Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

None of these arguments matter as our Area Director says that we need
to re-Charter to make TRILL over IP a WG draft. However, I will
respond a bit below:

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Radia
>
> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then this draft is not generic.
>
> If we are discussing about TRILL over IP then I begin to wonder why cannot we use existing pseudo-wire techniques.

You can but the result is inferior, adding more layers of fuzz between
TRILL and actual transport protocol.

> If we can use existing VPLS or L2VPN techniques to achieve required functionality, why do we need yet another solution to save 2 MAC address and a VLAN on outer Ethernet header.

Maybe on a point-to-point link the main advantage is the savings you
mention. But on a multi-point technology like IP there are lots of
other factors in addition to saving a non-trivial number of bytes,
factors related to multi-destination traffic, security, etc.

The current L2VPN WG draft, to the extent it talks about
interconnecting TRILL islands, isn't TRILL over anything but, although
it connects the TRILL data planes, runs some new different more
loosely coupled control protocol between the islands.

> If we are discussing about TRILL over foo then WG need to have consensus on overall strategy before moving individual solutions to WG status. People may argue we should have a lower bar to enter documents to WG status, but side effect of that is we are over crowding the document set, hence taking focus away from agreed priority items.  Additionally, one may even argue TRILL over any other transport protocol should be part of L2VPN.
>
> Lastly, what is the rush to move this document to WG status ?

That's no different than asking why the obstructionism about a draft
that has been presented and discussed and in which previously raised
objections have been, as far as I can tell, resolved. Sitting on your
hands is not a way to get standards done.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:37 AM
> To: Erik Nordmark
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
>
> I don't understand the controversy.  TRILL over IP is useful in several cases which are actually clearly explained in this document.
> And in general, the document seems well thought out and well written.
>
> So, I think it should be a WG document.
>
> Radia
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> The document is at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-trill-over-ip/
>>
>> We've discussed this document in WG meetings and on the list in the past.
>>
>> Please send comments to the list.
>>
>>   Erik
>> _______________________________________________
>> trill mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
> _______________________________________________
> trill mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill