[rbridge] Range of appllicability (was Re: TTL only - was RE: New fields in shim header?)
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 19 08:57:59 PDT 2006
Silvano Gai wrote:
>> The reason I'm asking is because I see a big difference between asking
>> RBridges to provide some new degree of filtering/security, and making
>> sure it isn't any worse than a bridged network.
> Understood, but a new standard is also a good place to improve.
The need for capabilities not in 802 now may be a good argument for
Note that in hardware they too are problematic; we'd need three types:
- MUST set as 0 currently; MUST ignore on receipt
for optional extensions
- MUST set as 0 currently; MUST silently discard if not 0
for silently dropped required extensions
- MUST set as 0 currently; MUST report as error if not 0
for non0-silent required extensions
I'd rather see the FTAG area blocked out for those kinds of bits at this
time than locked into a tag that a new VLAN header might replace, e.g.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20061019/5f15a0f5/signature.bin
More information about the rbridge