[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links

[Joe Touch]

Silvano Gai wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> The majority of RBridges will be deployed in backbone where they will be
> connected by point-to-point links. The classical case will be 10GE links
> (which are only full-duplex). There will be no bridges between them.
> 
> What we are asking is a sentence that guarantees a simplified
> interoperability in this case.
> 
> I don't see what harm it can do.

I don't see the need to specify a new, non-ethernet link layer.

If this maps to "point to point links can use encapsulation-only
ethernet" (I'm familiar with such a thing; does it ignore addresses and
use the MAC only for the CRC? if so, what is it called exactly?), and we
can point to that, then there's no need for us to define it.

If no such thing exists, then it might be useful to raise this in the
IEEE. I don't see why it is more relevant to rbridges than to any other
kind of bridge - for which pt-pt interconnections are also already used.

Joe

> 
> -- Silvano
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:06 PM
>> To: Silvano Gai
>> Cc: Dinesh G Dutt; Rbridge at postel.org; Caitlin Bestler
>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
>>
>> I can't speak for others, but I'm completely lost on this point.
> Rbridge
>> is defining a layer on top of ethernet. This pt-pt link stuff sounds
>> like it's redefining the ethernet layer for a special case.
>>
>> Whether it's useful to have ethernet have a definition for a pt-pt
> case
>> is not relevant to this WG, IMO. It seems at best out of scope, even
> if
>> it is useful.
>>
>> Can anyone explain why this shouldn't be already handled by ethernet,
>> and if it isn't, why we need to handle it as a special case here?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> Silvano Gai wrote:
>>> I totally agree with Dinesh
>>>
>>> -- Silvano
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]
>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Dinesh G Dutt
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 5:24 PM
>>>> To: Joe Touch
>>>> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Caitlin Bestler
>>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
>>>>
>>>> The reason this is useful in the spec is that we can have
>>>> interoperability. The situation is common enough that allowing
>>>> interoperability simplifies implementations.
>>>>
>>>> Dinesh
>>>> Joe Touch wrote:
>>>>> Eric Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Caitlin,
>>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I get the sense that you're not disagreeing with either Joe or
>>>>>> myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with the nuances Caitlin is raising; the conclusion is
> that
>>> this
>>>>> need not be in the spec, as far as we three appear to agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rbridge mailing list
>>>>> rbridge at postel.org
>>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and
> by
>>>> the depth of our answers.                               - Carl
> Sagan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rbridge mailing list
>>>> rbridge at postel.org
>>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20071003/2a20358c/signature-0001.bin