[rbridge] ECN RE: TRILL Options

[James Carlson]

Caitlin Bestler writes:
> > That's it exactly.  I think ECN is pretty much worthless otherwise;
> > it's an end-to-end exercise involving the transport layer, or it may
> > as well not be implemented at all.  ECN that's consumed by RBridges
> > alone doesn't make any sense to me.
> > 
> 
> A TRILL option with ECN semantics could be used directly by an RBridge
> that had other traffic control options on its local ports than just
> PAUSE, Priority-based Flow Control or Drop. If such methods were 
> available, they would be preferable to modifying the L3 header.

If that's the intent, then I'm just neutral on the proposal.  I can
see value in ECN behavior that interoperates with existing network
layer ECN semantics, but if it's its own independent beast, it's no
longer interesting ... at least to me.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677