IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [trill] DTree Questions Regarding Router Capability TLV

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 18 December 2012 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <narten@us.ibm.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 5839E21F8610 for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:09:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lqIE809wfmns for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B67421F871F for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:09:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for <trill@ietf.org> from <narten@us.ibm.com>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:09:14 -0500
Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.166) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.108) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:09:11 -0500
Received: from d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (d01relay03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.235]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4755D38C804F for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:09:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay03.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qBIF9Apj290170 for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:09:10 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qBIF97UE030984 for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:09:09 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-159-220.mts.ibm.com [9.76.159.220]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id qBIF96AR030614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:09:07 -0200
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id qBIF91R3012151; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:09:01 -0500
Message-Id: <201212181509.qBIF91R3012151@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <CAHD03N-tjtpwkv97p6OoBZuPuxYo8EGZ5VzjT1CcZGWeDogFTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6738A78F51650A4FAEDCF6844B26C21401C0B3D95B4E@USEXCHANGE.corp.extremenetworks.com> <CAHD03N-tjtpwkv97p6OoBZuPuxYo8EGZ5VzjT1CcZGWeDogFTg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com> message dated "Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:13:28 -0800."
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:09:01 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12121815-9360-0000-0000-00000E1ABF34
Cc: Arnel Lim <ALim@extremenetworks.com>, Wenya Qi <wqi@extremenetworks.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, Eric Garver <egarver@extremenetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [trill] DTree Questions Regarding Router Capability TLV
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:09:17 -0000

Ayan Banerjee <ayabaner@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Arnel Lim <ALim@extremenetworks.com> wrote:

> > 3) ALL Rbridges, RB2, that ingress native traffic MUST send
> >    TREES-USE-ID sub-TLV, correct?  This is required for RPF check
> >    used by adjacent RBridges.

> > “each RBridge RB2 MUST announce which trees RB2 may choose when
> >     RB2 ingresses a multi-destination packet.”

> [Ayan] No, this is not accurate. If ingress nodes use this TLV, it
> may help other nodes to be more strict in accepting packets from the
> relevant multi-destination trees. If it does not send out this TLV,
> then it implies that a node may use all multi-destination trees.

So, are you saying that if RB doesn't announce the TLV, all other RBs
must assume that RB2 can/will ingress multi-destination packets?

If so, I understand the reasoning for why the RB should effectively
announce a TLV saying "I'm not ingressing anything". But does the spec
actually say that transit RBs SHOULD/MUST advertise a TLV with a
(presumably) empty list in this case?

Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email