Re: [trill] Comments on draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00

[[e-mail]]

Hi Donald，

> - The draft should be clear that when doing the RPFC for a
> multi-destination TRILL Data packet ingressed with a virtual RBridge
> nickname, the RPFC must assume that the TRILL Data packet might use
> any of the trees that any of the RBk might use.

Do you mean that RBn ignores the egress nickname in a received 
multi-destinaion TRILL data packet with a virtual RBridge nickname
when it does RPFC for that packet in that case? Or if I am wrong, 
please give a clearer explanation on that sentence by using an example.


Best Regards,
Zhai Hongjun
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 Protocol Development Dept.VI, Central R&D Institute, ZTE Corporation
 No. 68, Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District, Nanjing, P.R.China, 210012
 
 Zhai Hongjun
 
 Tel: [phone]
 Email: [e-mail]
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""





Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> 
发件人:  [e-mail]
2012-10-13 23:15

收件人
[e-mail]
抄送

主题
[trill] Comments on draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00






There are my personal comments on draft-ietf-trill-cmt-00. I suggest
that after these and the few other comments have been handled, the -01
version be WG Last Called.

- Some acronyms need to be spelled out on first use.

- I think Figure 1 and Figure 2 are a bit muddled and should be
clarified to show separate connections from each RBk to each CEn. It
is also not clear to me why "DRB" occurs in the figures and I think it
should be dropped.

- The draft should be clear that when doing the RPFC for a
multi-destination TRILL Data packet ingressed with a virtual RBridge
nickname, the RPFC must assume that the TRILL Data packet might use
any of the trees that any of the RBk might use.

- The could be problems if a virtual RBridge nickname was taken away
by a real RBridge somewhere else in the campus that is higher priority
to hold a nickname. Perhaps the draft should suggest that virtual
RBridge nicknames are usually configured  and should be held with
maximum priority with with configured or unconfigured priority ranges,
as appropriate...

- I think it should be possible to use the Affinity Sub-TLV to change
the structure of multi-destination distribution trees in places other
than at the edge. So they should be valid as long as they do not
conflict even if the requested child is a real RBridge. But, of
course, the requested child has to be an adjacent RBridge and the
draft should say what it would mean if some RBridge lists, as a
requested child for some tree, its parent in that tree.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill