Re: [trill] Charter Revision Active-Active Item

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Olen,

Thanks for suggesting this clarification. I agree that only transient
loops protected by the hop count are acceptable.

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Olen Stokes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Thanks for the proposal.  We may want to add some clarification to the discussion about looping during transient conditions associated with a topology change.  Loops contained completely inside the TRILL network would have a TTL count to help mitigate the problem.  However, a loop where a packet continually leaves the TRILL network and then re-enters the TRILL network will not receive benefit from the TTL count.  Such a loop should not be permitted even during a transient period.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

> Cheers,
> Olen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Donald Eastlake
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:09 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [trill] Charter Revision Active-Active Item
>
> Just speaking as a WG participant, I've come up with the attached, which incorporates some comments from others. It could be expanded into an internet draft if desired.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  [e-mail]
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Item "(2) Active-Active connection at the edge of a TRILL campus.
>> (draft-ietf-trill-cmt, draft-hu-trill-pseudonode-nickname)"
>>
>> There appeared to be agreement that work should be done in this space
>> but a better problem statement / scope was requested.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> =============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  [e-mail]