[rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals

[Anoop Ghanwani]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of J. R. Rivers
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:47 PM
> To: Caitlin Bestler; Silvano Gai; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Radia 
> Perlman; rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> 
> 
> 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.

Is TRILL going to solve the multipathing problem?

From
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs-02.txt
   However, support for multi-pathing is potentially problematic and is 
   assumed - in this document - to be a non-goal.  Multi-path forwarding
   has the potential to confound the bridge learning process.

Anoop