Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

Sam Aldrin <> Mon, 14 May 2012 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B6421F88BF for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.203
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09Wk+K8gErDO for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6496221F88AC for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so6791537pbc.31 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=vnfu+XfoCHP30AWTav9cvjXH91U3Dfq7eKjjYqeN43c=; b=P24V8ZEnr/AIvQCwn4bFx4iAblKyMFiTPp0QpRFycnFjgZvENbHpLYO4T3yDKpcuVF zyGyZhTGcXj90ori6uBzQRpd/g23mAjuIByKy/mQyz3hdfTjenGTGPtu0khf2NaEVHQ5 hVVlrQFeFfZAHFsaTU36lSbrxzM2tiTjCrmyBJlLpygpbQ0HwHcYGFLDJCaL4YBaHcLd HBRQG67LVPV5LQqQYD0sFJXGPNrmxB+wfBpXHAd9evFfIEeygn7NXFi0xtkCa6aVLGaC 3694zXm81UDvMbuVigMP9LGwaYHm0PYhFDZsWszIBTrVu1DPmHtrf6W6e/HPy06zyglZ RaUQ==
Received: by with SMTP id to1mr3493306pbc.27.1337027371132; Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id i1sm23203993pbv.49.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206)
From: Sam Aldrin <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 13:29:28 -0700
To: Donald Eastlake <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 20:29:32 -0000

Hi Donald,

Few questions inline.


Sent from my iPad

On May 14, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Donald Eastlake <> wrote:

> None of these arguments matter as our Area Director says that we need
> to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will
> respond a bit below:
%sam- does this mean, the poll being undertaken is a moot point? If so, why to ask the WG for adoption?
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
> <> wrote:
>> Hi Radia
>> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then this draft is not generic.
>> If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.
> You can but the result is inferior, adding more layers of fuzz between
> TRILL and actual transport protocol.
%sam - are you saying, because it uses ip, it is superior technology than L2 technologies like PW? Ip has to use L2 anyway, so, the logic you are using doesn't make sense to me.
>> If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header.
> Maybe on a point-to-point link the main advantage is the savings you
> mention. But on a multi-point technology like IP there are lots of
> other factors in addition to saving a non-trivial number of bytes,
> factors related to multi-destination traffic, security, etc.
That is not true. Vpls is a multi point technology and is widely used in many network types. Which aspects of the technology makes ip better here?
> The current L2VPN WG draft, to the extent it talks about
> interconnecting TRILL islands, isn't TRILL over anything but, although
> it connects the TRILL data planes, runs some new different more
> loosely coupled control protocol between the islands.
It is not entirely correct. The existing draft does encap trill frames with labels to be transferred over pw's. Whether it connects islands or something else is a matter of how you deploy the technology.

>> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then WG need to have consensus on overall strategy before moving individual solutions to WG status. People may argue we should have a lower bar to enter documents to WG status, but side effect of that is we are over crowding the document set, hence taking focus away from agreed priority items.  Additionally, one may even argue TRILL over any other transport protocol should be part of L2VPN.
>> Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?
> That's no different than asking why the obstructionism about a draft
> that has been presented and discussed and in which previously raised
> objections have been, as far as I can tell, resolved. Sitting on your
> hands is not a way to get standards done.
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
>> To: Erik Nordmark
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
>> I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
>> And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.
>> So, I think it should be a WG document.
>> Radia
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Erik Nordmark <> wrote:
>>> The document is at
>>> We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the past.
>>> Please send comments to the list.
>>>   Erik
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> trill mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> trill mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> trill mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list