As is traditional, I have done my AD review
of draft-ietf-trill-multilevel-unique-nickname-03. First, I would like to
thank the authors - Margaret, Donald, Mingui, and Dacheng - as well as the
reviewers and shepherd, Sue, for their work on this document.
I do have some minor comments, but these can be addressed ASAP while the
draft is in IETF Last Call. I will request that to start and place this on
the IESG telechat on March 8.
Minor:
a) In Sec 3.1, it says "
1) RB27 and RB3 have learned that D is connected to nickname 44.
2) RB27 has learned that nickname 44 is accessible through RB3."
Given that RB2 is the local area's Level Border Router, I think that is
RB2 not RB3. Granted, RB3 needs to know also - but that is info from its
local area.
b) In Sec 4.3:
" For nicknames in these ranges, other RBridges will deem that they are
owned by the originating border RBridge. The paths to nicknames that fall
in these ranges will be calculated to reach the originating border RBridge.
TRILL Data packets with egress nicknames that are neither in these ranges
nor announced by any RBridge in the area MUST be discarded. "
I think this only applies if OK = 0 - and that needs to be restated as part
of the condition.
Regards,
Alia
_______________________________________________
trill mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
