[trill] Query on Interested VLANsand Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV in RFC6326

wenyu zou <nkzouwenyu@gmail.com> Sat, 25 August 2012 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nkzouwenyu@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 10A9C21F8564 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, J_CHICKENPOX_210=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_45=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_63=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 HRr-7dK8IURA for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA6D21F852C for <trill@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnh4 with SMTP id h4so569536ggn.31 for <trill@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=dEmdwK4FDbBHy4EZOoWBmlSWc1wOUM8Kn492SY9mqlg=; b=inpWKii1NiKXm8pTY1Fb0KYL3n2FKGJVVCd8NLEEXKwrJrX7eLu3LXutwRkYwkoofU JMBTmLI2UjOFzONLPYrrc73M+smRYplcW2sJyELwzDn77N4kZGUgRUj1+3oAEu7Gl9wi GFmgdTPAGhS3/oZmgiQg/sn/gJKrexkaSN4yL9pZW855fC+3txlvb1yVCZQbPUB6NpV7 8fPLngYgFoOK0BKrfDYjVgYfTwb1fcT6PefyNMU4arEiQftg+GB78DnRgDpAq9KPTgUA t0GRL9quDoQvKp7sY5NA6rPMh9hj+xXiUbgV+1IjvKs/RCGXF7ZUkRENowGYO1gwnYqF H9YA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.153.9 with SMTP id e9mr6209160yhk.32.1345857567986; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.146.159.25 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:19:27 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+7+8TS1b2i1vt_iXNM-+wo=PMxi07PABXBOUOFwXcWDuQuJ4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: wenyu zou <nkzouwenyu@gmail.com>
To: trill@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: [trill] Query on Interested VLANsand Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV in RFC6326
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: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:19:29 -0000

Hi Authors,
    I have a question about "AppointedForwarder Status Lost Counter"
in"Interested VLANs and Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV", as specified in
[RFC6326], Section 2.3.6. The counter is shared by VLANs from
VLAN.start toVLAN.end. But the counter for per-VLAN can easily be
different by configuration or topology change. When a port lost the
status of being an appointed forwarder for VLANx, the Sub-TLV should
be splited. So it maybe have so many Interested VLANs and Spanning
Tree Roots Sub-TLV in LSPs, and they have little chance to merge
again.
    Is it correct? Do you have some method to solve this problem?
Thanks.
Regards,
wenyu