<div dir="ltr">A comment on one of your points:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Dinesh G Dutt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ddutt@cisco.com" target="_blank">ddutt@cisco.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Here are my initial set of comments, some editorial and some not. I'll try and send more tomorrow.<br>
<br>...</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
* Section 2.2: I disagree with the statement "Multipathing would<br>
typically result in only a small improvement in capacity for a<br>
network with roughly equal traffic between all pairs of nodes."<br>
Compared to STP, the effect is dramatic. This is THE main<br>
motivator for TRILL in the industry. Please reword the paragraph.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would agree. The text was intended to be about the improvement multi-pathing makes when your are already using least cost paths. Basically, multi-pathing spreads traffic over more physical links. If most of your traffic was on one least cost path because it was between two points in a mesh, multi-pathing would make a lot of difference. On the other hand, if you traffic is already very diverse, using least cost paths between many points, it seems reasonable that multi-pathing causes less improvement.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">...<br>
<br>
Dinesh</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Donald </div></div>=============================<br> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)<br> 155 Beaver Street<br> Milford, MA 01757 USA<br> <a href="mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com" target="_blank">d3e3e3@gmail.com</a><br>
</div>