Re: [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology - WG adoption call (extension 7/30 to 8/16)
gayle noble <windy_1@skyhighway.com> Sun, 09 August 2015 04:11 UTC
Return-Path: <windy_1@skyhighway.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A351AC3C6 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 gGREQfOD5wQ3 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skyhighway.com (skyhighway.com [63.249.82.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 621E11AC3C1 for <trill@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Firefly.skyhighway.com (dsl-63-249-88-160.static.cruzio.com [63.249.88.160]) by skyhighway.com with ESMTP id t794BixQ032650 for <trill@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Aug 2015 21:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <201508090411.t794BixQ032650@skyhighway.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 21:11:53 -0700
To: trill@ietf.org
From: gayle noble <windy_1@skyhighway.com>
In-Reply-To: <021a01d0ceb9$c810a4f0$5831eed0$@ndzh.com>
References: <021a01d0ceb9$c810a4f0$5831eed0$@ndzh.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_71152149==.ALT"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/mhC9ZOgoFjA7Nc2_OXfZ4ci2YZo>
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology - WG adoption call (extension 7/30 to 8/16)
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 04:11:51 -0000
I support adoption of this draft. I also have the following corrections. corrections 1. page 3 last paragraph ["of an multi-topology campus" should be "of a multi-topology campus"] (as written) Multi-topology TRILL supports regions of topology ignorant TRILL switches as part of an multi-topology campus; however, such regions can only ingress, egress, or transit TRILL Data frames in the special base topology zero. (should be) Multi-topology TRILL supports regions of topology ignorant TRILL switches as part of a multi-topology campus; however, such regions can only ingress, egress, or transit TRILL Data frames in the special base topology zero. 2. page 5 section 2.2 paragraph two - first sentence ["by removing a reference (see Section 2.4)" the section two reads real strange and is not a proper sentence. I think it should be re-worded (as written) A link is only usable for TRILL Data packets in non-zero topology T if (1) all TRILL switch ports on the link advertise topology T support in their Hellos and (2) if any TRILL switch port on the link requires explicit TRILL Data packet topology labeling (see Section 2.4) every other TRILL switch port on the link is capable of generating explicit packet topology labeling. (I'd write) A link is only usable for TRILL Data packets in non-zero topology T if (1) all TRILL switch ports on the link advertise topology T support in their Hellos and (2)if any TRILL switch port on the link requires explicit TRILL Data packet topology labeling then every other port on the link can generate such labeling. (See Section 2.4.1 on explicit topology labeling.) 3. page 6 section 2.4 section paragraph - first sentence "sometimes used" should be "sometimes be used"] (as written) Examples of fields that may sometimes used to determine topology are values or ranges of values of the payload VLAN or Fine Grained Label [RFC7172], packet priority, IP version (IPv6 versus IPv4) or IP protocol, Ethertype, unicast versus multi-destination payload, IP Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) bits, or the like. (should be ) Examples of fields that may sometimes be used to determine topology are values or ranges of values of the payload VLAN or Fine Grained Label [RFC7172], packet priority, IP version (IPv6 versus IPv4) or IP protocol, Ethertype, unicast versus multi-destination payload, IP Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) bits, or the like. 4. page 6 value 1's meaning second sentence ["lable" should be "label"] (as written) Such a port is capable of determining TRILL Data packet topology without an explicit lable for all of the topologies it supports and thus does not require such a label in received TRILL Data packets. (should be) Such a port is capable of determining TRILL Data packet topology without an explicit label for all of the topologies it supports and thus does not require such a label in received TRILL Data packets. 5. page 7 part of table Value 2/3 (Noticed by Donald Eastlake) [The first line of the entry for "2/3" is outdented rather than indented. It's a bit hard to notice this problem since it is split over a page boundary. So the first line of the "2/3" entry need to be indented some.] (as written) determination for that packet, the TRILL switch MUST discard the packet. 2/3 Requires an explicit topology label in received TRILL Data packets except for topology zero. Any TRILL Data packets received without such a label is classified as being in topology zero. Also capable of inserting an explicit topology label in TRILL Data packets sent. (Values 2 and 3 are treated the same, which is the same as saying that if the 2 bit is on, the 1 bit is ignored.) (should be) determination for that packet, the TRILL switch MUST discard the packet. 2/3 Requires an explicit topology label in received TRILL Data packets except for topology zero. Any TRILL Data packets received without such a label is classified as being in topology zero. Also capable of inserting an explicit topology label in TRILL Data packets sent. (Values 2 and 3 are treated the same, which is the same as saying that if the 2 bit is on, the 1 bit is ignored.) 6. page 9 section 3.1 first paragraph - first sentence ["announement" should be "announcement" ] (as written) There is no change in the determination or announement of adjacency for topology zero as specified in [RFC7177]. (should be) There is no change in the determination or announcement of adjacency for topology zero as specified in [RFC7177]. And ... acronyms used but not defined BFD Bidirectional Forwarding Detection ESADI End Station Address Distribution Information IS-IS Intermediate System to Intermediate System MAC Media Access Control Sub-TLV Link-type sub-Type-Length-Values TLV Type Length Value Thank you Donald for explaining the technical stuff to me I miss by not being at the meetings. >*sparkles*< gayle
- [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology - WG … Susan Hares
- Re: [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology -… Haoweiguo
- Re: [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology -… Liyizhou
- Re: [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology -… gayle noble
- Re: [trill] draft-eastlake-trill-multi-topology -… Mingui Zhang