IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt

liao.ting@zte.com.cn Fri, 23 November 2012 06:05 UTC

Return-Path: <liao.ting@zte.com.cn>
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 6CF0221F86C8; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:05:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 5Er6OjN8t3aN; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D7F21F86A4; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:05:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 3C68B124BC16; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:06:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id qAN64rrv079441; Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:04:53 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liao.ting@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE19356237B70B7@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com>
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF24D55EF3.A554A72C-ON48257ABF.000D9F20-48257ABF.00216828@zte.com.cn>
From: liao.ting@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:04:42 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-11-23 14:04:46, Serialize complete at 2012-11-23 14:04:46
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0021682748257ABF_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn qAN64rrv079441
Cc: trill-bounces@ietf.org, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt
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: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:05:08 -0000

Hi,Tissa

Section 5.1 provides a simple general method to assign different trees to 
different members and it is easy to employ.
But in my opinion, it could be better to allow co-existence of default 
manner（cmt） and manual configuration 
for distribution tree choosing，otherwise if some member RBs are manually 
configured and others are not configured at all, 
compatibility problem with the current algorithm could occur.
So, maybe we should provide a unified tree distribution method which is 
compatible 
with manual configuration and can ensure different member RBs obtain 
different  distribution tree? 

Thanks,
Tina

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email