Hi Alia, On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-03. > > First, I would like to thank the authors - Donald, Yizhou, Mohammed, Ayan and > Fengwei - for their work on thsi well-written document. > > I do not have any specific comments on the draft from my review. I have > requested IETF Last Call and placed the draft on the January 19 telechat.
Thanks for you review of this draft and of draft-ietf-trill-directory-assist-mechanisms. > I am slightly concerned by the complexity and number of different options > that TRILL has in most aspects - but given that there is WG consensus and > plans to implement, I am merely expressing my concerns. I would guess you are primarily talking about the various methods by which the Designated RBridge on a link can appoint forwarders in a loop safe way. The design in the TRILL base protocol (RFC 6325) used the non-framentable Appointed Forwarders TLV in non-fragmentable IS-IS Hello PDUs that have a limited size. This was recognized as a problem. So when IS-IS was extended to provide link (circuit) local link state in RFC 7356, the forwarder appointment mechanism was specified via the link local link state. There is additional complexity in making this backwards compatible. It would have been cleaner to do it that way from the start but the link local link state was not available. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > Regards, > Alia _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
