Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls - WG LC (11/11 to 11/25)

R Parameswaran <> Mon, 19 February 2018 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0904129C5D for <>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ovtzsW1ht6wN for <>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41729128959 for <>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g14so13146221qti.2 for <>; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IW3LF2tb/cmw1xGuS+mlggfMOlZaC8uttl3EeTr3wes=; b=aPolcIqwQZN0CUZyRx/lB5oZoOYk9U1XpgTsmjoxzA/VW4gy/7Ly/t0qaObFppdCuP Ie9DCzr12YwhdjKp+LvuP2stmckp/5gsdV4fv9w4Osxu94ijqQcd73QyhsyzBEwlVXT7 tawu6NNz0Px8L8kSvRhCffgqbp2SrATaOQQ70V2KSo4a0OGFwqkio5Gq5YX+L4ObQOIp jeISFqxflt1vS0ZFabB9AX3qSwAZ2Z8g+qv+MFwCnjqgtm/3SxwzJLwuU/IvZWsbzm9r L4ZrcNccJvFBUBo4ugTNDuTQRkIur8ROnSgr/7sJj7Z/bbfB/nNreF9hPbDTd56EDkpx VoWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IW3LF2tb/cmw1xGuS+mlggfMOlZaC8uttl3EeTr3wes=; b=HRFniuWGo+ryjIbFNVaLH5fEP+DkxOBln29d6dOygvvPx/a5jhJXScSVA0l7NQ8iOe SgQuB4+gciDPt+kQSixJSo3CyeVmi3zz77SeeQR6Deiv7uWihSFS8KusClIMIrHqu9Np uJ0Met50O8cL1d1bhINLiprZYyF0W7V29VdOE4OnoZhL5MNjI2m2L1sRSnU/XLzR4MXT I7f7t0y6VY2sSzHZYCOPRLwbopGod+LWTAJpxkAPWccnKMYMLo6K/Kk6JdjPIn88M6Lh Vvii3xItbA+0+6eQxbLXjBbuoFLVqvvwPcZ60s/ej4P8UlUBqftmoYL1fZU35/rHv5mL P3RA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPB3cmkWKcqVgHXjX1VbMnTf4tcDpk9trUDTHU8ubXTlF6GwMt23 wpIFkMO7et22OYUGKMjqxLhdJXaZGEnIKnj8G52TIlnm
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224l+cbtp32+YyeXBoGxWBDzpmx/p/zPJBkJ++lTCkhp5DOWFwozb4fjJMTJQqdUkB3FKEFps+wJ8NbqMjjv6js=
X-Received: by with SMTP id o56mr25464557qtb.94.1519061288019; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:07 -0800 (PST)
From: R Parameswaran <>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:28:07 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c037276eba40565940421"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls - WG LC (11/11 to 11/25)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:28:11 -0000


I support the draft in this process, please see inline:

This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-MPLS
(11/11/2017 to 11/25/2017).  Please consider if this draft is ready for
publication.   In this consideration please consider:

1)      Does TRILL need to run over MPLS?  Some data centers are
interconnected over MPLS.  Does this capability aid in deployment of TRILL?

[RP]: Yes to both questions.

2)      Is this specification ready for publication?

[RP]: I have no objection to it being published, but have some review
comments below. From an high-level/overview perspective, it seems
reasonably clear/complete in terms of providing a problem statement
and specifying the technologies needed to resolve the problem

3)      Do you know of any problems with this specification?


a . I think the draft may need to be more clear on how it maps an
incoming (control and/or data-plane) packet to a specific tenant in
either approach. Are pseudo-wires/MPLS circuits shared between
tenants? Specifically if two or more tenants have the same switch-id
on the Rbridge side, how does the solution differentiate between them
based on the incoming packet?

b. How does multi-topology Trill fit into this draft?

c. Typos in figures 2, 4. Under "Rbat2" on the left-side of each
figure, the label should probably be "Tenant 2 Site 1" (as opposed to
"Tenant 2 Site 2")?



Susan Hares

(co-chair, document shepherd)