[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links

[Silvano Gai]

Joe,

Nobody is asking "to specify a new, non-ethernet link layer."

We are just asking to have a reserved MAC address that means "the other
end of the link".

The frame is still 100% compliant with Ethernet.

-- Silvano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:26 PM
> To: Silvano Gai
> Cc: Dinesh G Dutt; Rbridge at postel.org; Caitlin Bestler
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> >