110% agree It's the vendor implemented tools that are primarily at issue.
Jon > On May 26, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
