[rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure ports to disable end station traffic

[Dinesh G Dutt]

I concur with Eric,

Dinesh
Eric Gray wrote:
> Anoop,
>
> 	Sorry to have to disagree with your well-intended
> suggestion, but this is a BAD idea.
>
> 	The fact that we don't need to document it from a
> interoperability perspective is sufficient reason not to
> do so.
>
> 	In addition, anything we document because we "know
> it to be true and useful" we need to be certain is also
> immutable - even if we also know that we need to include
> it in the specification.  Otherwise, it's a risk we are
> undertaking that what we "know to be true and useful" 
> will be false or dangerous next year.
>
> 	Hence the fact that we believe we could document it
> is not sufficient reason to do so.  Therefore, to remove
> any possible ambiguity, the argument to avoid including
> this is sufficient while the argument to include it is
> not.
>
> --
> Eric Gray
> Principal Engineer
> Ericsson  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop at brocade.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:18 PM
>> To: James Carlson; Eric Gray
>> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Joe Touch
>> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure 
>> portstodisable end stationtraffic
>> Importance: High
>>
>>  
>>
>>     
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of James Carlson
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:51 AM
>>> To: Eric Gray
>>> Cc: Rbridge at postel.org; Joe Touch
>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Configure 
>>> portstodisable end stationtraffic
>>>
>>>       
>>> I'd be ok with either intended option, but would slightly 
>>> prefer not bothering to document this special link behavior, 
>>> as it looks to me to be the sort of enhancement that vendors 
>>> could cook up on their own without affecting either TRILL 
>>> interoperability or ordinary RBridge operation.  It's not 
>>> something I think is strictly _needed_ in the TRILL document 
>>> in order to make it complete ... though it seems Anoop does.
>>>       
>> I agree it's not absolutely needed, but now that we have
>> discussed it on the mailing list, that we know it's useful,
>> and that we know the potential problems, we might as well
>> document it so we don't have to depend on every implementer
>> figuring it out for themselves.
>>
>> Anoop
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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