[rbridge] Fixing Broken Connections in the Middle

[Russ White]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>> This is another reason for me to be nervous about making these changes
>> now. The old method where we did DRB per VLAN, a single pseudo-node for
>> all VLANs that the Rbridge was DRB for seemed sufficient to me and
>> avoided all these issues. We've gotten into this mess because someone
>> decided that sending multiple Hellos (one per active VLAN) is a huge
>> burden on the CPU. I disagree with that assumption and would like to
>> avoid all these issues by falling back to what we had earlier.

BTW--I actually agree with Dinesh' message here--there is no "massive
burden" of sending one hello per vlan. That's what I get for picking a
random message to reply to. :-)

In the real world, if someone configured 4000 parallel transit vlans,
we'd tell them to please redesign their network. In fact, most of the
routing sorts of devices we're talking about will only hold 256 or so
forwarding entries for any given destination--so 4000 is something of a
mute point, I think.

I'm in agreement that we should go back to the original concept--let the
user decide which logical links rbridge traffic should run on, and let
them configure it. If they misconfigure it, they do so at their own
cost. As I said before--they're going to find more ways to misconfigure
it than you can fix, and they're going to find them faster than you can
think of ways to fix them.

One of the things they'll need to consider when configuring this is the
overhead of multiple IS-IS hello's. It's already something they have to
think about in routing, so I don't see it as any great burden.

:-)

Russ

- --
riw at cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHWFl2ER27sUhU9OQRAnbCAJ4kEsDAL+gaRwgmLujKjUzhNm/edgCgsOjJ
ZmjxL2UJ0OmswgMxggQ/Nag=
=h22V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----