[rbridge] Proposed details for announcing endnodes

[Joe Touch]

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". 

Agreed.

> 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
> held.

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.

Joe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20080430/0c9a8081/signature.bin