[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
eric.gray at ericsson.com
Thu Oct 4 05:28:36 PDT 2007
It is not exactly true that bridges are never addressed at the
MAC layer. Consider, for example, how bridges are typically managed
using SNMP, or HTML.
However, the case is still general, because everything you say
about RBridges - and the likelihood that they might be connected via
P2P links - similarly applies to other devices (L2 end-stations, such
as routers, for example. And objecting that it may (or may not) be
easy for these devices to determine that a link is P2P is an argument
that applies equally to RBridges.
I think it is not possible at this point to argue that there is
consensus to do this work here, in the TRILL working group.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Silvano Gai
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:56 AM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Caitlin Bestler
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> Because Bridges are never addressed at the MAC layer,
> RBridges instead are!
> -- Silvano
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:48 PM
> > To: Silvano Gai
> > Cc: Dinesh G Dutt; Rbridge at postel.org; Caitlin Bestler
> > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> > Silvano Gai wrote:
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > Nobody is asking "to specify a new, non-ethernet link layer."
> > >
> > > We are just asking to have a reserved MAC address that means "the
> > > end of the link".
> > >
> > > The frame is still 100% compliant with Ethernet.
> > If regular ethernet and regular bridges don't need this, why do
> > (bridges are already connected by such pt-pt links)
> > Joe
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
More information about the rbridge