[rbridge] IPVLX Agenda
ftemplin at iprg.nokia.com
Fri Jul 30 16:55:27 PDT 2004
I have a new document with some possible relevance for
ipvlx. Any chance to have this one added to the reading list:
Thanks - Fred
ftemplin at iprg.nokia.com
Erik Nordmark wrote:
>Sorry for the lateness - I've been on vacation for the last two weeks.
>Agenda comments welcome now or during agenda bashing on Monday.
>Agenda for IP Virtual Link eXtension BOF (IPVLX)
> Monday 1300-1500 in Harbor I
>Welcome Administrivia, and Erik Nordmark 5 minutes
>Problem Statement Erik Nordmark 15 minutes
>Exploring possible solutions to understand
>the problem and solution space better with 2 presentations:
>Automatic Prefix Assignment Hilarie Orman 15 minutes
>L2 Bridges and Radia Perlman 30 minutes
>How do the 3 above approaches Erik Nordmark 10 minutes
>match the problem statement?
>Discussion off problem All 30 minutes
>statement and how to proceed
>Problem statement (included below)
>Organizations with large local networks may wish to administer
>them without the complications of internal IP address assignments.
>Layer 2 addresses provide the unique names, but the most common
>layer 2 interconnection method (dynamically created spanning tree
>formation using bridges) is not as flexible as layer 3 routing.
>The BoF will explore hybrid solutions that retain the simplicity of
>administration while taking full advantage of complex topologies.
>Bridges with spanning tree algorithms have obvious disadvantages: routing
>is confined to a spanning tree (precluding pair-wise shortest paths),
>ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets must be carried across all the links,
>the header on which the spanning tree forwards has no hop count,
>spanning tree forwarding in the presence of temporary loops spawns
>exponential copies of packets, nodes can have only a single point of
>attachment, the spanning tree, in order to avoid temporary loops,
>is slow to start forwarding on new ports, and it is not possible to take
>advantage of the rich physical topology for capacity since the packet flows
>are restricted to following the spanning tree.
>Routers avoid those disadvantages but have their own problems:
>IP addresses are link specific so a host that moves must change
>its IP address, the routers must be configured with unique link prefixes
>for each of the attached links, and the block of IP address space can not be
>fully utilized because it must be partitioned across the different links.
>The BoF will explore combining benefits of bridges and routers in a way
>that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers and bridges. The
>design should support both IPv4 and IPv6.
>rbridge mailing list
>rbridge at postel.org
More information about the rbridge