTargetType {
(0 as usize .. 3)
.map(|s| {
let rot = (target ^ RANDOMSEEDS[s]).rotate_left(s as _);
rot.to_ne_bytes().iter().fold(0, |v: u8, nv| v.rotate_right(4) ^ *nv) % 64
})
.fold(0, |v, nv| v | v | (1 << nv))
}¶
Nodes that support the processing of Key Targets MUST only do so on KV-TIEs in the southbound direction. Key Targets MUST NOT be present on KV-TIEs in the northbound direction and are otherwise ignored and logged.¶
Nodes that do not support the processing of Key Targets MUST continue to send KV-TIEs to all nodes in the appropriate direction. Additionally, Key Targets MUST be preserved when KV-TIEs are re-originated in the southbound direction.¶
There are several reasons a node may select a different KV-TIE. For example, the KV-TIE is considered newer due to the sequence number incrementing, there was a change in the original tie-breaking result between multiple KV-TIEs, or a loss of northbound connectivity to the node that advertised the previously selected KV-TIE.¶
Consider a case where Leaf-1, Leaf-2, and Leaf-3 are members of a group of nodes represented by Key Target KT1. If Leaf-2 is removed from that group and a newer instance of the KV-TIE needs to be flooded Leaf-2 will have to maintain the older KV-TIE in the LSDB until the lifetime expires. This could lead to suboptimal behavior in the fabric.¶
If the new KV-TIE being flooded does not include the previous Key Target value, then implementations SHOULD flood the newer instance of the KV-TIE with a very short lifetime to nodes that belonged to the previous Key Target but not the new Key Target. This logic only applies to KV-TIEs being flooded in the southbound direction.¶
Per [RFC8126], IANA is requested to create two new registries under the top-level "RIFT" category:¶
The following sections detail each registry's individual requirements and suggested values.¶
Experts reviewing requests for new values to either registry MUST consider the items in the Expert Review Guidance (Section 4.3) section.¶
This section requests that IANA create and help govern the following registry:¶
This section requests that IANA register the following suggested values to the "RIFT Key-Types" registry.¶
| Value | Key-Type | Description | Status/Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Illegal | Not allowed. | This document |
| 1 | Experimental | Indicates that the Key-Type is Experimental. | This document. |
| 2 | Well-Known | Indicates that the Key-Type is Well-Known. | This document. |
| 3 | OUI | Indicates that the Key-Type is OUI (vendor specific). | This document. |
This section requests that IANA create and help govern the following registry:¶
This section requests that IANA register the following suggested values to the "RIFT Well-Known Key-Types" Registry.¶
| Value | Key-Identifier | Description | Status/Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Illegal | Not allowed. | This document. |
| 1 | MAC/IP Binding | To be defined. | To be defined. |
| 2 | FAM Security Roll-Over Key | To be defined. | To be defined. |
| 127 | Southbound Tie-Break Key | Used for Southbound Keystore tie-breaking purposes. | This document. |
Experts reviewing requests for values from the "RIFT Key-Types" registry or the "RIFT Well-Known Key-Types" registry are responsible for the following:¶
Determining the existence of a specification that clearly defines the purpose supporting the request and MUST contain all required fields for given registry.¶
The document MUST also be permenent and publically available.¶
Ensuring that any requests are made available to the RIFT working group for review should the work originate from outside of the RIFT Working Group.¶
Ensuring that any work produce outside of the IETF does not conflict with any work that is already published or actively pursuing being published.¶
This document introduces no new security concerns to RIFT or other specifications referenced in this document given that the Key-Value TIEs are already extensively secured by the RIFT [RIFT] protocol specification itself.¶
To be provided.¶
This section contains the Thrift models that MAY be used to test southbound Key-Value tie-breaking based on System ID. Per the main RIFT [RIFT] specification, all signed values MUST be interpreted as unsigned values.¶
include "common.thrift"
namespace py southbound_kv
namespace rs models
const i8 GlobalSystemIdentifierKV = 127
/** simple type to test correct tie-breaking based on system ID */
struct SystemIdentifierKV {
1: required common.SystemIDType system_id,
2: optional common.LevelType level,
}
¶