[rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure ports to disable end stationtraffic

[Anoop Ghanwani]

This certainly makes sense is what I tend to
think of as a TRILL "core" port.   On such a 
port, we would never see non-TRILL encap'ed
frames (other than the usual exceptions such
as BPDUs and other link layer control traffic).

I wonder if it makes sense to also have a 
configuration for a TRILL "edge" port -- one
where we are configured to never send TRILL
encap'ed traffic because we don't intend for 
it to be used as a transit link (even though
connectivity may exist to another RBridge 
for redundancy purposes).  

Anoop 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III 
> Donald-LDE008
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 10:34 AM
> To: Rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure ports to 
> disable end stationtraffic
> 
> This is a check via the mailing list to confirm or refute an 
> apparent consensus at the Vancouver meeting taken from the 
> minutes of that
> meeting:
> 
>            Currently broadcast, unknown unicast, and
>       non-IP-derived multicast frames are output to all links. This is
>       wasteful if there are no end stations on the link. Provide that
>       a port can be configured so as to be disabled for end station
>       traffic.
> 
> If no particular controversy arises over this in the next 
> three weeks, We will declare it to be the working group consensus.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald & Erik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>