[rbridge] Proposed details for announcing endnodes
touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Apr 30 10:25:26 PDT 2008
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> Hi Joe,
> I partly agree with you and partly disagree. See below at @@@
> Specifically, they do NOT:
> - scale better than bridges
> @@@ As I say, I do not agree that there has been a decision, by the
> TRILL working group or in its charter, that Rbridges MUST be no better
> than bridges in scaling.
We agreed that they need not support scale in the PAS discussions a long
time ago. (i.e., NEED NOT, not "NOT").
> - handle dynamic endstation movement better
> - handle silent receiver movement better
> - fix any other deficiency in the 802 suite
> @@@ I'd have no problem is you said "they need not" above instead of
> "they do NOT".
> To, in effect, say that it is forbidden to include any
> facet in the TRILL protocol which happens to improve scaling or the
> handling of dynamic end station movement or the like seems to me to be
> unsupported by either our charter or the discussions that have been
Yes, there's a big difference between:
A- a decision happens to support scale
B- a decision is motivated by support for scale
I agree that A is in-scope, and I think we agree that B is not. I think
that some of the discussions for optimization here for announcing
end-nodes fall under B rather than A.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20080430/0c9a8081/signature.bin
More information about the rbridge