Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Mon, 04 July 2016 20:54 UTC
Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
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 E476512D109; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b0nRMQL5YkIf; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x235.google.com (mail-oi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D51DD127071; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u201so206230601oie.0; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 13:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TWYTwE6T1KbDmD6TXnMjYadCDy4NIOJm9eRkPHi3inM=; b=LRsQdivAzF3P/EHR2gfNlEp7dK9lP0Kytrtx2gsL9BQwaQMQkLmP21ORrvoAOtwb7q t9JiHJRK6KDu8Rg0BrdrsgWflS4Vjz4Q5pO6g8/n5SSh9MpynafTFfyLnF17mtRHcdQd RZIZCk/4xFrzU3y/cBh0azQG4gpiICs7OWsKuU84CQP74kRiWZLJwTP9OO9yyUjk27H8 OXg1gfr0AmvTuWCbkGC2qF9Q47VwhodmouK2m7RYEvuAJenfaESBHtAFPtAkVxQG2KfR rIvr4Gks+3caF7GjCkRuIlfQqvWK6yUrK+pmWNlKKli0XFxMwQpkElKM5Vj2xVDam55F l3iw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TWYTwE6T1KbDmD6TXnMjYadCDy4NIOJm9eRkPHi3inM=; b=dhPbqMaVG3c5JhbVnhfHzq4LcMgBV8ocixi7MMTQUajFzm+Bra78pHXqyjsYOIssL3 saQfKEEbP6FKcXnpyuFux2MDK3HjLJ6i7yOSgr9GhgisBW01pe0Rel+rEYgyLvALRMUt j/+6k1oOw7jEnm0SLAqP/NAD0eVXHHBjxQhyKoORgj/BtrIxNtsUEXc6Y/AxFaZTOjsR 3EqYbs0Iazlna+1PI2/c8EJoFe5k5bYFlw+Lk5Gu1Cz4U6fNeCPPM6yAMMju5aDwL2Gh qqYb9SaeVs3HiWf3Q5b9eiszfTt1ZzlTlUywh2ERMRAt3mQtpRgRmG4R4JngjpgToVPG 2Jlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKCq/Oxq81KbEDrFuxF1jz6FIV4G+izj26/moVqeXKUPGYkHfr5GV3rxmNMyEbcZTsPjaUPaEsn3KRuhA==
X-Received: by 10.202.229.66 with SMTP id c63mr8176597oih.81.1467665653157; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 13:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.242 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jul 2016 13:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643D4B4A2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <20160629230835.30452.44953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAF4+nEEaFy26uW3k1fxm0pG0J+-dZ5YGn64oW71=GhMNMEsB5Q@mail.gmail.com> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643D4B4A2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 16:53:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHRW5trHW_-Na1hdcTgkR0Me=CyUaFT=Ow_Q17iGhagdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/4OqNeozifI66UwgMgMXaoy4Cym4>
Cc: "trill-chairs@ietf.org" <trill-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-irb@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-irb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:54:16 -0000
Hi Suresh, On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Donald, > Your proposed changes and clarifications look good to me. I will look over > the new version when it is posted. Version -14 has been posted with the intent of resolving your DISCUSS. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > Thanks > Suresh > > On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: >> Hi Suresh, >> >> Thanks for your comments. See below. >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan >> <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote: >>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: Discuss >>> >>> ... >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> * Section 6 has a few errors that need to get fixed before this document >>> goes forward. e.g. It is not clear what a "192.0.2.0/32" subnet means >>> especially since the only host shown to be on the subnet 192.0.2.2 cannot >>> obviously fall inside the subnet range. The /32 needs to be replaced with >>> something shorter depending on what the authors/WG intended (say a /24). >> >> Yes. That should have been "/24". >> >>> * RB2 seems to be advertising ES2s IPv4 address 198.51.100.2/32 instead >>> of the prefix of the subnet while RB1 seems to be advertising the the >>> IPv4 prefix of the ES1 subnet. One of these is wrong. Not sure which one >>> is intended. >> >> It should be the prefix in both cases. >> >>> * What is the rationale for using a /112 IPv6 prefix for numbering an >>> IPv6 link with hosts? Things like SLAAC (RFC4862) will not work in such >>> links. Is there a reason the authors want to use a longer than /64? >>> Please read RFC7421 for advantages of using a /64 instead and to find out >>> what things break if you do not use a /64. >> >> The Distributed Layer 3 gateway specified in this draft is expect to >> primarily be used in data centers where I would expect everything to >> be strictly configured by an orchestration system. Thus stateless >> autoconfiguration seems less likely and I suspect it just wasn't >> through of. However, I don't see a problem with changing this to "/64" >> and the mechanism specified could be used in other contexts outside >> data centers. >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Section 5: What does "Layer 2 routing" mean in this context? >> >> Previously standardized TRILL routing, which is based on destination >> MAC address as mapped into a TRILL nickname. The wording can be >> clarified. >> >>> Sections 7.3 & 7.4: What is the point of including these sub-TLVs if no >>> prefix is being advertised? (The Total Length=0 case specified in the >>> document) >> >> Sometimes a zero length has some special meaning. The draft just says >> that it has the obvious meaning although it is not a particularly >> useful value. >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> =============================== >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA >> d3e3e3@gmail.com
- Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ie… Donald Eastlake
- [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-t… Suresh Krishnan