Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <> Tue, 15 May 2012 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25BC21F894A for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 19:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.225
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.374, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QZahD7n928HY for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 19:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1BBE21F8945 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 19:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5090; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1337049120; x=1338258720; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=HIOFMfGjW6ymjVan7ZpEzridgewgm8P/dzLCzlWgqIk=; b=Gg79u/IOWGA9WAv579JqajRpIlG1QCxIo9EYGksFWCdX99tQmkGkTPRV bKipq/y/JYqHnmcRetJO+kblaUar4hxdPEfxVaCRsrUtzpBiCpqTznhOH u9qjIzNfXguLT4+MFuE2Ya2fcCTsiegA4GDxec1ZToO5O0d3kUL0q2sVi 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,590,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="42227754"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 May 2012 02:31:59 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q4F2Vxa2014930; Tue, 15 May 2012 02:31:59 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 14 May 2012 19:31:59 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:31:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
Thread-Index: Ac0yB4cpiJxhIyq/QwaN/9zF7mQBowANle+w
References: <><><> <>
From: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2012 02:31:59.0311 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7482DF0:01CD3242]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
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: Tue, 15 May 2012 02:32:00 -0000

Hi Donald

Please see some comments in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

None of these arguments matter as our Area Director says that we need to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. 

[Answer] That is very prudent and thanks.

However, I will respond a bit below:

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) <> wrote:
> Hi Radia
> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then this draft is not generic.
> If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.

You can but the result is inferior, adding more layers of fuzz between TRILL and actual transport protocol.

[Answer] Which sense would the result be inferior ? Native form of TRILL as defined in RFC 6325 is with a link-level header and removing that and remapping to IP in my opinion is more fuzz than using native form over L2VPN.

> If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header.

Maybe on a point-to-point link the main advantage is the savings you mention. But on a multi-point technology like IP there are lots of other factors in addition to saving a non-trivial number of bytes, factors related to multi-destination traffic, security, etc.

The current L2VPN WG draft, to the extent it talks about interconnecting TRILL islands, isn't TRILL over anything but, although it connects the TRILL data planes, runs some new different more loosely coupled control protocol between the islands.

[Answer] Sam has already answered this.

> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then WG need to have consensus on overall strategy before moving individual solutions to WG status. People may argue we should have a lower bar to enter documents to WG status, but side effect of that is we are over crowding the document set, hence taking focus away from agreed priority items.  Additionally, one may even argue TRILL over any other transport protocol should be part of L2VPN.
> Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?

That's no different than asking why the obstructionism about a draft that has been presented and discussed and in which previously raised objections have been, as far as I can tell, resolved. Sitting on your hands is not a way to get standards done.

[Answer] Few fronts here: 1. I Have raised the same objection in Taipei and over the mailing list, i.e. why yet another solution, as far as I can tell that has not been resolved.
2. We can fundamentally disagree, but my opinion on right way to get standards done is to have a well thought through strategy rather than advancing individual solutions.
3. On a different note, our WG should spent sometime deciding on what work items to be done and strategy around them. According to published goals, TRILL is up for re-charter or shutdown in July 2012. Having clear strategy around work items to be done will help. (My two bits of thoughts here) 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf 
> Of Radia Perlman
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
> I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
> And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.
> So, I think it should be a WG document.
> Radia
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Erik Nordmark <> wrote:
>> The document is at
>> We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the past.
>> Please send comments to the list.
>>   Erik
>> _______________________________________________
>> trill mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
trill mailing list