Hi Suresh, Thanks for your comments. See below.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-irb-13: Discuss > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Section 6 has a few errors that need to get fixed before this document > goes forward. e.g. It is not clear what a "192.0.2.0/32" subnet means > especially since the only host shown to be on the subnet 192.0.2.2 cannot > obviously fall inside the subnet range. The /32 needs to be replaced with > something shorter depending on what the authors/WG intended (say a /24). Yes. That should have been "/24". > * RB2 seems to be advertising ES2s IPv4 address 198.51.100.2/32 instead > of the prefix of the subnet while RB1 seems to be advertising the the > IPv4 prefix of the ES1 subnet. One of these is wrong. Not sure which one > is intended. It should be the prefix in both cases. > * What is the rationale for using a /112 IPv6 prefix for numbering an > IPv6 link with hosts? Things like SLAAC (RFC4862) will not work in such > links. Is there a reason the authors want to use a longer than /64? > Please read RFC7421 for advantages of using a /64 instead and to find out > what things break if you do not use a /64. The Distributed Layer 3 gateway specified in this draft is expect to primarily be used in data centers where I would expect everything to be strictly configured by an orchestration system. Thus stateless autoconfiguration seems less likely and I suspect it just wasn't through of. However, I don't see a problem with changing this to "/64" and the mechanism specified could be used in other contexts outside data centers. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 5: What does "Layer 2 routing" mean in this context? Previously standardized TRILL routing, which is based on destination MAC address as mapped into a TRILL nickname. The wording can be clarified. > Sections 7.3 & 7.4: What is the point of including these sub-TLVs if no > prefix is being advertised? (The Total Length=0 case specified in the > document) Sometimes a zero length has some special meaning. The draft just says that it has the obvious meaning although it is not a particularly useful value. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
