Re: [trill] Comments on draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-06

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Wed, 17 January 2018 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38A1131481; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:46:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 4ut9XfmApZDk; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A61129C5D; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:46:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r4so13358905oti.12; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:46:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AaKj9pOuMmmFt5/nl6S7xbowYLdmVvnpnyHgORShYOk=; b=XrPnhdE2jARcD5/Ec4UfnMs/nkHd1GnJNGqXRyVuIR3ywbyQC4ehQ7vNeOgQleIg2Q 06j5rvOmmWOWOmncRcEGuzOEDnwVMmxdZShz6SFU6cYBrQGnTzq8iraX5hAhXcw1nUGw wqPYLjN0b3bqKVXIe++WXjtNZdAdQwpLg8Y48lA8GKnTJj1cu9kdwzn0p7uu9nI20kZo aKTXTK7kLNAcoAbSs3iQ9Bulq60t/w3jD8gz2Vac9ZqBAXgF039uvbrJPEH17VLgCg6A 9xlMxl7QGFbsG6xs7wX5m1S3RuH+QGT9wo99HLdxITRQAEdZAFbBb8JXxK26ubHB2NRo uDvQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AaKj9pOuMmmFt5/nl6S7xbowYLdmVvnpnyHgORShYOk=; b=hberYsGw7tsqUZfcRV9w5y51YV9a+AoUSbHMpZEi92jLxHfl5I4egePg3iijuk+5iK YKu66f64dL1vaCquJaPREh5kCwXr3xb7rN6It5inVX5cyROgGilX9z2RRQWAR050RyNg Uwgxedrc0f+IaRpNtYAe4OYDQxb/r146yU8Bp4UuUUWu2+kBb1qksNUtuMykD8/VrB+9 HaV/bsdH+55WfyebK8iGxVJvwuCNq9vx//mAjG5D7n6hFmjv7AE9thD7xw1d6RTMAlt+ cmcBTn5HfvtFg3Iqeb5wDYEPgTOWCu5qAHNfmL6jqLAuGHcrFJ6t8qO+3/aycdpFqCvH KY/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf0XSLvNPpzrTIFjKOub6yS2N0iR/f9bQCgRPach/vaH66YTg6J fa6tRCEd4BrCJ2XP53IUZsBIhcSw83vXbb7kCK27Rg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovJP5K8zIG3Ss/DKOlT9ihuNIAxnR7N48MihJSxOp/oClNR5BgRYeZ/HMgZuxiNqa6oUYMJ0AQv3aoHybCs9zA=
X-Received: by with SMTP id r14mr1471919oth.127.1516203966589; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:46:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2018 07:45:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 10:45:46 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f40304354a50d5f0f70562fabe44"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Comments on draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-06
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, 17 Jan 2018 15:46:09 -0000


I agree with your recommended changes.

While we’re discussing the draft, I've previously commented that it 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. I have some proposed text to fix this.

1. There are two models defined, the VPLS and VPTS models, and the draft
doesn’t recommend which to use. The draft should recommend the VPTS model
as the default, as it is an emulated TRILL service. This can be fixed in
either section 2 or section 6 (or both) by adding “As this is an emulated
TRILL service, for interoperability purposes the VPTS model is the
default.” I'll let the draft authors decide if section 2 or section 6 (or
both) is better for this.

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. This can be fixed by adding “In accordance with [RFC7173],
the PPP encapsulation is the default.”


On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Donald Eastlake <> wrote:

> Hi,
> There are a bunch of RFCs referenced in this draft but not listed in the
> References section. They need to be added to the References.
> I think the Security Considerations section, while it provides a good set
> of references, needs one added sentence: something about how the document
> does not change the security considerations because it uses existing
> standards without change.
> Section 5 is very short and seems like it could be moved up and merged
> with the Introduction. (The section number of the following sections would
> be reduced by one.)
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 <(508)%20333-2270> (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list