[rbridge] Proposed details for announcing endnodes

[Joe Touch]

Radia Perlman wrote:
> Yeah. Moving endnodes is always an issue. Even with bridges. The problem 
> with having R1 (the one announcing that endnode E is
> attached to R1) having a very short learning cache is that makes R1's 
> endnode announcement LSP information annoyingly volatile. The problem
> with the learning
> cache timer being long is that R1 can be a black hole, sucking traffic 
> away from where E really is.
> 
> There are some layer 2 protocols, I believe, with explicit registration 
> and keep-alives. (anyone care to chime in about which protocols
> these are?). Endnodes learned that way are good candidates for 
> explicitly advertising.
> 
> For attached IP endnodes, R1 could do something like, if it seems 
> someone else advertise E, R1 could do an ARP to see if E is
> still there. And there might be similar purely layer 2 "pings". (are there?)

I do not believe rbridges should ever issue ARPs. Silent movement is a 
known problem with existing bridges; this is not an issue we should be 
solving.

Joe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20080428/a1d26a19/signature.bin