Re: I-D Action: draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt

I'll let the TRILL folks speak for themselves, but I would politely 
suggest that you keep your hands off SPB.

So far as SPB is concerned ISIS is a protocol for ensuring that all 
participants converge on the same data as the basis of performing the 
necessary topology and related calculations. Those calculations are 
specified by the IEEE. Some of the data shared, and the way in which the 
calculations are performed, has a close relationship with 
interoperability with parts of the bridged/switched network where other 
topology protocols operate. The fact that ISIS is employed as part of 
the solution is not an invitation for others to "enhance"/rework/invent 
anew or otherwise muck with the current standards.

If there is any doubt about this I can no doubt arrange for the point to 
be made more forcefully.

Mick Seaman

On 3/26/2013 7:22 PM, Mingui Zhang wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, datacenter or campus LANs would appear to be the
>> biggest wins in terms of power and raw numbers of interfaces.
>> IEEE seems like a better match in that case.  No idea if there are things going
>> on in that venue.
> As for "datacenter or campus LANs", I'd mention that ISIS can be used as the control protocol (e.g., TRILL and SPB). This is an area that matches IETF.
>
> Mingui
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Tony Tauber
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:15 AM
>> To: Shane Amante
>> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-01.txt
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 	Thus, the only practical application I can see of power savings would be on
>> copper interfaces at the deepest "edge" of the network, (U-PE to CE), but
>> there's no active routing protocols on those interfaces.  And, although there's
>> Layer-2 control protocols, e.g.: LLDP and the MEF's "Ethernet LMI", but I've not
>> seen either of those achieve widespread deployment mostly because the CE
>> devices do not support it, (yet).  But, we're the IETF, not the IEEE nor the
>> MEF ... so, I'm not clear what the IETF would be able to work on here.
>>
>>
>> Now that you mention it, datacenter or campus LANs would appear to be the
>> biggest wins in terms of power and raw numbers of interfaces.
>> IEEE seems like a better match in that case.  No idea if there are things going
>> on in that venue.
>>
>> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>