Subject: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls - WG LC (11/11 to 11/25)

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:21:38 -0500

This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-MPLS
(11/11/2017 to 11/25/2017).  Please consider if this draft is ready for
publication.   In this consideration please consider:

1)      Does TRILL need to run over MPLS?  Some data centers are
interconnected over MPLS.  Does this capability aid in deployment of TRILL?

2)      Is this specification ready for publication?  

3)      Do you know of any problems with this specification?

Susan Hares 

(co-chair, document shepherd)

---

From: Mohammed Umair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:13:18 +0530

Support as a Co-Author.

I think this draft is ready for publication.

Datacenter Interconnection is critical part of any Data center design, this
draft provides a solution where trill DCI works over MPLS network.

Regards,
Umair

On Nov 12, 2017 5:51 AM, "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Susan Hares

_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 14:20:46 -0500

Sue,

I found that this draft has several places where interoperability between
implementations could be difficult because there are several implementation
choices that can be made, and the draft doesn’t make any particular
recommendations or require any of the choices to be implemented.

1. There are two models defined, the VPLS and VPTS models, and the draft
doesn’t recommend which to use for each of the two problem statements. If
it were me, I would recommend the VPTS model as the default, as it is an
emulated TRILL service.

2. When using the VPTS model, section 4.3 says that either the PPP or
Ethernet encapsulation from RFC 7173 can be used, and makes no
recommendation between them. However, RFC 7173 defines the PPP
encapsulation as the chosen default, and that encapsulation should be used
here as well.

I recommend that these be addressed before the draft is sent to the IESG.

Thanks,
Andy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:25:39 -0500

Andy:

Thank you for letting me know about this problem.  I will work with the authors to address it. 

sue

From: trill [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:21 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Donald Eastlake; Alia Atlas; Jon Hudson; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [trill] draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls - WG LC (11/11 to 11/25)

Sue,

I found that this draft has several places where interoperability between implementations could be difficult because there are several implementation choices that can be made, and the draft doesn’t make any particular recommendations or require any of the choices to be implemented.

1. There are two models defined, the VPLS and VPTS models, and the draft doesn’t recommend which to use for each of the two problem statements. If it were me, I would recommend the VPTS model as the default, as it is an emulated TRILL service.

2. When using the VPTS model, section 4.3 says that either the PPP or Ethernet encapsulation from RFC 7173 can be used, and makes no recommendation between them. However, RFC 7173 defines the PPP encapsulation as the chosen default, and that encapsulation should be used here as well.

Thanks,

Andy

This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-MPLS (11/11/2017 to 11/25/2017).  Please consider if this draft is ready for publication.   In this consideration please consider:

1)      Does TRILL need to run over MPLS?  Some data centers are interconnected over MPLS.  Does this capability aid in deployment of TRILL?

 

Susan Hares