Re: [rbridge] Call for draft-tissa-trill-cmt-00 to WG draft

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

All of the proposals have some good and bad features.

The approval of the CMT draft as a working group draft is not final
approval to request RFC publication. I think the CMT draft needs some
more work particularly to cover failure cases.

I don't think the WG has decided the details of multi-topology yet.
If, when it does so, MT provides a simpler way to do what the CMT
draft does, then I think those using multi-topology should be able to
use that technique to solve this problem.

I believe the CMT draft only covers cases where the RBridges are not
adjacent in that they can't see each other's Hellos. (You might refer
to this case by the oxymoronic term "opaque link".) For the case where
the RBridges are adjacent and you could easily have a pseudo node, I
believe a separate draft is needed. I tend to think that such a draft
would probably end up using the CMT sub-TLV but it might not.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
> During the TRILL session today, there was a consensus of those in the
> room to make draft-tissa-trill-cmt-00.txt a TRILL WG draft. This is a
> call on the WG mailing list to confirm that consensus. If you wish to
> respond, please do so by April 10th.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[e-mail]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge