Re: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14.txt - Consensus reached

Joe Touch <> Mon, 19 February 2018 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49F5126C19; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:40:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T9q_gPAWAy2u; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D87211242EA; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:40:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zmDs9TGvt7K2RB03NhY6SPJ4GT1vQh9+ztQAznIp+UU=; b=rgR/kyDbq+JrANoF2K1eI9faR n4EJwFh7MmCp8cqYIB5nWbv/4WZy0rZ8MRtpKgpHy4SF+9OlylU90+6NELCR+mey7sWXB9T7JH2w8 GDnCrlq1VrFi6m9TfvnqMhIejSRflnyM+mnQInn60X99xEYxTPHXRrBv27JqKAHEabUuomSeRnQPg +X9sr8uVe6b8UHM3+VNP5aHxpkUDaqZaPe22FRoDQvkEGjCiRDtVTI/U7Ep0J/TsABb25mBGa0nDo lNInkjoPPiGuoAmB29dwGXgIJMWDjlx+DOacFWddFPDhtc+btLBgtgmVOhrrjfPHLYJ+DdmWZOsAw NsirGkChg==;
Received: from ([]:53206 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1entAg-004BPQ-R4; Mon, 19 Feb 2018 16:40:30 -0500
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_85A2CFEC-6C66-415F-B995-1871D9510614"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Joe Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <03b401d3a9c5$8ebe3d40$ac3ab7c0$>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:40:20 -0800
Cc: trill IETF mailing list <>,, Alia Atlas <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <03b401d3a9c5$8ebe3d40$ac3ab7c0$>
To: Susan Hares <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14.txt - Consensus reached
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 21:40:44 -0000


> On Feb 19, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Susan Hares <> wrote:
> Greetings: 
> Thank you for your comments on the draft-ietfd-trill-over-ip-xx.txt   The WG has reached consensus on the draft, and it will be sent forward to the IESG. 
> I want to thank Magnus Westlund, Ines Robles, and Joe Touch for their targeted reviews.  
> Joe asked two important questions that I want to chat about in announcing the result.  
> 1)      Why IPSEC + TCP/UDP tunnels 
> 2)      Why the name TRILL over IP? – it is really TRILL over IP enabled Transport port protocols 
> During this WG LC, I spent time looking back into my notes to check our evaluation of the alternatives GRE, TLS, or DLTS.  I also asked the  WG leadership team (Jon, Sue, and Donald with Alia Atlas help) to discuss these points that Joe raised.     Here’s what I found. 
> 1)      Why IPSEC and TCP/UDP tunnels
> After I walked through the WG archives, I found that over several IETFs we debated TLS, DTLS, and GRE.   Our most substantive debate was at IETF 91.   The WG had settle on utilizing GRE, TLS, or DLTS – until hardware vendors implementing TRILL came to chat with the WG at IETF 91.   The hardware vendors asked that we would utilize IPSEC and higher layer tunnels (TCP/UDP) so that TRILL switches could operate at line speed using these IPSEC processing chips off board.  The WG decided to listen to vendor creating and deploying TRILL capable devices. 
> The hardware vendors reasoning still seems valid to the WG chairs and the WGs.   If in the future hardware comes up with TLS, DTLS or GRE at Ethernet switch line rates and vendors want a TRILL product with these tunnels, I’m sure that a Routing AD or  the RTGWG draft will sponsor such a draft. <> <>

> 2)      Is the name TRILL over IP valid? 
> Now as to the name, Joe was correct the name should be changed since it is really TRILL over IPSEC + Transport.   Donald’s make the change to the title of the document, and in the document.   

“IP transport” implies using IP as a tunneling layer, which is not part of this document’s proposed approach.

Further, the description of how it interacts with TCP is incoherent to anyone familiar with TCP transport (“slicing” packets and claiming to place them directly into TCP payloads).