[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links

[Eric Gray]

Caitlin,

	Please see one comment below...

Thanks!

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:Caitlin.Bestler at neterion.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 2:18 PM
> To: Joe Touch; Eric Gray
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> > I concur with Eric. My concern is why we are defining behavior
> specific
> > to pt-pt links for rbridges when they are not similarly defined for
> > general 802.11 networks.
> 
> > If there is such a definition, we should point to it, but we should
> not
> > create our own. There's no unique need.
> 
> I can imagine several scenarios where there is a truly safe
> point-to-point
> link between two RBridges, and it is indeed safe for them to use a
> custom
> tunneling between them.
> 
> What I don't see is why they need the specification to give them
> permission.
> 
> If that link is *truly* and securely point-to-point they could just as
> easily
> declare themselves to be a single RBridge and said link to be a
> "inter-processor
> bus". When an RBridge is implemented on multiple processors the IETF
> does NOT
> specify the bus that connects them.
> 
> So basically, whenever this sort of optimized encapsulation is valid
> there is
> no need to explicitly state so. If there is a need for the alternate
> encapsulation
> to be officially blessed then it probably means that it isn't 
> safe to do
> it.
> 
> If *nobody* else can see the optimized frames then who is there to
> complain
> that they are non-compliant?

Hence the reference to "consenting implementations" in my earlier
mail.

I get the sense that you're not disagreeing with either Joe or 
myself.

> 
> 
> 
>