Re: [trill] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: (with COMMENT)

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701D612DA25; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:19:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSRWVl6xn7Xm; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C247412D88B; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id k15so3224467oib.1; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:19:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jJ4PberPzOfYXCPo5jAYX9beavA5TBcGGzN5mWlzF5I=; b=b/eKbafB2t9fS7/EIvOLuuz4iE4L5UZzjlxaIqFM3nvfMG0VSjSd0cLJgBjpmcNL4O jEVyBeYLUs373zmABmm4gZvW/41f3tvOGB/kjKH2FUQczsafz7ZLDe0r6A+6qny0hJOa 7LksLXbKJXi65Jwv2/GPkRM2SkR90n0QzfMCltiVPQyPuVWJhAo7kt4QJHQKYpmZBhc3 B4wiAv3Dh2QcsaMXq3357A9Q4QBKrj9QN5wjYX8MZL574JsoifjQPubL6KhrGbfinKdy blb5TgN082mLZIv7bFFFMTe62j+AbtAXe53zyQtIp+qrOnYmi+UM/a3lb/Gjmt0oTr/j MyKw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jJ4PberPzOfYXCPo5jAYX9beavA5TBcGGzN5mWlzF5I=; b=XLsojouzKc4ySL3ED4QMZNTuvkKWP+c8DwQEmq2gSffyTyMj5GhTkyoNLhBPErKTM1 bTZes+NO+21W98XOTExnPSh8R7KoIqylaw05uIj7s5BwTpKU/AKtAq6LbpMrvt2pwRMJ z0Hc/YmbUSpAn5tYeIQ4DP9HSMHN8LotsbZMS938YBff7zdnfTp2TfIy28AXL4kc6l9K PPXRujSuoQiLQR0rr9IQOTGWujpKicqh1edRu0VmgtmwGQhUbmkprVEwF3n9FYNg29g8 7vLU1VU9a4/FKP2+xpo7ZsVLwLraq2P5DIYskub1wa4t6M2y02bzjA4TiwHD8ftjDAlr U/Tg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCypwxA0SxgK0qYvvUDmtzRf/02zxq6509AxbkqhrGv7T9tqjSw pHBHLcI4YG5ZoXVowinSGQlZctl34CGMHaDBQWA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224TTuhLdQhWnStc6OcwJ2OjpPkAlDIoAoGYJHqhd57IhAlikEF7Zv+EWrIv9HCKRv4iip73cN6VAnhwIEdxOIM=
X-Received: by 10.202.80.79 with SMTP id e76mr3292122oib.304.1517984383008; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 22:19:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.168.67.205 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:19:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <151797264764.25879.13675913892866063161.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <151797264764.25879.13675913892866063161.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 01:19:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFnETTa09NeTeFNsjZ8U86U2o3dX2fRbWYSr=Wwe-x=1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-trill-address-flush@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, trill-chairs@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/kD6bEzylqLo_XTpnzKcZufLSttI>
Subject: Re: [trill] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 06:19:45 -0000

Hi Eric,

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: No Objection
>
> ...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is probably a dumb question but I notice that there's no
> filtering here for for example, VLAN IDs which the sending agent
> doesn't seem to be relevant for. Can you explain why that's not
> needed/desirable?

I'm not 100% sure I understand you question but it seems like you are
suggesting that an RBridge RB1 receiving an Address Flush message from
RB2 for VLAN X might ignore that message if it thinks VLAN X isn't
relevant to the sending RB2. (If VLAN X is not relevant to the
receiving RBridge RB1 then there won't be any remembered addresses at
RB1 and the flush message will have no effect.)

RBridges can in fact indicate the VLANs they are "interested in" but
one effect of doing so is that they get sent all the broadcast traffic
in that VLAN and all the unicast traffic where the attachment of the
destination MAC is unknown, and, except to the extent that multicast
pruning is implemented, all the multicast traffic in that VLAN. Assume
the sending RB2 is a management station that is participating as an
RBridge so that it can get all the link state information. Such a
management station might want to be able to issue an address flush
message in any VLAN but not want to indicate interest in most VLANs
because it does not want to receive multi-destination traffic in those
VLANs

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com