[rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps
Eric.Gray at marconi.com
Thu Dec 7 10:34:06 PST 2006
I think we're not disagreeing with each other.
Where people make proposals that look like an existing
encapsulation, the complexity associated with defining a new
encapsulation that is marginally different has to be weighed
very carefully against what we expect to gain in doing so.
I think it is clear to me that the complexity is not
justified. Moreover, I don't see anyone continuing to make
the case that we should do this - so it may be the case that
many people are of a similar opinion.
The issue of whether or not it makes sense to use the
specific encapsulation proposed - or an existing similar
encapsulation - in the RBridge problem domain is a horse of
a different color. I am not sure that we've achieved any
level of agreement on this issue, consequently this entire
discussion could be considered simply as a distraction.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk at nortel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: Gray, Eric; Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Joe Touch
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps
> Hi Eric
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gray, Eric [mailto:Eric.Gray at marconi.com]
> > Don,
> > And yet, someone (Ali Sajassi) asserted (in his message
> > dated Wed 12/6/2006 at 2:16 PM EST) that there were no issues
> > or additional complications with using 802.1ah in enterprises
> > for plug-and-play applicability.
> > Perhaps Ali can answer my question then.
> > But, to more directly address your earlier comments:
> > The TRILL WG has NOT come up with an encapsulation that
> > "looks like" 802.1ah - unless someone squints really hard and
> > tries to pretend that two separate Ethernet encapsulations -
> > separated by a SHIM header - are one single encapsulation.
> To be fair Point to Point header that was discussed without one of the
> shims was very close "functionally" (colloquial looks like)
> to 802.1ah.
> My opinion is still we don't need several variations of headers doing
> similar things.
> This was the slide that looked a lot like what I posted.
> > That is not to say that the WG has done anything that
> > could be said to disallow the use of 802.1ah encapsulation.
> > It is just not obviously consistent with all of the WG goals
> > to use _only_ 802.1ah encapsulation.
> > --
> > Eric
More information about the rbridge