[rbridge] TTL only - was RE: New fields in shim header?

[Silvano Gai]

Joe,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:08 AM
> To: Silvano Gai
> Cc: Caitlin Bestler; Erik Nordmark; Ed Bowen; rbridge at postel.org;
rbridge-
> bounces at postel.org; Radia Perlman
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] TTL only - was RE: New fields in shim header?
> 
> 
> 
> Silvano Gai wrote:
> > Caitlin,
> >
> > ....
> >
> >> For the same reason Bernard Aboba cited on wireless. An set of
> >> RBridges can distribute the new location information more
> >> efficiently than existing bridges.
> >
> > When a VM move the first thing it does is an ARP, i.e. it sends a
> > broadcast packet.
> ...
> > I doubt that in this aspect TRILL is more efficient that .1D, or am
I
> > missing something?
> 
> There's no rule to force an ARP upon move, but that would affect all
802
> nets, including TRILL ones, equally badly.
> 

I don't understand the last sentence, why does an ARP affect 802 nets
badly?

-- Silvano