[rbridge] Multiple Nickname support RFC 6325 query..

[Radia Perlman]

Why is it useful to use multiple nicknames for ingressing?  Multiple
nicknames are useful for having multiple trees rooted at the same place,
but I can't think of any reason why using different nicknames when
ingressing frames would be useful.

Radia

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:15 AM, gururam m <mgururam at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>    I have question related to ingress nickname usage when multiple
> nicknames are supported. As per RFC 6325 "section 3.7.2 Ingress RBridge
> Nickname" an RBridge should use the same nickname in the ingress field
> whenever it encapsulates a frame with any particular Inner.MacSA and
> Inner.VLAN value when multiple nicknames are supported.
>
> Let us say if we have 8 nicknames(n1,n2... n8) supported on a RBridge as
> per my understanding of the above statement we could use nickname n1 for
> all traffic ingressing from VLAN ID 1 to VLAN ID 512 and n2 for all traffic
> ingressing from VLAN ID 513  to VLAN ID 1024 and so on and so forth.
>
> Let me know if there any other draft inprogress or any part of the RFC
> that mentions a different approach to set the ingress nickname when
> encapsulating traffic on RBridge that supports multiple nicknames.
>
> Regards
> Ram
>
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20120131/c7c149c5/attachment.html