[trill] review of Trill over UDP/IP

Zongning <zongning@huawei.com> Tue, 15 July 2014 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <zongning@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A081B27C5 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.851
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DcV1h3leAaN4 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C3BD1A01F9 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 17:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BHE64109; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:40:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:40:58 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:40:53 +0800
From: Zongning <zongning@huawei.com>
To: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: review of Trill over UDP/IP
Thread-Index: Ac+fxW4CtnOjHs+WR2eN+H4TioPy5w==
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:40:52 +0000
Message-ID: <B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667796616FF53@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B0D29E0424F2DE47A0B36779EC6667796616FF53nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/8Sio_x8iwR_bqzsRhdfn-wi5b44
Subject: [trill] review of Trill over UDP/IP
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:41:02 -0000

Hi, folks,

(Re-send after subscription, sorry for potentially duplicated message...)

I've briefly reviewed the draft mainly from transport consideration's perspective, and have a question on congestion control.
It says "When a TRILL over IP flow carries primarily IP-based traffic, the aggregate traffic is assumed to be TCP friendly... and no additional congestion avoidance action is necessary". I'd like to see more discussion about whether the adoption of UDP encapsulation by RBridges between the end-hosts will negate such conclusion? Another word, even if the end-hosts use TCP for congestion control, should there be some congestion consideration between the RBridges that talk UDP?
Plus, I'd know the reason why choosing UDP? I cannot find any in the draft - but I am sure there are reasons discussed in the group. :)

Sorry if I misunderstood any point, and thanks for your clarification in advance!