IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 12 December 2012 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 92BDD1F0CC1 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:26:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lT+wYeZNM-P7 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e37.co.us.ibm.com (e37.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204A81F0CD6 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:26:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e37.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <trill@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:26:42 -0700
Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e37.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:26:39 -0700
Received: from d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.107]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D612B3E40060 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:26:34 -0700 (MST)
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay05.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qBCKQKsK043400 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:26:27 -0700
Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qBCKPrZu031207 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:25:55 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-49-151-5.mts.ibm.com [9.49.151.5]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id qBCKPo1L030904 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:25:52 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id qBCKPmM7013618; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:25:48 -0500
Message-Id: <201212122025.qBCKPmM7013618@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <EE1367B6-5498-492E-A57A-155312162CFC@gmail.com>
References: <CAFOuuo4zvX5AtD-oGRRftuZaKmhY7C7-SvDjznMOdzUj+Q3fGQ@mail.gmail.com> <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE1935628892DF6@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com> <CAFOuuo5LP1EzajpeBri2KhTT-wf+vv=JwmTLma9_mxg7dM5PvQ@mail.gmail.com> <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE1935628892EAE@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E732138B02@SZXEML507-MBS.china.huawei.com> <EE1367B6-5498-492E-A57A-155312162CFC@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> message dated "Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:17:52 -0800."
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:25:48 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12121220-7408-0000-0000-00000AF9BC62
Cc: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] Thoughts on active-active edge
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, 12 Dec 2012 20:26:50 -0000

> I believe we have discussed these scenarios (different solution
> types) previously.  WG should reach consensus and move forward with
> the agreed solution.  Atleast from the IETF WG sessions, I presumed
> there was a consensus on the solution.  Am I wrong in that
> assumption?

what "solution" are you referring above as maybe having consensus?

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email