[rbridge] L3 vs. L2 encapsulation
touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Jun 27 20:02:51 PDT 2005
The use of L2, L2+shim, or L3 encapsulation doesn't impact what
protocols can be included, It DOES impact the routing protocols in use,
however, so we probably ought to think about it a little.
Radia Perlman wrote:
> 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
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20050627/5572950b/signature.bin
More information about the rbridge