[trill] [TRILL FGL] A question about RFC7172

Zouwenyu <zouwy@h3c.com> Sat, 24 May 2014 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <zouwy@h3c.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB231A0104 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 May 2014 01:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.943
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, CN_BODY_35=0.339, CN_BODY_832=0.004, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QIRgl0O0XPe1 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 May 2014 01:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h3cedge04-ex.h3c.com (smtp.h3c.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB4F1A00F2 for <trill@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 May 2014 01:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from H3CHUB01-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com ( by h3cedge04-ex.h3c.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sat, 24 May 2014 16:00:12 +0800
Received: from H3CHUB04-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com ( by H3CHUB01-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sat, 24 May 2014 16:00:12 +0800
Received: from H3CMLB02-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::399d:90f6:c5bb:9cc0]) by H3CHUB04-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::5939:f6db:b05e:eaba%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Sat, 24 May 2014 16:00:05 +0800
From: Zouwenyu <zouwy@h3c.com>
To: "Donald Eastlake [d3e3e3@gmail.com]" <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [TRILL FGL] A question about RFC7172
Thread-Index: AQHPdyKMxbt3Onz3tkSV77lqjE1kdg==
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 08:00:04 +0000
Message-ID: <71089ADE91738F4EB3602A5924674BF72E134C22@H3CMLB02-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_71089ADE91738F4EB3602A5924674BF72E134C22H3CMLB02EXsrvhu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/qA3Kh2dth8fX9isT4FTF-piSWD4
Cc: "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: [trill] [TRILL FGL] A question about RFC7172
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 24 May 2014 08:00:24 -0000

Hi Donald,

    In RFC7172, there are three types of RBridge: VL RBridge, FGL-safe RBridge and FGL RBridge.

    As specified in [RFC7172], Section 8.2, the flag 1 in the TRILL-VER sub-TLV should be set to indicate that a RBridge is FGL-safe.

    For FGL-edge RBridge, the Interested Labels and Spanning Tree Roots Sub-TLV which is specified in [RFC7176], Section 2.3.8, could indicate that a RBridge is FGL RBridge.

    But how to decide whether a RBridge is FGL or not, which is only a transit FGL RBridge? I have not seen any TLV or flags to indicate that.


This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from H3C, which is
intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
by phone or email immediately and delete it!