[rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps

[Gray, Eric]

Ali/Don,

	The use of 802.1ah encapsulation does not intuitively
suggest itself in the TRILL problem domain for at least two
reasons:

1)	Provider Back-bone Bridging intuitively seems out of
	place in solutions aimed at enterprise networks - and
	this would seem to be even more true for solutions 
	aimed at "plug-and-play" applicability.

2)	Use of 802.1ah encapsulation assumes "bridging" of the
	tunneled frame transparently from edge-to-edge - and
	this would seem to go counter to the idea of using a
	link-state routing protocol for shortest path routing
	of MAC frames.

	That said, the minute that we start suggesting that an 
enterprise is large enough to require using service provider 
(like) solutions (in particular, requiring a substantial
back-bone capacity, and assuming static configuration as a 
means to ensure deterministic network behavior) - OR that we
might in fact use some form of spanning tree forwarding - it
then becomes clear that we should consider using 802.1ah.  It
is certainly the case that we should not be defining another
Ethernet encapsulation explicitly to solve the same problem.

--
Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:39 AM
> To: Don Fedyk; Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft minutes posted
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Yes, if there is any reason as to why .1ah encap cannot be 
> used, then I
> would like to hear it.
> 
> -Ali 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> > [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 10:17 AM
> > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
> > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft minutes posted
> > 
> > Hi Erik
> > 
> > In the minutes: 
> > 802.1ah header synergy?  On this point myself, and I recall 
> > Ali Sajassi and Donald Oconnor all stood up and said that 
> > 802.1ah is going to be a standard encapsulation header. My 
> > point was Trill should see what it could deliver on this 
> > encapsulation before inventing similar but different headers.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Don  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> > > At http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/trill.txt
> > > 
> > > Any corrections?
> > > 
> > >     Erik
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rbridge mailing list
> > rbridge at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>