Re: [trill] draft-mme-trill-fcoe as an independent submission

Anoop Ghanwani <> Thu, 18 October 2012 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C236B21F8510 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uRghBJZ4VdHN for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1825921F8232 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fc26so10583667vbb.31 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D4OwYMhmgzmDtA6Ap82B6pLcV2/HGuHGozPkZ+0q7Vc=; b=H7AfThMT8peKx0sRaSyG/Bkc7fY3xL1H/xxJoY0mHZs1KbPh2Am07Ml13mFN39iRib puIHTDSFA1UUTH1P6q07fKcNBB75GR0Baf22+Ltclz6qWXbFyGa3wBd2lNwMGrwXdMlq J7RMrSKgNzd6537Dl4NN4NIAw5gtfGh2d5apKAdeoXZxkoXuh/AW/aTuN2P+xvlzRLgq m4NmypSjQPZ39Jub+iHHE+6KtOFcu3oRUvlUtT78FSvPzm+M0sIazQo9eDHOg2s7SEDt YuP+LEKFNVpeu2kPcX3PqYUeTHcn+3bv2HNQWEmdgPoVeSl/UAT64tvycnM2LcHZpbzJ hxjw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id fr8mr7901785vcb.34.1350604566151; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:56:06 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZYPK9oKNdirzYAGKiJM1DwAedPo
Message-ID: <>
From: Anoop Ghanwani <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-mme-trill-fcoe as an independent submission
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:56:07 -0000

While I don't see any value in having this as a
working group document, I don't have any objections
to have it published as an individual submission.


On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Donald Eastlake <> wrote:
> Hi,
> was briefly
> presented to the TRILL WG at the Quebec City IETF-81 meeting. I'll
> paste an extract from the minutes at the end of this email.
> There have been three references to this draft on the TRILL WG mailing
> list (before this message), none of which produced any response:
> The draft is being processed by the RFC Independent Submissions Editor
> and is awaiting a determination by the IESG as to whether the draft
> does or does not conflict with ongoing work in the IETF such as that
> of the TRILL WG. Based on the current state of the IESG ballt
> (,
> I request further WG discussion of whether or not this draft should be
> a TRILL WG draft and whether or not it conflicts with work in the
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> Extract from Minutes of TRILL WG at IETF-81:
> FCoE over TRILL, David Melman (Marvell), Tal Mizrahi (Marvell)
> draft-mme-trill-fcoe-00.txt
> (very limited time because earlier presentations and discussion ran
> over)
> Tal Mizrahi (Marvell): This draft is intended for
> informational. ... selected slides ...
> Anoop Ghanwani: Are you changing the TRILL header hop-by-hop.
> Donald: The frame is being TRILL encapsulated and decapsulated at each
> hop.
> Anoop: So the TRILL Header isn't doing anything. The whole path is
> computed by FCSP. If you are running both control planes, why have the
> TRILL Header at all.
> Tal: There is a slide on that: not all RBridges are FCRBs. In that
> case, you still want the TRILL clouds to do optimal routing.
> Puneet Agarwal (Broadcom): I don't see what this does other than state
> the obvious. FCoE is running over TRILL. Why do you need a draft for
> that?
> Tal: We are just showing how they work together.
> Puneet: So, should I do a draft on IP routing over TRILL?
> Donald: It is a little different because you would normally have the
> routers at the edge but here you have the Fiber Channel devices
> distributed throughout the TRILL cloud with a savings in cabling and
> cabinetry. If the FC is external to the TRILL cloud, then typically
> you have to transit the TRILL cloud twice. So, it is a way of doing
> it. If you think this draft has no value, so be it. If the WG thinks
> that way, then it shouldn't be a working group draft.
> Puneet: OK. I don't think it should be a working group draft.
> Donald: Well, we are out of time. Thanks everyone and see you in
> Taiwan.
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list