Sue, I found that this draft has several places where interoperability between implementations could be difficult because there are several implementation choices that can be made, and the draft doesn’t make any particular recommendations or require any of the choices to be implemented.
1. There are two models defined, the VPLS and VPTS models, and the draft doesn’t recommend which to use for each of the two problem statements. If it were me, I would recommend the VPTS model as the default, as it is an emulated TRILL service. 2. When using the VPTS model, section 4.3 says that either the PPP or Ethernet encapsulation from RFC 7173 can be used, and makes no recommendation between them. However, RFC 7173 defines the PPP encapsulation as the chosen default, and that encapsulation should be used here as well. I recommend that these be addressed before the draft is sent to the IESG. Thanks, Andy On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 7:21 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > This begins a 2 week WG LC for draft-ietf-trill-transport-over-MPLS > (11/11/2017 to 11/25/2017). Please consider if this draft is ready for > publication. In this consideration please consider: > > > > 1) Does TRILL need to run over MPLS? Some data centers are > interconnected over MPLS. Does this capability aid in deployment of TRILL? > > 2) Is this specification ready for publication? > > 3) Do you know of any problems with this specification? > > > > > > Susan Hares > > (co-chair, document shepherd) > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
