[rbridge] TRILL Header/Tag

[Eastlake III Donald-LDE008]

Sorry, a point I left out in my message below:

At the time of the previous discussion, I believed, and I think most
people believed, that there was no reason for a transit Rbridge to look
beyond the TRILL Header for unicast traffic. However, that may not be
true because the transit Rbridge may have to dig down to the inner VLAN
tag to find the priority.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:17 PM
To: Silvano Gai
Cc: rbridge at postel.org
Subject: Re: [rbridge] TRILL Header/Tag

Hi Silvano,

It is true that most of the information was know.

However I didn't know, and I don't recall it being discussed, that an IP
derived multicast destination MAC address is insufficient to tell
whether or not you can multicast prune the distribution tree.  I don't
know about other people, but I didn't know that until I looked at RFC
4541.

Do you object to changing from 2 message types to 4 message types so
that the type of distribution tree pruning that would be advisable is
encoded into the message type?

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvano Gai [mailto:sgai at nuovasystems.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:18 AM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008; rbridge at postel.org
Subject: RE: [rbridge] TRILL Header/Tag

Donald,

The information contained in your email was known and discussed at the
time of the consensus on the header format. I don't see any reason to
change and I remain strongly in favor of the current format.

-- Silvano

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge