Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-trill-irb

From: Hannes Gredler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 07:56:06 +0200

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-trill-irb
Reviewer: Hannes Gredler
Review Date: 20-May-2015
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:   No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

  I'd have used the term "anycast MAC" for the L3-gw address, then it
becomes
  obvious that more than one Rbridge is advertising the same "virtual L3-gw"
  MAC address.

Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
  The draft is very readable by use of the numerous examples and
illustrations.
  Enough substance for proper implementations.

Personal comments to IESG and routing-ADs (sorry i could not resist)

  The IETF has to think hard wether it wants to double invent its protocols.

  IMO the following combo:

    1) Control-plane : L2 IS-IS
    2) Encapsulation/TTL protection : Trill
    3) Label-Stacking: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7172
    4) Routing:        Distributed L3 gateway (this document)

  does solve the very same problem as this combo:

    1) Control-Plane: L3 IS-IS + SPRING, L3VPN
    2) Encapsulation/TTL protection: MPLS
    3) Label-Stacking: MPLS
    4) Routing: vanilla L3 host-routing

thanks,

/hannes

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:22:05 -0400

Hannes:

Thank you for the review of draft-ietf-trill-irb.  The authors will reply to your textural revision comments.   

We'll see what the IESG /ADs say regarding your comments.  There are deployments of TRILL - so the WG focus has been to address distributed gateway issues. 

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: rtg-dir [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hannes Gredler
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 1:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-trill-irb

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

  I'd have used the term "anycast MAC" for the L3-gw address, then it becomes
  obvious that more than one Rbridge is advertising the same "virtual L3-gw"
  MAC address.

Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
  The draft is very readable by use of the numerous examples and illustrations.
  Enough substance for proper implementations.

  IMO the following combo:

thanks,

/hannes

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:36:32 -0400

Hannes,

Thanks for the review.

As far as multiple solutions, I don't see having a small number for
data-center networks as an issue.
In particular, this is giving the L3 Routing for what is mostly a layer-2
network.   While L2VPN or EVPN
can also address it, there's tossing in more protocols and overhead which
assume a very different
data-center network.   There are trill deployments that need this
functionality.

Regards,
Alia