Re: [trill] AD review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 20 February 2018 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B497126C26; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:54:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i9Axy5m9x8dm; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:54:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89E2412420B; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:54:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Alia Atlas'" <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 13:36:42 -0500
Message-ID: <014501d3aa79$c178cac0$446a6040$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0146_01D3AA4F.D8A35F00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJTrRhwA83hpf2dnV3Nv2/BYXkR8aKtmRhw
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] AD review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:54:33 -0000



Thank you for reviewing the document and your suggestions on sections 3.1 and 4.3.  


Sue Hares


From: trill [] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 12:47 PM
Subject: [trill] AD review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03


As is traditional, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03.  First, I would like to thank the authors - Margaret, Donald, Mingui, and Dacheng - as well as the reviewers and shepherd, Sue, for their work on this document.


I do have some minor comments, but these can be addressed ASAP while the draft is in IETF Last Call.  I will request that to start and place this on the IESG telechat on March 8.





a) In Sec 3.1, it says " 

      1) RB27 and RB3 have learned that D is connected to nickname 44.

      2) RB27 has learned that nickname 44 is accessible through RB3."  


    Given that RB2 is the local area's Level Border Router, I think that is RB2 not RB3. Granted, RB3 needs to know also - but that is info from its local area.


b) In Sec 4.3:

" For nicknames in these ranges, other RBridges will deem that they are owned by the originating border RBridge. The paths to nicknames that fall in these ranges will be calculated to reach the originating border RBridge. TRILL Data packets with egress nicknames that are neither in these ranges nor announced by any RBridge in the area MUST be discarded. " 


I think this only applies if OK = 0 - and that needs to be restated as part of the condition.