[rbridge] Consensus Check: Announcing Root

[Silvano Gai]

I think the reserved value apply only to the OUI inside the SNAP, not
the one in the MAC address.

-- Silvano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]
On
> Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:21 PM
> To: Anoop Ghanwani
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Announcing Root
> 
> I'm fine with option (b) but it seems implausible that all 0's could
> ever be a normal MAC address. Among other things, the 00-00-00 OUI is
> reserved for expressing arbitrary EtherTypes in the SNAP SAP format...
> 
> Donald
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop at brocade.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:56 AM
> To: Radia.Perlman at sun.com; Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Announcing Root
> 
> I would prefer (a) or (b) since 0 is technically
> a valid address.  (b) seems best since it's explicit.
> 
> Anoop
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org
> > [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of
Radia.Perlman at sun.com
> > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 8:38 PM
> > To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
> > Cc: Rbridge at postel.org
> > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Announcing Root
> >
> > Good point. There might be no bridges. So there has to be a
> > way of encoding that. Anything such as:
> > a) leaving out the TLV in which one announces the root bridge
> > b) using a flag to say "no root"
> > c) using a special address, say 0
> > or I'm sure there are lots of possibilities.
> >
> > Radia
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com>
> > Date: Saturday, October 6, 2007 12:46 pm
> > Subject: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Announcing Root
> >
> > > This is a check via the mailing list on a slight modification of
an
> > > apparent consensus from the minutes of the Chicago meeting for a
> > > changefrom protocol draft -05. The tentative consensus at
> > the Chicago
> > > meeting
> > > was:
> > >
> > >   It is mandatory for an RBridge to announce the bridge root that
> > >   it sees out each physical port.
> > >
> > > Based on mailing list discussion, I would like to tweak this as
> > > follows:
> > >   An Rbridge MUST parse BPDUs it receives on a port and announce
> > >   in the core IS-IS instance the bridge root that it sees out
> > >   each port. For MSTP (Multiple Spanning Tree Protocol), this is
> > >   the CIST (Common and Internal Spanning Tree) root.
> > >
> > > I have a question in connection with this. What is
> > announced for the
> > > port if no BPDU has been received recently or ever? Should
> > there be a
> > > "root MAC address valid" flag per port or should there some
> > > conventionalvalue, like zero, which is announced?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Donald
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge