Thanks Andy for your comments. We will incorporate your suggestion in the next version of the document.
Regards, 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. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > trill@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list trill@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
