[rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com
Thu Oct 4 21:29:44 PDT 2007
It is my understanding that some IETF routing protocols do have special
provisions for "un-numbered links" but by that they mean that IP
addresses are not allocated for the ends of the links. This is a
precedent for not allocating layer-N addresses for a layer-N protocol on
a layer-N-point-to-point link, although in this case N=3.
Layer-3 routing protocols generally aren't concerned with layer-2
addresses or even what layer-2 protocol is running on the link...
From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
Behalf Of Caitlin Bestler
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Silvano Gai; Eric Gray; Joe Touch
Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links
Why wouldn't a "other end of the link" reserved MAC address be
just as applicable for core Routers that are directly connected
to each other point-to-point?
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org
More information about the rbridge