Re: [trill] Charter Revision Active-Active Item

zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn Wed, 19 June 2013 00:39 UTC

Return-Path: <zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FC921E80B6; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, WEIRD_QUOTING=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C-GuPIYsZWkE; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A297921E80A5; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.120]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 896F41930A5C; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:38:51 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 62B2BCB61CF; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:38:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id r5J0cdVM067032; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:38:39 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEE6jVhwekyvDpVWozJtcGv8c48SB-qpXk-L9eQ_AF32Ow@mail.gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: C482EA04:76BBEF64-48257B8E:0026D911; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OFC482EA04.76BBEF64-ON48257B8E.0026D911-48257B8F.0003C312@zte.com.cn>
From: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:38:39 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2013-06-19 08:38:36, Serialize complete at 2013-06-19 08:38:36
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0003C30F48257B8F_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn r5J0cdVM067032
Cc: trill-bounces@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Charter Revision Active-Active Item
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:39:22 -0000

> > 1. Simplified AF mechanism with the approach specified by RFC6325
> > appendix A.3. draft-yizhou-trill-tc-awareness described STP topology
> > change problem within this scenario too.

> I think the TRILL WG can produce a document updating Appendix A.3 of
> RFC 6325 without having that included in a special numbered work item.

Support. I think the update of appendix A of RFC6325 can achieve another 
way of load balancing which is different from MC-LAG(or active/active) 
load balancing scenario, so it should not be included in the work item.
But I support to put it into an individual document.

Best Regards,
Hongjun Zhai
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 Protocol Development Dept.VI, Central R&D Institute, ZTE Corporation
 No. 68, Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, P.R.China, 210012
 
 Hongjun Zhai
 
 Tel: +86-25-52877345
 Email: zhai.hongjun@zte.com.cn
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""





Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> 
发件人:  trill-bounces@ietf.org
2013-06-15 02:47

收件人
trill@ietf.org
抄送

主题
Re: [trill] Charter Revision Active-Active Item






Hi Yizhou,

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Yizhou Li <liyizhou@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Currently we have appointed forwarder (AF) mechanism for
> multi-access link connecting to edge RBridges. As AF only allows one
> RBridge forwarding frames for a single VLAN, it is normally
> considered as VLAN scoped active-standby though traffic can be load
> balanced among VLANs.
>
> The word "active-active" used in item 2 excludes the problems
> identified for current AF mechanism and non active-active
> scenarios. I think something like "multi-access connections at the
> edge" is a better description. Problems in multi-access connections
> but not typical active-active scenarios include the following in my
> opinion,
>
> 1. Simplified AF mechanism with the approach specified by RFC6325
> appendix A.3. draft-yizhou-trill-tc-awareness described STP topology
> change problem within this scenario too.

I think the TRILL WG can produce a document updating Appendix A.3 of
RFC 6325 without having that included in a special numbered work item.

> 2. Optimization of AF mechanism, e.g - Better convergence time for
> failure recovery. Currently (3*) Hello timer is used to detect the
> neighbor RB failure and then DRB should re-assign the VLANs
> previously delegated to the failed RB to others. It takes too long
> time in practice. I believe at least for access link (not equipment)
> failure some optimization can be done for traditional AF mechanism
> to improve the detection timer and AF re-assignment.

Connectivity failure to a neighbor RB can also be detected by BFD or
in other ways. But in any case, updating RFC 6439 concerning Appointed
Forwarders is also something I think we can do without it being included
in a special numbered work item.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> 3. Common problems for both active-active and active-standby (AF like
> mechanism) cases. E.g. rapid MAC address purge at the remote RBridge 
when
> existing nickname-MAC correspondence becomes invalid at local.
>
> I propose one of the following to be present in the charter.
> 1) Specify a larger scope for item 2. E.g. replace active-active with
> multi-access
> Or
> 2) Add another item. Something like, Enhancement of current multi-access
> connection mechanism at the edge of a TRILL campus.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Yizhou
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: trill-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:trill-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf 
Of
> Donald Eastlake
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 10:06 AM
> To: trill@ietf.org
> Subject: [trill] Charter Revision Active-Active Item
>
> Hi,
>
> Item "(2) Active-Active connection at the edge of a TRILL campus.
> (draft-ietf-trill-cmt, draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname)"
>
> There appeared to be agreement that work should be done in this space
> but a better problem statement / scope was requested.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill