Re: [trill] Charter Revision TRILL Link Types Item

[Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Donald,

On May 22, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Sam,
> 
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Donald,
>> 
>> Inline for my comments.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 16, 2013, at 5:09 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Sam,
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Sam Aldrin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> I am not comfortable with new text either.
>>>> It should rather say, TRILL extensions to support extension of
>>>> TRILL campus over WAN/internet. Something like that.
>>> 
>>> I see two parts to what you want: (1) various link technology
>>> protocols, and
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> (1) Generally TRILL over X link technology stuff gets done in the X
>>> WG, if there is an X WG, not in the TRILL WG. For pseudo wires, we
>>> have agreement from the PWE3 Chairs and AD that it should be done in
>>> TRILL as long as there is not change to PWE3. For IP, there is no IP
>>> WG. I'm not convinced we could get something that would imply we could
>>> do TRILL over an WAN technology approved in our Charter.
>> 
>> IP is unique as there in no WG as such. Understand that. The premise
>> of my comment is as follows. We do anticipate changes in TRILL like
>> adding new TLV or something else, while extending TRILL over IP or
>> PWE3 or other types. Instead of doing per WAN/link type, considering
>> general extensions for TRILL such that, one could extend TRILL over
>> IP or MPLS or VXLAN or whatever. That is better effort spent by the
>> WG rather than doing extensions again and again per each type. If
>> this produces multiple drafts or not in not at all the point, but
>> charter item shouldn't restrict to one or two types.
> 
> Actually, I do not agree. No new TLV is proposed in the IP or PWE3
> draft.  TRILL, in my opinion, is a well designed and powerful
> protocol. Specifying how to use it over a new link technology normally
> involves no changes to TRILL or to the link technology. Generally, all
> you have to do is profile how to use which existing facilities of the
> link technology and how to use which existing facilities of TRILL. So,
> I do not think there is some magic thing the TRILL WG can do that will
> solve TRILL over X for many X.
Well, let us agree to disagree. x
One may have to do the similar model when RFC6361 did. It could be in TRILL or within that link technology
It is premature to think there will not be any changes to make TRILL extend over link types, just because those drafts didn't have any extensions.
For ex: capability negotiation.

Having said that, a better way to resolve this is to actually see what WG's interest is? i.e. what link types they perceive to extend TRILL upon.
If it is just IP, PWE3 and ppp, it is well and good and the existing charter item description suffice.
But if they are interested in other types, like VXLAN etc, they could be considered as well.

cheers
-sam
> 
> Also, I just think it would be difficult to get approval for a general
> Charter item to let TRILL do whatever it wants with TRILL over any
> kind of link or over any wide ares network.
> 
>>> ...
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>>> Drafts mentioned in the draft Charter are just supposed to be
>>> examples, not binding, and could be dropped.
>> 
>> If they are not binding, drop them.
> 
> In some cases they may be useful starting points. I can look at them,
> drop some that seem less important, and insert "for example" in front
> of others.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> [e-mail]
> 
>> Sam
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald
>>> =============================
>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>>> -sam
>>>> 
>>>> On May 2, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Item (4) Support of IP links between TRILL switches, for example to
>>>>> connect branch office TRILL switches to a central campus over the
>>>>> Internet.  (draft-mrw-trill-over-ip)"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Based on the discussion at the meeting, including the discussion of
>>>>> draft-yong-pwe3-trill-o-pw, which has been tweaked and re-posted as
>>>>> draft-yong-trill-o-pw, I suggest this item be replaced by
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Item (4) Support of TRILL over pseudowires and IP tunnels between
>>>>> TRILL switches, for example to connect branch office TRILL switches to
>>>>> a central campus over the Internet. (draft-yong-trill-o-pw)"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Comments?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Donald
>>>>> =============================
>>>>> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>>>>> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>>>>> [e-mail]