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

[James Carlson <[e-mail]>]

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         <[e-mail]>