[rbridge] draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam-02

somnath chatterjee <somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com> Wed, 21 March 2012 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rbridge-bounces@postel.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36EF721F86A4 for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBpQD54nofdg for <ietfarch-trill-archive-Osh9cae4@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CFDA21F869F for <trill-archive-Osh9cae4@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2LBg0rU003718; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f52.google.com (mail-yw0-f52.google.com [209.85.213.52]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2LBfTjP003656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhpp61 with SMTP id p61so1177251yhp.39 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=TwOcnSFmu5eNB4rx7n5Wnrvsv8GIqBkXWctINSxpGnE=; b=OFNPrSCz0P75bSDzdIFTaCu08Xeec7u+82QrKfCWmJzR6V99Xi0J8viYBw9XQ1aeLZ EQdzYCfJKhSww0VnB+8wQukaZo3fOdktCT2+rSUUTW9JoZZpdOQC9sodIEGn/tdEqZk/ NedHIfk0foT8FFc/n5ro/LfGUr6E3W1eAbuEnibRN1ddjUEHGJmHcEZkRy2YFzsJY6WS 8/RjuD5G3aqg3xyUoYb1wPe5GdBgnpmnAPKZF3Pz827aiywYlU3s2ArEAIWc+UEfSry6 6Nb+WnbzfHJoecR5+X/FXdqV3Wv81QlIrdLflT5f1yUWB0IK1WJsiX04pfNLvYPlsj4l O0rw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.186.71 with SMTP id v47mr3338822yhm.115.1332330089211; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.146.103.2 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Mar 2012 04:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:11:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPFewY3aWMTEBWiTpzED94JkuUeKHQZ1P9+w0NWbaZzhZkfccA@mail.gmail.com>
From: somnath chatterjee <somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com>
To: rbridge@postel.org
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: somnath.chatterjee01@gmail.com
Subject: [rbridge] draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam-02
X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge>
List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
Errors-To: rbridge-bounces@postel.org

Hi Authors,

1>In Section 4.1.1 two  statements can be found which is ambiguous.
In first paragraph
"The M bit MUST be zero."
and in sixth paragraph
"The M bit MUST be zero for a known unicast ping."

I think the ping tool should not be limited to unicast use only and
should be allowed to be sent on distribution tree when used for
multidestination frames/unknown unicast. It would be good to include
excerpts from draft-yizhou-trill-multi-destination-ping in this OAM
draft which talks about multi-destination ping, jitters etc.

2> It would be good if RBridges that implement TRILL- OAM does not
decrement Hop count by more than one for OAM/Channel messages only.
This would help us limiting the max hop count used for traceroute to
be equal to the diameter of the campus.

3> If my understanding is correct there is no way to distinguish
between pings reply and unicast traceroute reply(other than the error
replies). An user may use both the tool concurrently or with minimal
time gap. As such it would be hard to distinguish between the replies
only with sequence number. I would suggest to use some unique
identifier to differentiate between the two types of messages.

4> In Section 4.1.2.1
". . . various forms of ECMP hashing based on fields such as MAC
addresses, IP addresses, and/or TCP/UDP port numbers."
 Vlans may be added to the fields list.

5> In Section 4.1.2.2
Editorial changes for "One cannot use the diemater of the network . .
."  should be replaced by
"One cannot use the diameter of the network/campus"

Thank you,
Regards,
Somnath
_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge@postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge