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

"Susan Hares" <> Wed, 22 November 2017 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7466E129C01 for <>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:25:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.947
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7kvCt7njxgbx for <>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4360129BF6 for <>; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:25:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: "'Andrew G. Malis'" <>
Cc: 'Donald Eastlake' <>, 'Alia Atlas' <>, 'Jon Hudson' <>,
References: <005f01d35b4c$36bd63e0$a4382ba0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:25:39 -0500
Message-ID: <02be01d36328$6d37a000$47a6e000$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02BF_01D362FE.84643010"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJy0CGqoyCua0LFRCqQ852T6jzn9wGybofUodMc+lA=
Content-Language: en-us
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: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:25:44 -0000



Thank you for letting me know about this problem.  I will work with the authors to address it. 




From: trill [] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Donald Eastlake; Alia Atlas; Jon Hudson;
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls - WG LC (11/11 to 11/25)




I found that this draft has several places where interoperability between implementations could be difficult because there are several implementation choices that can be made, and the draft doesn’t make any particular recommendations or require any of the choices to be implemented.


1. There are two models defined, the VPLS and VPTS models, and the draft doesn’t recommend which to use for each of the two problem statements. If it were me, I would recommend the VPTS model as the default, as it is an emulated TRILL service.


2. When using the VPTS model, section 4.3 says that either the PPP or Ethernet encapsulation from RFC 7173 can be used, and makes no recommendation between them. However, RFC 7173 defines the PPP encapsulation as the chosen default, and that encapsulation should be used here as well.


I recommend that these be addressed before the draft is sent to the IESG.






On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Susan Hares <> wrote:

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?

2)      Is this specification ready for publication?  

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



Susan Hares 

(co-chair, document shepherd) 

trill mailing list