[rbridge] Ingress Rbridge address and BCN - 2nd Issue

[Gray, Eric]

Caitlin,

	At this point I have completely lost the thread of what 
you're talking about.  Are you assuming that it is okay for a
"core Rbridge" to literally return the frame that triggers a
BCN to the ingress RBridge that introduced it, and that this
RBridge is then responsible for generating a BCN and acting as
an egress for the BCN?

	As I understand it, that's asking an awful lot of the 
ingress RBridge.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:caitlinb at broadcom.com] 
--> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:55 PM
--> To: Larry Kreeger (kreeger); Gray, Eric
--> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
--> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge address and BCN - 2nd Issue
--> 
--> Larry Kreeger, responding to Eric Gray, wrote:
--> >> 
--> >> 1) Flooding will only occur when a specific RBridge has 
--> removed (due
--> >> to aging, for example), or failed to retain, an entry it
--> >> subsequently needs. This kind of flooding could occur in any case
--> >> (although it might involve a smaller subset of the 
--> entire network).
--> > 
--> > I understand that this will occur when an edge RBridge does
--> > not have an entry, but I assume that this will be a fairly
--> > rare condition.  Also, I am expecting the number of flows
--> > through an edge RBridge to be much less than throught a core
--> > RBridge, such that the number of MAC addresses entries needed
--> > would be much less at an edge RBridge.  If a core RBridge did
--> > not have a larger table, then it could get easily filled
--> > which would require flooding of the BCNs much more than would
--> > occur naturally at an edge RBridge.
--> > 
--> More fundamentally, the egress rbridge will in most case also
--> encapsulate the reverse-bound frames, and so will have had a 
--> reason to note the mac->rbridge mapping in the first place.
--> A "core rbridge" would not have forgotten the mapping, it would
--> have never looked for it in the first place. Table size is 
--> irrelevant.
--> 
--> 
--> 
-->