Some observations:
- the title is misleading; this is TRILL over UDP, not trill over IP.
- the use of two different ports invites some potentially unintended
problems, e.g., selective blocking of the control vs. data plane. IMO,
given that TRILL's purpose is to extend Ethernet (not IP), this serv
Hi, Donald,
On 1/4/2017 5:43 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for the comments.
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> - the use of two different ports invites some potentially unintended
>> problems, e.g., selective blocking of the
to this, it really should be included in the intro)
Joe
On 1/5/2017 10:44 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, Donald,
>
>
> On 1/4/2017 5:43 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Joe Touch w
Hi, all,
I'm confused by the TCP encapsulation shown.
If you place TRILL in TCP, you cannot ensure that the TRILL packets are
aligned with the TCP headers. TCP is a bytestream, not message-oriented.
I.e., you need to assume that TRILL packets could be split across TCP
segments or multiple TRILL
Hi, Donald,
On 6/2/2017 9:47 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> I'm confused by the TCP encapsulation shown.
>>
>> If you place TRILL in TCP, you cannot ensure that the TRILL
Hi, Donald,
On 6/25/2017 5:07 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> Thanks for the extensive review. See my responses below.
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Magnus Westerlund
> wrote:
>> Reviewer: Magnus Westerlund
>> Review result: Not Ready
>>
>> Early review of draft-ietf-trill-ove
PS - the idea that TCP segments within a single connection should ever
have different DSCPs is a good example of why it's a bad idea to even
'think' of TRILL over TCP as direct encapsulation. I.e., that concept is
inherently hazardous and should be avoided.
Joe
On 6/26/2017 10:1
Hi, all,
This doc is very confusing.
Its title and discussion throughout indicates “TRILL over IP”, including figs
in Sec 4, but the only actual encapsulations described are TRILL over UDP and
TRILL over TCP.
IMO, this needs a very deep scrub to resolve. It would help to understand that
the r
Sue Hares
> Trill co-chair
>
> -Original Message-
> From: trill [mailto:trill-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 10:34 AM
> To: Magnus Westerlund
> Cc: Donald Eastlake; tsv-...@ietf.org; trill IETF mailing list;
> draft-ie
I’ve already expressed my views on this document.
The changes have not addressed the points I have raised.
Given its current state, I would appreciate if the authors would remove my name
from the list of acknowledgments. I do not want to be associated with its
content in any way in its current
FWIW:
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> Thank you for your comments on the draft-ietfd-trill-over-ip-xx.txt The WG
> has reached consensus on the draft, and it will be sent forward to the IESG.
>
> I want to thank Magnus Westlu
document title can change during the IETF LC process.
>
> Sue
>
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:40 PM
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: trill IETF mailing list; trill-cha...@ietf.org; Alia Atlas
> Subject: Re: [trill] WG
12 matches
Mail list logo
