[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links

[Eric Gray]

Silvano,

	This is NOT AT ALL what Donald said.  Having a reserved 
MAC address for the other end of a link is completely different
from saying "any MAC address may be used and MUST be ignored on
receipt."

	As for this - cleary different - proposal, I think it is
quite reasonable, but almost certainly not something for us to
do - HERE.  As Joe points out, this is a general problem that 
should be addresses generally, rather than here and just for
RBridges.

	This should be done via the IEEE.

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Silvano Gai
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:42 AM
> To: Joe Touch
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Caitlin Bestler
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> 
> 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
> > >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>