ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [rbridge] Last Call: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs (TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of RBridges) to Informational RFC

2007-03-22 09:22:50
Dinesh,

        Please see one more question below...

Thanks!

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

-----Original Message-----
From: Dinesh G Dutt [mailto:ddutt(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:15 PM
To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; rbridge(_at_)postel(_dot_)org; IETF-Announce
Subject: Re: [rbridge] Last Call: 
draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs (TRILL Routing Requirements in 
Support of RBridges) to Informational RFC

Hi Eric,

Eric Gray (LO/EUS) wrote:
  - "Inefficient inter-bridge connection usage". What do you 
    mean by this phrase?
    

  
I guess my issue is the choice of words "inter-bridge 
connection usage". 
"connection" is undefined and not sure if it is the right word.
If traffic is demonstrably required to traverse more links
than some theoretical minimum, than link utilization is -
by definition - less efficient than it theoretically can
be.
  
If this what you want to say, something along the lines of
"Non-optimal 
pair-wise forwarding of unicast frames using spanning tree also
results 
in inefficient usage of links" will be sufficient. However, I think
that 
merely stating the lack of non-optimal pair-wise forwarding is
sufficient 
to imply this and many other issues around this style.

I'm not sure how much clearer it is to say what you're suggesting
than what it already says.  However this is not critical text, so
what would you like it to say and where would you like it to go?

What I'm asking for is "replace text saying <$*%&(%)> with new text
saying <*$&*@(_&$&>"...

What is proposed in the current solution is to run a spanning tree 
protocol instance per port which maybe not scalable. 

I think something like "It's strongly desirable to minimize the
interaction between the bridges and Rbridges and constrain a 
spanning tree" is more appropriate.
    

Yet it is difficult to imagine how this would translate to a 
requirement that would make sense to someone evaluating the 
acceptability of a routing protocol for the TRILL problem-space.
Perhaps it would be simpler to omit the offending text?
  
OK with me.

Dinesh

-- 
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by 
the depth of our answers.                               - Carl Sagan


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf