Re: [trill] Query on RFC 6325

Hi AB,

Thanks for your comment. My apologies for my slow reply.

You seem to have found an error in RFC 6325. As far as I can tell, the
text you point out ("If the DRB RB1 does not have this bit set, but
neighbor RB2 on the
      link does have the bit set, then RB1 does not appoint RB2 as
      appointed forwarder for any VLAN, and none of the RBridges
      (including the pseudonode) report RB2 as a neighbor in LSPs.")
should be part of the previous bullet point, the one related the
"End-station service disable (trunk port) bit", not the bullet point
where it currently appears about the "TRILL traffic disable (access
port) bit".

I'll submit an Errata.

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

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Abhinav Bhatia <nitks.abhinav@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In RFC 6325, Section 4.9.1 RBridge Port Configuration states that:
> "
>
> If the DRB RB1 does not have this bit set, but neighbor RB2 on the
>       link does have the bit set, then RB1 does not appoint RB2 as
>       appointed forwarder for any VLAN, and none of the RBridges
>       (including the pseudonode) report RB2 as a neighbor in LSPs."
>
> The above text is from the "TRILL traffic disable (access port) bit" section
> bit set refers to access port.
>
> According to my understanding after going through RFC 6439 (appointed
> forwarders). AF assignment does not happen for trunk port (End Station
> service disable) and only happen for access port (Disable TRILL traffic) or
> when both access and trunk bits are 0.
>
> But the statement in RFC is looking contradictory, please clarify on it.
>
> Thanks,
> AB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> trill@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
>

Re: [trill] Query on RFC 6325 - Appointed forwarder of Access Port