Hi Donald, Your proposed changes and clarifications look good to me. I will look over the new version when it is posted.
Thanks Suresh On 06/30/2016 02:13 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > 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
