Re: [trill] draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multilevel-10: Extension of WG Adoption call (7/16 to 8/16)

Liyizhou <> Thu, 06 August 2015 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F381B3364 for <>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RGZs04MH1k5C for <>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D36D11B35D7 for <>; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BZN68407; Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:35:18 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 02:35:17 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:35:14 +0800
From: Liyizhou <>
To: Susan Hares <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [trill] draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multilevel-10: Extension of WG Adoption call (7/16 to 8/16)
Thread-Index: AdDOumCjEfzgUzLdQRaZ+EX5fr8W0ABKoWIQ
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:35:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <022701d0ceba$7d31a9b0$7794fd10$>
In-Reply-To: <022701d0ceba$7d31a9b0$7794fd10$>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D408889639FC5E4FADB4E00A3E01FA8F838CF3A1nkgeml503mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'Donald Eastlake' <>, 'Jon Hudson' <>
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multilevel-10: Extension of WG Adoption call (7/16 to 8/16)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 01:35:23 -0000

I support the adoption of the multi-level drafts.
Multi-level is a useful feature to solve scalability issue in trill campus.

This draft gives great details in introducing the issues caused by multi-level and comparing the pros and cons in Unique and Aggregated nickname approaches.

I simply want to clarify that the intention of the draft is informational, right? I do not see the exact TLV format to be used either in unique or in aggregated nickname approaches. The references listed two expired drafts [DraftUnique] and [DraftUnique].

Are we going to make them both standards? If that is the case, together with another single nickname approach, I would like to see the text to describe the co-existence of them.



From: trill [] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 9:36 PM
Cc: 'Donald Eastlake'; 'Jon Hudson'
Subject: [trill] draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multilevel-10: Extension of WG Adoption call (7/16 to 8/16)

This extends the  WG adoption call for draft-perlman-trill-rbridge-multi-level-10 from 7/16 to 8/16.  You can find the draft at:

In your response to the WG adoption call, please comment on the technology
and places this technology might be deployed.

Sue Hares and Jon Hudson

PS - the first email on this subject is at: