[rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals

[Eric Gray (LO/EUS)]

And you would be correct.

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. R. Rivers [mailto:jrrivers at nuovasystems.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:47 PM
> To: Caitlin Bestler; Silvano Gai; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Radia 
> Perlman; rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> I would have thought that RBridges are "better bridges" because they
> allow multi-pathing at layer 2 creating significantly more available
> bandwidth and with a deployment cost/complexity relatively close to
> 802.1 bridges.
> 
> JR
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:caitlinb at broadcom.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:38 PM
> > To: J. R. Rivers; Silvano Gai; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Radia 
> > Perlman; rbridge at postel.org
> > Subject: RE: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----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.
> > 
> > 
>