[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
eric.gray at ericsson.com
Thu Oct 4 12:08:52 PDT 2007
Making it completely optional is a problem as well, and this
is where I am having the most difficulty - particular with "random"
addresses that require ignoring.
The issue is that this is a wrong-way-around unilateral choice
- i.e. - it is the sender that we say might have the option of doing
this, but the receiver that has the complexity of supporting either
way of doing it.
If the entity making the choice was also the one having to pay
for it, then I would agree that making it a choice would be okay.
That does not seem to be the case!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:46 PM
> To: Radia Perlman; Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> > [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman
> > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:51 AM
> > To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> > Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
> > Personally, I need a reminder of what we are trying to
> > accomplish with this before I can have any opinion.
> > a) Is omitting the outer VLAN tag to save space?
> > b) Why put in anything for destination address other than the
> > MAC address of the next hop RBridge, or put in anything into
> > the source address other than your own MAC address?
> > It won't save space. So what does it gain?
> > c) Is there any danger if an RBridge is confused about
> > whether this is a pt-to-pt link or not?
> > I can see the advantage of omitting the entire outer header
> > if it is somehow absolutely known this is a pt-to-pt link,
> > and both ends of the link understand this.
> That wouldn't work because there are other frames that will
> have to have MAC addresses, e.g. LACP, LLDP.
> > But that isn't
> > what's being proposed here. It seems to be only omitting the
> > VLAN tag, and allowing insertion of random addresses into the
> > source and destination fields in the outer header, if I'm
> > reading it correctly.
> I don't like the idea of random addresses (is it that
> a big a deal to set them correctly?), but as long as
> it's completely optional, I don't really care.
> [By the way, even though the proposal says that it
> can be random, it really can't because we have to
> say that they cannot be from the BPDU address space
> or things like LACP and LLDP will break.]
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
More information about the rbridge