[rbridge] last call comment

Donald Eastlake d3e3e3 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 2 21:30:23 PDT 2009


See partial response below...

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Jeff Pickering<jeffpick at broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>      Section 4.5.2
>
>
>       "In this case, R1-R2 adjacencies are ordered as follows, with
>       the one "most preferred" adjacency being the one that R1 transmits
>       to R2 on, and the one that R2 accepts traffic from R1 on:"
>
>       The way I read this, the statement is meaningless, R1 and R2 both
> transmit to each other. So
>       either the intent is to say R1 (or R2) is the RB closer to the root.
> Or the intent is to say that depending
>       on whether traffic is flowing towards or away for the root, you may
> choose a different adjacency. Whichever
>       interpretation is intended should be clarified.

It's symmetric. This is all local to R1 and R2 and each should pick
the same adjacency so it really makes no difference which way a
particular frame is going or which of them is closer to the
distribution tree root. The wording should be clarified. See other
response below.

>     Section 4.5.2
>
>
>     "Most preferred are those established by P2P Hellos with tie-
>     breaking among those based on preferring the one with the
>     numerically highest Extended Circuit ID."
>
>        According to rfc 5303, there is no concept of a shared extended
> circuit ID, only the ext cid advertised by
>        each side. So this should be state which RBs ext cid is intended.

Good observation. It should say something like "... the one for which
the RBridge with the highest System-ID has assigned the numerically
highest Extended Circuit ID." Also, it would probably be good to add
RFC 5303 to the references. Note that this is symmetric. Both R1 and
R2 will pick the same one of the parallel adjacencies to send to the
other and to receive from the other.

>       Jeff

Thanks,
Donald



More information about the rbridge mailing list