[rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again

[Silvano Gai]

Joe,

Let's summarize what we are asking:

1) today proposal has ingress RBridge address and egress RBdridge
address, but they are not carried both in the same frame. The first
request is to always carry both. I have hard time thinking that this
requires a change in the WG charter.

We showed that on a 512 bytes frame the difference in overhead between
the current TRILL solution and what we propose is 0.37%. Difficult to
argue that it should not be done for bandwidth reason.

2) we are asking to add an FTAG field to better support forwarding, with
particular emphasis on Multicast. The current TRILL proposal supports
only ingress trees and not shared trees. Shared trees are the preferred
way to do multicast. I haven't read a single reply on FTAG that
addresses Multicast.

I don't think that to do these two simple changes we need to modify the
WG charter. If the WG chairs think so, please let us know.

-- Silvano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:28 AM
> To: Silvano Gai
> Cc: Dinesh G Dutt; rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again
> 
> 
> 
> Silvano Gai wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > Let's get this straight so we don't waste any more time: "are you
saying
> > that the WG charter is written, the A&P statement is drafted" and
> > therefore the WG is no longer interested in listening to other
> > requirements?
> 
> Anything not stated explicitly in the charter is out-of-scope, UNLESS
it
> is needed to support something in the charter indirectly.  This isn't
a
> matter of "permitted unless prohibited" - the point of the charter is
to
> constrain the scope. It's also not a matter of "once you open the
spec,
> anything is on the table"; that's not how charters work.
> 
> I - and Eric - are saying that if you want to add requirements, FIRST
> you need to get the WG consensus on changing the charter. THEN we need
> to get the AD's on board. THEN we do the work to address the
requirements.
> 
> Joe
> 
> >
> > -- Silvano
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
[mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]
> > On
> >> Behalf Of Joe Touch
> >> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:36 AM
> >> To: Dinesh G Dutt
> >> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> >> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dinesh G Dutt wrote:
> >>> Hi Eric,
> >>>
> >>> Gray, Eric wrote:
> >>>> The argument that "You're changing things, and while you're at
it,
> >>>> why not change these other things" is a particularly obnoxious
old
> >>>> Dinosaur.
> >>>>
> >>> I have shown the reasons and with the exception of you and Joe, I
> >>> haven't heard any objection to including the ingress Rbridge (at
> > least)
> >>> or the FTAG. So, from a democratic spirit, it is upto you two to
> > give us
> >>> technical reasons for objecting instead of saying "its not in the
> >>> charter" or "you can't change that". The charter doesn't
explicitly
> >>> forbid doing traceroute, for example.
> >> Charters define what is permitted; that which is not permitted is
> >> prohibited, unless it is needed to support what is permitted.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, charters would be wide-open to anything not prohibited;
we
> >> don't have time to enumerate that list.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >