[rbridge] Proposed details for announcing endnodes

[Dinesh G Dutt]

Agree with Joe,

Dinesh
Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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