[rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes

[Erik Nordmark]

Michael Smith (michsmit) wrote:

>>Goals:
>>zero configuration,
>>hosts can move without changing IP address, use best 
>>pair-wise paths and be able to load split, maybe optimize ARP 
>>/ ND (don't always flood), secure ND, hop count to reduce 
>>damage from loops, multiple external attachment point 
>>support, no delay for new host attachment, support for 
>>multicast, to be no less secure than existing bridges, no 
>>changes to hosts, routers, or L2 bridges, support non-IP 
>>protocols, handle IPv4&6, maybe interconnect different L2 
>>technologies.
>>There are lots of questions about mobility, which goals are 
>>high level, etc.
>>LAN Service is:
>>broadcast domain,
>>small probability of reordering and duplication (basically 
>>only when topology changes), 
> 
> 
> The text "basically only when topology changes" should be removed.
> 
> Rbridging will reorder during a stable topology.  The reordering in
> rbridges happens when learning occurs.  This is independent of topology
> changes.  

Michael,

I don't understand the nature of your comment. The above are notes from 
the presentation about the goals of TRILL. So are you saying that
1. The minutes are incorrect, because that presentation said something 
different?
2. That the goals are unreasonable and a WG should have different goals?
3. That a particular proposed solution for TRILL might not satisfy the 
goals?

Only #1 would be appropriate comments on the minutes, since their 
purpose is to record what was presented/discussed at the meeting.

> The point argued is that with today's rapid spanning tree there is only
> a remote chance of reordering and that is only during a topology change.
> Traditional spanning tree has no such reordering whatsoever.  Learning
> occurs much more frequently as the L2 tables reach capacity due to churn
> of entries.  This would cause rbridges to reorder more frequently as the
> L2 tables reach capacity (still a stable network topology).  The
> discussion was questioning whether the probability can be viewed as
> small.

This sure sounds like you are making point #3 above.

   Erik