Thanks Andy for your comments. We will incorporate your suggestion in the
next version of the document.
S. Kingston Smiler.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just reviewed draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-mpls-01, with particular
> attention to the pseudowire encapsulation used in sections 3.4 and 4.3.
> While technically correct, the details were a bit on the sparse side,
> especially for section 3.4. I’ve got some suggested replacement text:
> Section 3.4:
> Use of VPLS [RFC4762] to interconnect TRILL sites requires no changes to a
> VPLS implementation, in particular the use of Ethernet pseudowires between
> VPLS PEs. A VPLS PE receives normal Ethernet frames from an RBridge (i.e.,
> CE) and is not aware that the CE is an RBridge device. As a result, an
> MPLS-encapsulated TRILL packet within the MPLS network will use the format
> illustrated in Appendix A of [RFC7173].
> Section 4.3:
> The VPTS model uses PPP pseudowires for MPLS encapsulation as specified in
> [RFC7173], and requires no changes in the packet format in that RFC.
> The existing section titles are fine.
> trill mailing list
trill mailing list