[rbridge] Proposed details for announcing endnodes

[Joe Touch]

Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
...
> (2) The purpose of Rbridges is to do better than bridges. Arguments of
> the form 'X is a known problem with bridges so we shouldn't solve it'
> seem odd when the main premise of Rbridges is 'spanning tree is a known
> problem with bridges so we WILL solve it'.

My understanding is that the WG was created with a number of assumptions 
that limit how and where rbridges do better than bridges.

Specifically, they do better in replacing spanning tree with 
Internet-style routing protocols.

Specifically, they do NOT:
	- scale better than bridges
	- handle dynamic endstation movement better
	- handle silent receiver movement better
	- fix any other deficiency in the 802 suite

I.e., TRILL is focused on the spanning tree issue. We're not here to fix 
issues that are not created by our solution. We discussed this with 
respect to scale numerous times, but it seems like it's worth stating in 
general.

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/20080429/92e9d61f/signature.bin