On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Jon Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Main issue that I know from customers is the lack of consistent tools to deep > dive debug it.
It seems to me that this is a lack of user tools, not any inherent problem with TRILL. TRILL has: TRILL OAM (continuity fault management): RFCs 6905, 7174, 7455, 7784 MIBs: RFCs 6850, 7784 Supports BFD: RFC 7175 Has performance monitoring specified: RFC 7456 In addition, if a management station peers as an RBridge, it would have direct access to the link state data base. So I really don't see why there should be a problem with implementing good TRILL debugging tools. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > Jon > > > On May 26, 2016, at 12:01 AM, devon ietf <[email protected]> wrote: > > why is trill not so widely deployed. It's been around for several years and > xSTP protocols > are really bad, then too i don't see customers adopting TRILL as widely. > what's wrong ? > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
