[rbridge] L3 vs. L2 encapsulation
Radia.Perlman at sun.com
Mon Jun 27 15:58:53 PDT 2005
We've been assuming an L2 encapsulation, and that's what I'd prefer.
That not only saves room in the header, but
does not a priori require assigning L3 addresses, and also automatically
supports both IPv4 and IPv6.
Alper Yegin wrote:
>One of the issues listed in draft-perlman-rbridge-03.txt is the choice
>of encapsulation. See Section 5.5 for a detailed discussion.
>Can we close that issue agreeing to a L3 encapsulation?
>This does not prevent anyone designing a L2 encapsulated version by
>reusing the base spec(s) as much as possible. That should be outside the
>scope of the WG though.
>rbridge mailing list
>rbridge at postel.org
More information about the rbridge