[rbridge] per-VLAN instances of IS-IS
anoop at brocade.com
Mon Jun 18 11:36:25 PDT 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:eric.gray at ericsson.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:59 AM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: rbridge at postel.org; Radia Perlman
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] per-VLAN instances of IS-IS
> > I don't know too many midrange routers that are capable of
> > 4K adjacencies. I do know several midrange switches that are
> > perfectly capable of supporting all 4K VLANs and mapping
> them to MST
> > instances.
> I also have made the (somewhat subtle) point that the concept
> of "adjacencies" in soft-state protocols is not quite the
> scalability issue that you think it is.
And I just don't get it.
> Thus, my argument is that your concerns are not a problem we
> need to solve.
> In a rational discussion, it IS NOT necessary for a person to
> prove that a problem does not need to be solved. Otherwise,
> it would be possible to endlessly stall rational discussions
> with arbitrary "problems"
> and a supposed "necessity" to establish that none of them
> need to be solved.
> In any rational discussion, it IS necessary to show that
> there is a point in pursuing resolution of any specific issue
> or problem. Otherwise, it would be likely that any rational
> discussion would quickly become pointless.
> Hence, it is necessary for you to prove that your specific
> problem is in fact an issue that we need to address and it is
> not necessary for me to prove that it is not.
> So far, you have simply asserted that there is an issue with
> scalability that we need to solve.
> Prove it.
I don't have much more to offer in terms of argument
other than what I already have. So we'll just have
to disagree on this matter.
More information about the rbridge