Re: [trill] Review of draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-08

Joe Touch <> Tue, 03 January 2017 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA49B129AE5; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:57:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5kKOCO0Uh_t2; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C15129AD3; Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v03IuSVY024112 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:56:29 -0800 (PST)
To: Ines Robles <>,
References: <>
From: Joe Touch <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:56:30 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] Review of draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-08
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 18:57:22 -0000

Some observations:

- the title is misleading; this is TRILL over UDP, not trill over IP.

- the use of two different ports invites some potentially unintended
problems, e.g., selective blocking of the control vs. data plane. IMO,
given that TRILL's purpose is to extend Ethernet (not IP), this service
would be better served using a single port and differentiated
encapsulated traffic by whatever method TRILL nodes use internally.
Otherwise, this spec needs to include specific description of unexpected
behavior, e.g., data frames on the IS-IS port and IS-IS frames on the
data port.

- regardless of whether one or two ports are requested, this doc should
provide the needed information for IANA (e.g., a service name and
description compliant with RFC6335).

- the section on MTU handling might benefit from informationally citing
intarea-tunnels, and consider using the recommendations there. In
particular, it's not sufficient to assume IPv4 supports 576 byte MTUs
(that's the minimum receiver reassembly MTU, not the transit MTU). That
section should also address issues of PMTUD and PLMTUD.