[rbridge] it's time to summarize things

[Spencer Dawkins]

Eric and Joe,

Ack.

And thanks for laying it out this way.

Spencer


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Agreed.... with the caveat below
>
> Gray, Eric wrote:
>> Spencer,
>>
>> In the WG charter, it stipulates the following as
>> design goals:
>>
>> - Minimal or no configuration required
>> - Load-splitting among multiple paths
>> - Routing loop mitigation (possibly through a TTL field)
>> - Support of multiple points of attachment
>> - Support for broadcast and multicast
>> - No significant service delay after attachment
>> - No less secure than existing bridged solutions
>>
>> Note that this list does not include "Support for a larger broadcast
>> domain."
>>
>> However, if we can make layer 2 networking more efficient - thereby
>> overcoming some of the issues that limit current workable maximum
>> LAN size - we will most likely see LAN sizes increase again until
>> they are approaching a new maximum size.
>>
>> This is less a goal, then a probable outcome.  It is hard to state
>> "LAN sizes will increase until they work about as poorly as they do
>> now" as a goal - at least while keeping a straight face.
>>
>> While I think we can all agree - at least in principle - that it is
>> probably not desirable to deliberately put cruft into the protocol
>> to prevent this from happening, I don't think we can get rock solid
>> consensus as to how much larger we might want to target.  I think
>> the given goals are aggressive enough.
>>
>> So, I would argue for this position: we won't deliberately restrict
>> LAN size scalability unless we run into issues that require it and
>> we won't specify anything more than "MUST work for LANs of a size
>> at least as great as can be accomplished using 802.1 bridges."
>>
>> I believe this is consistent with what we've all been saying, but I
>> am open to the possibility that I may have misunderstood someone,
>> somewhere along the line...
>
> FWIW, this is basically what the current PAS states, though some have
> raised it as a possible concern.
>
> Joe
>
>>
>> --
>> Eric
>>
>> --- [SNIP] ---
>>
>> -->
>> --> >> --> if not, then can there be broadcast storms?
>> --> >>
>> --> >> Certainly not worse than currently, except to the extent that
>> --> >> an RBridge campus enhanced broadcast domain _might_ be larger.
>> -->
>> --> Eric - is this just saying that someone may want to try for 100,000 
>> MAC
>> --> addresses in one RBRIDGE campus? Or did you mean more than this?
>> -->
>> --> >> --> if not, then will broadcast be supported?
>> --> >> -->
>> --> >>
>> --- [SNIP] --- 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rbridge mailing list
>> rbridge at postel.org
>> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDofPWE5f5cImnZrsRAqWgAKCLZu4u/kG6rHRd47aXTAPeA9sjHACdF5MN
> r4wQKmB85gf/RGEG7ElV9gg=
> =vcJf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----