[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links

[Caitlin Bestler]

Joe Touch wrote:

> I concur with Eric. My concern is why we are defining behavior
specific
> to pt-pt links for rbridges when they are not similarly defined for
> general 802.11 networks.

> If there is such a definition, we should point to it, but we should
not
> create our own. There's no unique need.

I can imagine several scenarios where there is a truly safe
point-to-point
link between two RBridges, and it is indeed safe for them to use a
custom
tunneling between them.

What I don't see is why they need the specification to give them
permission.

If that link is *truly* and securely point-to-point they could just as
easily
declare themselves to be a single RBridge and said link to be a
"inter-processor
bus". When an RBridge is implemented on multiple processors the IETF
does NOT
specify the bus that connects them.

So basically, whenever this sort of optimized encapsulation is valid
there is
no need to explicitly state so. If there is a need for the alternate
encapsulation
to be officially blessed then it probably means that it isn't safe to do
it.

If *nobody* else can see the optimized frames then who is there to
complain
that they are non-compliant?