Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Mon, 19 November 2012 22:09 UTC
Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 BD56721F84FC for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:09:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.367
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 XfSkRStBIYJu for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:09:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0489521F84F9 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:09:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <trill@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:09:08 -0500
Received: from d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.167) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.108) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:08:50 -0500
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by d01dlp02.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938E56E8036 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:08:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qAJM8mND192616 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:08:49 -0500
Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qAJM8l3C011592 for <trill@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:08:47 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-49-150-139.mts.ibm.com [9.49.150.139]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id qAJM8gBY011366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:08:44 -0700
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id qAJM87O1007297; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:08:07 -0500
Message-Id: <201211192208.qAJM87O1007297@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE19356237B70B7@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com>
References: <FBEA3E19AA24F847BA3AE74E2FE19356237B70B7@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <tsenevir@cisco.com> message dated "Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:51:35 +0000."
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:08:07 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12111922-9360-0000-0000-00000CF9A261
Cc: "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: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:09:14 -0000
Hi. I've got a fairly basic question about this document. What exact customer/deployment scenario is it trying to address? It says: > This document specifies a concept of Affinity sub-TLV to solve > associated RPF issues at the active-active edge. Specific methods in > this document for making use of the Affinity sub-TLV are applicable > where multiple RBridges are connected to an edge device through link > aggregation or to a multiport server or some similar arrangement > where the RBridges cannot see each other's Hellos. I view Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) as an L2 construct that would be hidden from TRILL. I.e., in Ethernet, LAG is used to "hide" the presence of multiple links between a pair of switches from STP, so STP only sees one link (the LAG) rather than the individual links. Thus, I would expect RBs to want to only know of a single link (i.e., the LAG) and not have any understanding that the link may actually be a LAG. Moreover, Figure 1 is not describing LAG, but multi-chassis LAG (MLAG). MLAG is not standardized (all implementations are proprietary and there is no interoperability between vendors). Moreover, MLAG implementations are pretty restricted -- last I checked, MLAG products were limited to only 2 switches. So the figure in the document showing MLAG involving an arbitrary number of "N" switches seems a stretch. Do I have the right understanding of what is meant by "LAG" in the draft? The idea that RBs would be aware of individual links within a LAG kind of defeats the purpose of having LAGs. Is that really what is being proposed? Thomas
- [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Donald Eastlake
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Jon Hudson
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Pat Thaler
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt liao.ting
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt liao.ting
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt liao.ting
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- [trill] 答复: Re: draft-ietf-trill-cmt liao.ting
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt liao.ting
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Thomas Narten
- Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-cmt Thomas Narten