[rbridge] Range of appllicability (was Re: TTL only - was RE: New fields in shim header?)

[Eastlake III Donald-LDE008]

Hi Don,

I didn't suggest that 'the world be all Rbridges'. I asked, as a
rhetorical question, what might be bad about replacing all bridges with
Rbridges? Looks like both of us think that people who want to do MPLS
traffic engineering or the like, would look to LSRs or similar devices
rather than either bridges or rbridges.

Donald

PS: In answer to another comment, as far as I can see Rbridges do
support incremental deployment. You can replace your bridges by rbridges
one at a time, if you wish to do so.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk at nortel.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:51 PM
To: Radia Perlman
Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008; rbridge at postel.org
Subject: RE: [rbridge] Range of appllicability (was Re: TTL only - was
RE: New fields in shim header?)

Hi Radia 

...

I was referring to the fact that RBridge is more plug and play and
implicitly engineered rather than explicitly engineered.  The way I see
it RBridge creates a topology and does a good job of utilizing that
topology but it is a connectionless view.  So Donald's comment was too
broad in my opinion (IE why isn't the world all RBridge). I'm not
arguing for more engineering in the case of RBridge I'm just saying it
is more like a connectionless IP network. Plug and play with some knobs
for control. 

...