Joe: 

 

Thank you for the post on cavium’s and Cisco’s GRE.   I hope the vendors with 
TRILL products and these hardware devices will investigate this solution.  
However, the suggestion IPSEC + upper layers came from those vendors with TRILL 
products.  

 

As to the name, I acknowledge the issue.  If you have a proposed solution that 
you think fits,  we’re listening (Alia, Jon, I and the authors) are listening.  
The document title can change during the IETF LC process.    

 

Sue 

 

From: Joe Touch [mailto:to...@strayalpha.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:40 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: trill IETF mailing list; trill-cha...@ietf.org; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [trill] WG LC on draft-ietf-trill-over-ip-14.txt - Consensus 
reached

 

FWIW:





On Feb 19, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:

 

Greetings: 

 

Thank you for your comments on the draft-ietfd-trill-over-ip-xx.txt   The WG 
has reached consensus on the draft, and it will be sent forward to the IESG. 

 

I want to thank Magnus Westlund, Ines Robles, and Joe Touch for their targeted 
reviews.  

 

Joe asked two important questions that I want to chat about in announcing the 
result.  

1)      Why IPSEC + TCP/UDP tunnels 

2)      Why the name TRILL over IP? – it is really TRILL over IP enabled 
Transport port protocols 

 

 

During this WG LC, I spent time looking back into my notes to check our 
evaluation of the alternatives GRE, TLS, or DLTS.  I also asked the  WG 
leadership team (Jon, Sue, and Donald with Alia Atlas help) to discuss these 
points that Joe raised.     Here’s what I found. 

 

1)      Why IPSEC and TCP/UDP tunnels

 

After I walked through the WG archives, I found that over several IETFs we 
debated TLS, DTLS, and GRE.   Our most substantive debate was at IETF 91.   The 
WG had settle on utilizing GRE, TLS, or DLTS – until hardware vendors 
implementing TRILL came to chat with the WG at IETF 91.   The hardware vendors 
asked that we would utilize IPSEC and higher layer tunnels (TCP/UDP) so that 
TRILL switches could operate at line speed using these IPSEC processing chips 
off board.  The WG decided to listen to vendor creating and deploying TRILL 
capable devices. 

 

The hardware vendors reasoning still seems valid to the WG chairs and the WGs.  
 If in the future hardware comes up with TLS, DTLS or GRE at Ethernet switch 
line rates and vendors want a TRILL product with these tunnels, I’m sure that a 
Routing AD or  the RTGWG draft will sponsor such a draft.  

 

https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/lan-switching-and-routing/3850-gre-support-in-hardware/td-p/2402487

 

https://www.cavium.com/pdfFiles/Nitrox_III_PB_Rev1.0.pdf

 

 

2)      Is the name TRILL over IP valid? 

 

Now as to the name, Joe was correct the name should be changed since it is 
really TRILL over IPSEC + Transport.   Donald’s make the change to the title of 
the document, and in the document.   

 

“IP transport” implies using IP as a tunneling layer, which is not part of this 
document’s proposed approach.

 

Further, the description of how it interacts with TCP is incoherent to anyone 
familiar with TCP transport (“slicing” packets and claiming to place them 
directly into TCP payloads).

 

Joe

 

_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
trill@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill

Reply via email to