Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Thu, 30 June 2016 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 39FBB12DADF; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Obop9wzTEhv2; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 646D412D0CD; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f189so77034663oig.3; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=m11K0OgevhxXHynzSVun4N6gg708SXz8t7acCB0Y+ME=; b=qBxs0XqPwDKq5uPFtEa0OUuXjmg4+XJ0XWBax+sqdsHmSdn2oT8Hc2ffY6Tm7GENIb rjQR2xirkgfSN+OVhRxtYhZEx8FcJtyNRSNTEQAhlUjjDY/YBKTt6kd/puj26dVv6W8I Q2KSa6I3+gCQf6PJhcrKn+YdHKu0pQ1U3eJ4iugvIgX7/Yn/DVr978tOqiwgow3eSVOK lnf4rmi9M8EsHj/lieQHbjhKIoW2KkBk2MX+/Tq9QOfdCVzYSeLsXYYmdxpM47eolvga 3zcEmZFMDmLco6KTXPohzxHEae4MkKUrR2d8XNg6YJ5uJenbJz65WLPi341smr68kdUx t6ZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=m11K0OgevhxXHynzSVun4N6gg708SXz8t7acCB0Y+ME=; b=mNFPUJ1qNE1xA2/lznQBjVx0qsxWtKMctdTV/2FFcT981pees5qhkOBjtuUpNHfJFo Z1r4pabSO6432lI4I059B2b7OT8lkB8gsNaZZqgph8sIX7qlfyyQilHr3UoiXWeo61F1 hA38LXv9TE1tGugpQPrzsCCwGCoyd4356hQeITAVB/YE/5p8ofZbHCf0NY5KTLUgATPR /sO1Es4EIVs0bleYFFvsVUT9ZKHCl3j2CGfj+ig/E/HFYYQulDYKrd61gU8E02ITChPB hJo0IFe/4bNWFdhla8gWBpLIN5IjbY+IkKsuYwAKDfivWO7sNuVNhupxTLVKlCyMkujn bTmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJUnH6s7sLIsSaMnMO3cQ/BJ9fx6yX7X0qhbFxPvmPolCPgYY490q2camDuBZdRYkF0edkkEoHPypRjEA==
X-Received: by 10.202.66.214 with SMTP id p205mr10793665oia.43.1467310396832; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.52.242 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 11:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160629230835.30452.44953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20160629230835.30452.44953.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:13:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEaFy26uW3k1fxm0pG0J+-dZ5YGn64oW71=GhMNMEsB5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/T4k9UVp4ejfFKo7ZqA-NGJyRibk>
Cc: "trill-chairs@ietf.org" <trill-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-trill-irb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [trill] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:13:22 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for your comments. See below.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan
<suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: Discuss
>
> ...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Section 6 has a few errors that need to get fixed before this document
> goes forward. e.g. It is not clear what a "192.0.2.0/32" subnet means
> especially since the only host shown to be on the subnet 192.0.2.2 cannot
> obviously fall inside the subnet range. The /32 needs to be replaced with
> something shorter depending on what the authors/WG intended (say a /24).

Yes. That should have been "/24".

> * RB2 seems to be advertising ES2s IPv4 address 198.51.100.2/32 instead
> of the prefix of the subnet while RB1 seems to be advertising the the
> IPv4 prefix of the ES1 subnet. One of these is wrong. Not sure which one
> is intended.

It should be the prefix in both cases.

> * What is the rationale for using a /112 IPv6 prefix for numbering an
> IPv6 link with hosts? Things like SLAAC (RFC4862) will not work in such
> links. Is there a reason the authors want to use a longer than /64?
> Please read RFC7421 for advantages of using a /64 instead and to find out
> what things break if you do not use a /64.

The Distributed Layer 3 gateway specified in this draft is expect to
primarily be used in data centers where I would expect everything to
be strictly configured by an orchestration system. Thus stateless
autoconfiguration seems less likely and I suspect it just wasn't
through of. However, I don't see a problem with changing this to "/64"
and the mechanism specified could be used in other contexts outside
data centers.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 5: What does "Layer 2 routing" mean in this context?

Previously standardized TRILL routing, which is based on destination
MAC address as mapped into a TRILL nickname. The wording can be
clarified.

> Sections 7.3 & 7.4: What is the point of including these sub-TLVs if no
> prefix is being advertised? (The Total Length=0 case specified in the
> document)

Sometimes a zero length has some special meaning. The draft just says
that it has the obvious meaning although it is not a particularly
useful value.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com