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

[Joe Touch]

James Carlson wrote:
> Joe Touch writes:
>> I'm concerned about the case where an end station moves and doesn't 
>> announce itself. There's no requirement in ethernet to do so, and such a 
>> station would never be discovered if we don't flood broadcast to all links.
>>
>> I.e., the optimization below is a recipe for ARP failure in such cases. 
>> I disagree with it.
> 
> That "failure" is exactly the intent.
> 
> In other words, if you connect an end station to a special internal
> network that is intentionally designed by a network administrator
> _not_ to have end stations on it at all (which is what this
> configuration option specifies), then you've made a mistake, and you
> should _expect_ the node's attempts to communicate to fail miserably.
> 
> Obviously, the default should be to forward these messages (ports
> can't be "TRILL-only" type by default), but why try to prohibit
> implementations from offering an option if vendors so choose? 

No reason. This is fine in that case. The doc should be clear about the 
potential for silent misconfiguration in those cases.

(note - this is a silent misconfiguration issue; it'd be much easier if 
we could know that such a misconfiguration would be detectable)

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/20080107/785d48f2/signature.bin