[rbridge] it's time to summarize things

[Guillermo Ibáñez]

   Stewart,
    You are right. The core, whatever formed by bridges or Rbridges, 
must "take charge" of the traffic. Letting spanning trees to be
built freely leads to lose control and suboptimality.
Guillermo

Stewart Bryant wrote:

>Radia Perlman wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I think I might need a picture of what you're saying, but I think it's 
>>just the
>>opposite. RBridges can path split, just like routers can, whereas if the
>>spanning tree turns off one of the links, then a bridge would only use 
>>one of
>>the paths.
>>    
>>
>
>The SPT situation is as follows:
>
>     +----+
>-----|    |    L1
>-----| B1 |---------->To core
>-----|    |
>     +----+
>        |
>        | L3
>        |
>     +----+
>-----|    |    L2
>-----| B2 |---------->To core
>-----|    |
>     +----+
>
>You want
>B1 to connect a bunch of systems to the main network via L1
>B2 to connect a different bunch of systems to the main network via L2
>
>So you set B1 and B2 with low priority, so the root is to the
>right in the main network, and the ports connecting B1 and B2 to L3
>go into blocking.
>
>Say most of the traffic is to some server S. This traffic will
>be load balanced over both links L1 and L2.
>
>Now replace the core with an Rbridge network, but leave B1 and B2
>running SPT (because you can't upgrade the wiring closets - there are
>too many of them)
>
>How does the traffic from B1 and B2 to S get load balanced
>via L1 and L2?
>
>- Stewart
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rbridge mailing list
>rbridge at postel.org
>http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>
>  
>

-- 
Guillermo Ibáñez
Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
1.1.B.11 Colmenarejo 91-6241393
4.1.F.13 Leganés 91-6248794