[trill] Two comments on draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach-00

Haoweiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com> Thu, 31 July 2014 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <haoweiguo@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338EA1A0366 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z6nbyHLFkWcy for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B72A41A0298 for <trill@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 23:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BKS99122; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:53:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 07:52:59 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:52:50 +0800
From: Haoweiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com>
To: Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Two comments on draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach-00
Thread-Index: AQHPrIwLZl7xxZ/tJk2SEirtXwgFFg==
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:52:49 +0000
Message-ID: <DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F7E7803@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DD5FC8DE455C3348B94340C0AB5517334F7E7803nkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/TBhuc5uMBCuLOorjijI0j0H8wec
Cc: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: [trill] Two comments on draft-ietf-trill-aa-multi-attach-00
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 31 Jul 2014 06:53:04 -0000

Hi Mingui,

In section 5.3.1, no duplication mechanism is described. I think DF election should be used instead of HASH mechanism.

It's hard to realize consistent cross RBridge HASH algorithm, each RBridge should know other RBridge's local port and port up/down state, i have not ever seen similar implementation in industry.

In section 5.3.2 , split-horizon mechanism is described. I think the solution had better add local bias forwarding procedures.

I think the solution should be local bias forwarding plus split-horizon based on ingress nickname. What's local bias forwarding behavior? If there are multiple ESs(assuming ES1 and ES2 are in same VLAN) are connected to same RBridge of RB1,  when RB1 receives BUM traffic from ES1, it should local forwarded to ES2 no matter the DF state on the port connecting to ES2, this is called Local bias forwarding behavior.
Then RB1 injects the BUM traffic to TRILL campus and forward to RB2, if local port belongs to a MC-LAG and the MC-LAG attaches to RB1, then RB2 should drop the traffic to the local port based on ingress nickname tracking and filtering.