[rbridge] it's time to summarize things

[Spencer Dawkins]

Without discussing whether it's a good idea or not, the "decisions more 
consistent with RSTP" function seems more like a performance optimization 
that isn't required for correct operation. Could this be something we don't 
define, but vendors making real Rbridges just decide to do? Like sniffing 
multicast control packets?

Spencer

p.s. Before we generate a whole lot more text - is there a canonical 
capitialization of RBRIDGE? I'm seeing all-caps, initial caps, and no caps 
in my own e-mail (which is usually matching the capitalization in e-mail I'm 
replying to), and it would be nice if (for example) all the TRILL documents 
used the same convention...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guillermo Ibáñez" <gibanez at it.uc3m.es>
To: "Saikat Ray" <saikat at seas.upenn.edu>; "Developing a hybrid 
router/bridge." <rbridge at postel.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [rbridge] it's time to summarize things

Rbridges ignoring fully RSTP BPDUs means all that means for knowing
"link" and tree status are dropped, the risk for malfunction is
increased as  long as Rbridges ignore BPDU information as useless.
One difference is that if DR Hello messages are not received, or
messages from new bridges appear, Rbridges might use received RSTP BPDU
information to confirm the cause and motivation of messages, so
decisions more consistent with RSTP can be taken.