Re: [trill] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-01.txt

James Carlson <> Tue, 15 July 2014 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582351A0AD5 for <>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PYbYj-aKrbz0 for <>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B031E1A01C0 for <>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s6FI2DRo022763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:02:08 -0400
From: James Carlson <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DCC--Metrics: carlson; whitelist
Subject: Re: [trill] I-D Action: draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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 Jul 2014 18:02:24 -0000

On 07/15/14 13:29, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 7/15/2014 10:01 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> And the WG Chairs get to decide what the
>> consensus of the WG is. None of your concerns have been, in my
>> opinion, technical, in the sense of arguing that something will not
>> work or will not be interoperable.
> The need for yet another layer of encapsulation, and the complexity that
> entails, is absolutely technical.

I agree with Joe on this point.  It's quite a bit of complexity to
create yet another link layer over UDP/IP specification.  The L2TP
documents show where this likely goes.

(And for what it's worth, I think you might be better off with "TRILL
over L2TP," as that gives you all of the authentication, NAT traversal,
and other bits that have already been worked out for L2TP.)

> Is this WG intending to develop a TRILL-over-X specification for every X
> for which there is an Ethernet-over-X specification?

I think a better question to ask is why none of the existing mechanisms
that could solve this problem are in fact adequately usable.  That
should be a core part of any new protocol description.

> It would have been more useful to specify Ethernet over PPP.

That already exists -- RFC2878 provides Ethernet bridging over PPP.

James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <>