Re: [trill] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-12: (with COMMENT)

Donald Eastlake <> Wed, 10 January 2018 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8611241FC; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:40:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id On9Gg7W_6Tw8; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 837701205F0; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 184so422761oii.2; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:40:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CHzhXeMFvgbtkprYOLpHVxhyvGYMAo5F3Qq0WRc9ipA=; b=RFouZlU5TCE4X9yj/ESHbUEh+I36/7hoYxRRSGgJmHHkjyY+reWPGdWRHDp6aB+aiZ BNeZPnHJ3TyI6225W3ENYjiYu8ebEf0pvLCPoFy5tJzgjOX3iANraGczHNI83QRmDKmo n/JL4NoE6xysuZl/SSiEATcUIHEX0O+h9AnLPwikuaVDbCAxk9TgDW9EctgV3R26t70L 0D7cv2LuPgMyAjhD1CxPCoGLs1K8fwzqKIAfj7/zGO+YPCaLV/olF0+fCOPF1bo1SF2a lih5MaWiK1z9XzluGjVdM93WSxmCjIF4ZkHMnn4r2BHsl56qebCgkx/b9Qy7BsamHo8I n1WA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CHzhXeMFvgbtkprYOLpHVxhyvGYMAo5F3Qq0WRc9ipA=; b=ht/eWVQ2WkGu9inaCAasCr04A5WATmx68cPU2SbRpaDetXnvJ14fJ0rLI/24wBXIe7 sUCvcKYmXtNqhIofB/50rHUi+Jkhmk6HlmxBz4TEuUWvvcYpNP4KXXsWkcnqLCm6Czf3 sD9+UcEAqI1DF64+dkqJ6rtGOgnDyRilq/gcCQPS0+glrhSnWda4ezmjnMQZEyIXqVGF Rwkh5aAiAGgrwxFOnOF9xXf4zMr1OFKxmg3W6c3MHjyjUHRJwR7JghkgRq4NtMGa2s7+ JkzmFNChKXMiNYTmdpAUF3U6oqoApaZ6dnXKGWBPt9/KYYGutVefuRhRmNpXkV3pKp5O elmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcr4gRb5qUYjDEWByISjX6Cynh97Ui+tYnZsZti6Vw7SvjHlsNO 2OWU7qh9UCUGk9HmnBkDOKOpwK16ldvBuX7psQN/1Nz5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotaavwtc1oLLD9uR72gtzTNPCTBtg5M+5/Jx1KhI5WSZoaSpLTXgo22GI0+m7oA+2ok3H4+LVDBWKSuAGwd4/E=
X-Received: by with SMTP id m6mr1569875oia.143.1515624048715; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:40:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:40:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Donald Eastlake <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:40:33 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-12: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 22:40:51 -0000

Hi Adam,

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-trill-centralized-replication-12: No Objection
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> TRILL is pretty far outside my area of expertise, so I might be simply
> misunderstanding the protocol extension model here, but it seems to me that the
> changes to the RPF port calculation represent a formal update to RFC6325. If
> so, the metadata and abstract should indicate that.

That's an interesting point which no one else has raised. I'm not sure
that "the changes to the RPF port calculation represent a formal
update to RFC6325". The RPF calculation is still done in generally the
same way based on the point where the packets are injected into the
distribution tree -- it's just that with centralized replication it is
injected at a tree root rather than an edge node. However, the
unicasting of multi-destination TRILL data frames from an edge node
where they were ingressed to the tree root from which they will be
distributed does appear to clearly and directly contradict RFC6325 so
I guess this draft does update RFC 6325...

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA