[rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps

[Gray, Eric]

Ali,

	Plug-and-play usually means configuration-free operation.

--
Eric 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ali Sajassi (sajassi) [mailto:sajassi at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 12:02 AM
> To: Gray, Eric; Don Fedyk
> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Joe Touch
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps
> 
> Gray,
> 
> Please let me know if my previous email doesn't answer your 
> question and
> if it doesn't, then let me know which portion needs further
> clarification.
> 
> -Ali 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gray, Eric [mailto:Eric.Gray at marconi.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:01 AM
> > To: Don Fedyk; Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
> > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Joe Touch
> > Subject: RE: [rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 	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
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk at nortel.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:33 AM
> > > To: Gray, Eric; Joe Touch; Ali Sajassi (sajassi)
> > > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
> > > Subject: RE: [rbridge] Use of 802.1ah Encaps
> > > 
> > > Hi Eric
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Gray, Eric [mailto:Eric.Gray at marconi.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:38 AM Don,
> > > > 
> > > > 	Thanks for doing this.  As you can probably 
> attest, this is a 
> > > > non-trivial "digging" task to come up with this level of 
> > detail.  I 
> > > > am not sure why Joe asked for it, but now that you have 
> > provided it, 
> > > > perhaps you can explain how values would be derived for 
> the B-TAG 
> > > > TCI/VID and I-TAG TCI/SID fields if we'd like to deploy this 
> > > > technology in
> > > "plug-and-play" mode?
> > > 
> > > I have not given much thought to plug-and-play. My advice 
> would be 
> > > learn the current semantics of the fields and see what they 
> > offer.  I 
> > > don't see why these fields, which offer encapsulation, backwards 
> > > compatibility, Connectivity Fault Management (CFM) frames 
> > etc are any 
> > > worse than similar alternatives.
> > > 
> > > Don
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Eric
> > > > 
> > > ><snipped hopelessly garbled>
> > > 
> > 
>