[rbridge] Should we optimize the common case?
touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Nov 14 09:21:45 PST 2006
Caitlin Bestler wrote:
> Guillermo Ibáñez wrote:
>> Two comments.
>> Radia Perlman escribió:
>>> The first RBridge has to recognize a true MAC address,
>> The first RBridge recognizes a true MAC adress and replaces
>> in the encapsulated frame with the hierarchical address (MAC
> I think you are suggesting that the RBRidge act as proxy ARP
> so that all remote traffic thinks that the local MAC address
> is *the* MAC address, complete with translation of MAC addresses
> on the fly.
That's now a router. IMO, it should act more like a bridge - it might
use MAC address wrappers to direct ingressed packets to the egress
rbridge, but should NOT affect the ARP table of hosts outside the rbridge.
Removal of the rbridge should ONLY cause reconfiguration of the spanning
tree in the remaining ethernet segments, NOT cause communication failure
due to incorrect ARP entries (i.e., that would destroy "unplug-and-play").
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20061114/189c777d/signature.bin
More information about the rbridge