[rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals

[Eric Gray (LO/EUS)]

Anoop,

	I suspect that the statement to which you refer (in the
section on interactions between routing and bridging) could be
removed without loss of content.

	It is intended to address the issue of explicitly using
any ECMP support provided by - or using - any existing routing
protocols.  I doubt that it is really necessary to explicitly
say that.

	Since maintaining symmetric routing is a non-goal in an
IP routing protocol, and maintaining symmetric forwarding is a
very important requirement for support of bridge learning, it
is intended to say that support for ECMP in any candidate RP
is not a goal (or crtieria) that would be used to select it for
use by TRILL.

	I have to say that the tendency to think of the routing
requirements draft as if it was somehow imposing requirements 
on TRILL (as opposed to stating TRILL's requirements of routing)
is a recurring problem.  The fact that the only thing we are
producing that is like a "TRILL requirements" document is the 
"Problem Statement and Applicability" draft, is not helping to
make this less confusing.  People see the term "Requirements"
in the RR draft and say "ahh, here's where TRILL requirements
are defined..."

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop at brocade.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:15 PM
> To: Radia Perlman
> Cc: Eric Gray (LO/EUS); J. R. Rivers; Caitlin Bestler; 
> Silvano Gai; rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Two "shared VLAN" alternative proposals
> 
> 
> Section 4.1 of the requirements doc. 
> 
> > -----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.
> > >
> > >   
> > 
>