I too support the publication of this document. The document seems well written. Although I get nervous about features that can create loops if misconfigured, this is not a problem with using this feature for TRILL any more than using IS-IS for IP. Since people seem to have it successfully deployed for IP, and find it useful, it should be equally useful for TRILL.
I think the draft is ready for publication. Radia On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:57 PM, R Parameswaran <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I support the adoption/standardization of this draft. Comments inline. > > thanks, > > Ramkumar > > > > This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-ietf-trill-multi-topology-04.txt. > During this WG last call please include comment on the following three > things in addition to your normal comments: > > 1) Does this draft support the things you desire to support multiple > topology routing of unicast and multi-destination traffic in TRILL? > > [RP]: Yes. > > > 2) Do you think this draft is read for publication? > > [RP]: Yes, quick look-through, seems correct. > > 3) Do you think that multi-topology trill has a place in the data > center deployments of TRILL? > > [RP] Yes. > > > Sue Hares and Jon Hudson > > Co-chairs TRILL > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > trill mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill > >
_______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
