[rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links?
Radia.Perlman at sun.com
Mon Nov 5 22:10:39 PST 2007
Suppose the topology consisted only of RBridges with pt-to-pt links
either to each other or
to endnodes, e.g., no bridges, no CSMA/CD. As specified, we'd wind up
a pseudonode for each link. Not a total disaster, but it does seem
if we created a pseudonode for every port that contains an endnode.
I think we discussed this and said that there was no way of knowing for
sure that a port
was a pt-to-pt link.
Do we want to try to optimize this case, for instance by:
a) allowing a port to be configured as "pt-to-pt", and freaking out (as
the port and declaring an error) if an RBridge sees multiple nodes on
that port, or sees
b) assuming if there is only one RBridge neighbors on a port that it is
link and there does not need to be a pseudonode? That makes me nervous
a third RBridge comes and goes, then things could get messy.
c) if there are zero RBridge neighbors on a port (just an endnode or
set of endnodes), do not create a pseudonode
d) something else?
Or is it fine as is (if R1 and R2 are connected with a pt-to-pt link, R1
will get elected DRB,
name the link R1.x, and issue two LSPs -- one for R1, one for R1.x, with
connectivity to R1 and R2). Basically, there will be a pseudonode for
link. I hope we don't have to create a pseudonode for every port to
More information about the rbridge