[rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals

[Eric Gray (LO/EUS)]

Silvano,

	The possibility of frame re-ordering using ECMP is not
the only concern.  A more significant issue is that schemes
that exist for trying to avoid re-ordering may not guarantee 
symmetric frame delivery.

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Silvano Gai [mailto:sgai at nuovasystems.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:18 AM
> To: Radia Perlman; Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: Eric Gray (LO/EUS); J. R. Rivers; Caitlin Bestler; 
> rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> 
> 
> The protocol specs states:
> 
>    The main idea is to have RBridges run a link state 
> protocol amongst 
>    themselves. This enables them to have enough information 
> to compute 
>    pairwise optimal paths for unicast, and to calculate distribution 
>    trees for delivery of frames either to unknown destinations, or to 
>    multicast/broadcast groups. 
> 
>    ECMP (Equal Cost MultiPath) may be supported, but it may introduce 
>    frame reordering. 
> 
> 
> I think this is correct.
> 
> -- Silvano
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman at sun.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:28 PM
> > To: Anoop Ghanwani
> > Cc: Eric Gray (LO/EUS); J. R. Rivers; Caitlin Bestler; Silvano Gai;
> > rbridge at postel.org
> > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> > 
> > Which draft says that multipathing (allowing more than one path to a
> > destination)
> > is a nongoal? The architecture document, problem statement, or
> protocol
> > spec?
> > 
> > Radia
> > 
> > 
> > Anoop Ghanwani wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Radia's response, she thinks multipathing
> > > is being addressed and yet the draft explicitly  mentions
> > > it as a non-goal so there seems to be a bit of a disconnect.
> > >
> > >
> 
>