Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Mon, 27 February 2017 16:43 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEF012A208; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:43:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mWO0ouloDjco; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:42:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x234.google.com (mail-ot0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE88412A1F8; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:42:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x234.google.com with SMTP id i1so14951451ota.3; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:42:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iXDM4mThDU4p/V6Gz2RooOCS383KYRmln6GjhPSWujQ=; b=nAUXkfJoZ/sJ/V6aOfEINzJ/c10O1v1/MBYCJN4QbpY1g8QYIdRZN0epwzfbDl7qCX nQ7WtDsRuIeqn6ga9KYL5yD+dqUHIFNOcBsrAAPYCf/CMfUfQSrcWK8HTgexKCu7glE0 lvI4KGl/l7WQpXmvitoQ7OMR6CuD452t8hsm4Up1RHnCniUZhhMgng0Yq39Pz1+G9go+ DYuxnU7LJ2KLlAVuVydRx91jRfrrzE8J74di9UiqTFEpdrpMsxgcr5IoFnQcn52BuBf1 KSxpa++ag3EE7uSynSWhUvI1aR8dFLHKpr9gakVg1vTsh5DEteU/ZxmeuDKQI4XOu4Dr 2Hjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iXDM4mThDU4p/V6Gz2RooOCS383KYRmln6GjhPSWujQ=; b=QuwMpf9ue2sB1v8hmYu0ioBbbhR0eL7/2p28gJ6c8VO2kU4sv6YoSOmSE8vfjvFC/a S47oMOH5I3FyeAu6BYpoKOOBM3WqOjSWlGc1kFf8/PC6Aot32kOv7Fo4YmGZ11ffwCeq NybEBfcw6v8iClhS13+l+L1dKh7Ijbhct0PsYvQOpeKhn8YcZG//586o7wV8rTnwxRVT M9Is2XOAOXT9SfLCwoLSoVkl5XTFZImrn1CUQ64t2fQS3xPQuDlEsSp5ZCSfuUdmlQTa T+RuN7U0iadLu95nBRDHU601bZgh3z3O1XeIbwsuvwtZeQ41tfCEOurA+JUy3Qohm5pe B0ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mMCZLJ3hFkc7r0lIxQ+SQovkCeSX5GkBbpsvhdbVY5e+k8ayCCbEWsWSs0neKau9FkWy28C29Pc8Q4ig==
X-Received: by 10.157.59.72 with SMTP id z66mr8225365otb.191.1488213778288; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:42:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.52.7 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 08:42:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8FA0B47D-32C0-41D0-BBDD-35F430DC44EE@nokia.com>
References: <8FA0B47D-32C0-41D0-BBDD-35F430DC44EE@nokia.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:42:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1GQvSgXiiXH9dB9C5wuV+0xXpz4cj1uSvhSMT56Sda5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141abfc9ad759054985c52b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/rE67qR9dLl3FZex2K6xILP93aZ8>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls@ietf.org>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:43:01 -0000
I’ve got some comments on Matthew’s review, inline. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < matthew.bocci@nokia.com> wrote: > Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport- > over-mpls-02 > > > > Hi, > > > > I have been assigned the QA reviewer for this draft. The general > guidelines for QA reviews > > can be found at: > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDirDocQa > > > > These state: > > > > "When reviewing a draft at WG Adoption, the QA Reviewer should > > determine whether the draft is readable, understandable, makes sense > > and is a good start for a WG draft. Any issues the QA Reviewer finds > > are written down, sent to the mailing list and discussed for future > > versions" > > > > Here is my review of this draft: > > > > ** Summary. > > Generally, the draft is well written - thank you. I have a few minor > comments below, > > mostly related to the relationship between TRILL over MPLS and established > VPLS mechanisms. > > > > ** Is the draft readable? > > > > Yes. There are a few minor grammatical errors and it would help if the > draft was proof-read > > to weed-out these. An example is: > > Abstract > > "..that are separated by MPLS provider network." > > s/by MPLS/by an MPLS > > > > > > ** Is the draft understandable? > > > > Yes, provided the reader is familiar with TRILL, MPLS and VPLS. > > > > ** Does it make sense? > > I think it is mostly clear, but I have a few comments, as follows: > > > > Section 3.4. MPLS encapsulation for VPLS model > > > > "Use of VPLS [RFC4762] to interconnect TRILL sites requires no changes to > > a VPLS implementation, in particular the use of Ethernet pseudowires > > between VPLS PEs. A VPLS PE receives normal Ethernet frames from an > > RBridge (i.e., CE) and is not aware that the CE is an RBridge device. As > > a result, an MPLS-encapsulated TRILL packet within the MPLS network will > > use the format illustrated in Appendix A of [RFC7173]." > > > > It doesn't look like the encapsulation shown in Appendix A of > > RFC7173 takes account of the case where PBB VPLS [RFC7041] is used in the > provider's > > MPLS network, but I would have thought this would still be a valid VPLS > type to transport > > TRILL. It might be worth qualifying your reference with some text to state > that > > this is just an example in the non-PBB case. > Andy: As the author of this paragraph, I agree with Matthew’s comment. We can change the last sentence to say: "As an example, an MPLS-encapsulated TRILL packet within the MPLS network will use the format illustrated in Appendix A of [RFC7173] for the non-PBB case, or in the PBB case, with the additional header fields illustrated in [RFC7041]." > > Section 4.1.1: > > "TIR devices are a superset of the VPLS-PE devices defined in [RFC4026] > with the > > additional functionality of TRILL." > > Is this really true? Later you state that TIRs use PPP PWs, not the > Ethernet PWs used in > > VPLS. It is also not clear if TRILL needs some of the LDP or BGP signaling > extensions > > used for VPLS. Wouldn't it be cleaner just to define a TIR as a new kind > of PE? > Andy: I also agree with this comment. > > > Section 6. VPTS Model Versus VPLS Model > > "An issue with the above rule is that if a pseudowire between PEs fails, > > frames will not get forwarded between the PEs where pseudowire went > > down." > > > > I think this is only true for a simple full mesh VPLS where there are not > other protection > > mechanisms. I am not sure this is applicable to H-VPLS with PW redundancy, > for example, > > which I think is likely to be a widespread deployment case for the VPLS > model of TRILL > > over MPLS. > Andy: I agree. In addition, see section 4.4 of RFC 4742, which allows the use of spanning tree in a VPLS network to provide redundancy in the case of a failure in the VPLS. > > Best regards > > Matthew > Cheers, Andy
- [trill] Routing Area Directorate QA review of dra… Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Susan Hares
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Kingston Smiler
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Kingston Smiler
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Mohammed Umair
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Mohammed Umair
- Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA… Andrew G. Malis