[rbridge] Agenda items?

[Michael Smith]

I think an important issue to discuss is packet reordering.  The current
rbridge proposal introduces a significant possibility of L2 packet
reordering within a network with a stable topology.  IEEE bridges do not
reorder packets except in some corner cases with the new rapid spanning tree
protocol and even then, it is only during a network topology change.  The
traditional spanning tree protocol (non-rapid spanning tree) provides no
packet reordering even during topology change.  Since rbridges are targeted
to support non-IP protocols, this issue should be addressed.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:19 PM
> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
> Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items?
> 
> 
> It is time to start thinking about the agenda for the BoF/WG 
> meeting in Minneapolis.
> 
> Presumably we should go over the charter, but I'd like to 
> also spend time on technical discussions, which is the 
> subject of this email.
> 
> I think there are several technical items that makes sense to 
> discuss, and I've tried to capture things from memory here. 
> If you had additional items let me know we can add them (but 
> you might get volunteered :-).
> If you need stimulation it might make sense to re-read 
> draft-perlman-rbridge, and see if there are issues that come to mind.
> 
> What I'd like for each of these items is to have a volunteer 
> who will present the topic with the issues and the tradeoffs 
> (but no "solutions"), so that we all can try to understand 
> the different issues, and how they might interact.
> 
> I'd like to see each topic be presented in advance (so that 
> folks can read about it) either as a concise email to the 
> list (which we can reference using URLs to the archive) or in 
> the form of a short internet draft.
> 
> Here are the topics I have so far:
> 1. What is the desired semantics of the cloud of hybrids? 
> Just "strict IEEE
>     802 bridge equivalence", "IP works", or something in between?
> 
>     I'll volunteer myself to lead the discussion on this topic.
> 
> 2. Threats and security considerations
>     What should the goal be? What can we do better?
> 
>     Does anybody who brought this up on the list want to volunteer?
> 
> 3. Requirements on routing protocols
>      For zero configuration
>      Carrying MAC addresses
>      Broadcast
>      IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else
> 
>     Volunteer? I can dig out the discussion I had with Bob Hinden if
>     that would stimulate someone to want to discuss this.
> 
> 4. Connecting different L2 types (with different L2 address formats)
> 
>     I think I've convinced Radia to lead this one
> 
> 5. Choices for ARP/ND
> 
>     We had some discussion on the list about this and how it 
> relates to
>     intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc.
> 
>     Any volunteers?
> 
> 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast
> 
>     Any volunteers?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> 
>     Erik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge