[rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
caitlinb at broadcom.com
Tue Apr 3 15:38:00 PDT 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. R. Rivers [mailto:jrrivers at nuovasystems.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: Caitlin Bestler; Silvano Gai; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Radia
> Perlman; rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> > At the minimum we need to ensure that all RBridges have the
> > information that would enable them to efficiently and
> reliably act as
> > an ARP/ND proxy.
> It depends on how you define the requirements of ARP/ND
> proxy. I have seen this general mechanism used in many
> contexts... only one of which is covered by an IETF RFC
> (AFAIK). Bridges in their basic definition don't have ARP/ND
> proxy. Only bridges that subsume some type of IP related
> functionality contain these.
> If an RBridge "looks and smells" like a bridge, then there is
> natural traffic separation between VLANs, and this allows
> systems companies to view RBridges as "better bridges".
The reason RBridges are "better bridges" is that they
deal with the issues of large subnets far better than
Efficient distribution of ARP/ND information is also
an issue where a "better bridge" is needed to scale
to larger subnets efficiently.
More information about the rbridge