[rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals

[Caitlin Bestler]

> -----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
> 
> 
> snip... 
> > 
> > 
> > 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". 
> 
> JR
> 
> 

The reason RBridges are "better bridges" is that they
deal with the issues of large subnets far better than
bridges do.

Efficient distribution of ARP/ND information is also
an issue where a "better bridge" is needed to scale
to larger subnets efficiently.