Hi Matthew and Andrew,
Could you look at version -04 to see if this resolves your comments? My apologies for taking so long. Regards, Umair *From:* trill [mailto:trill-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:40 PM *To:* Kingston Smiler *Cc:* Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); rtg-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-m...@ietf.org; trill@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] Routing Area Directorate QA review of draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-02 Kingston, On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kingston Smiler <kingstonsmi...@gmail.com> wrote: <Kingston> Typically PBB-VPLS is used to avoid exposing the customer MAC in service provider network. In case of TRILL packet over MPLS, already the customer MAC is encapsulated inside the TRILL header. Having said that, do we really need to consider TRILL over PBB-VPLS. </Kingston> PBB (and by extension, PBB-VPLS) is not just used for C-MAC hiding, but also for provider infrastructure scaling, so I would think the answer is yes. Matthew, do you agree? Cheers, Andy -- .
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
