[rbridge] WG LC draft-ietf-trill-prob-04.txt

[Donald Eastlake]

A comment on one of your points:

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:59 AM, Dinesh G Dutt <ddutt at cisco.com> wrote:

> Here are my initial set of comments, some editorial and some not. I'll try
> and send more tomorrow.
>
> ...


>   * Section 2.2: I disagree with the statement "Multipathing would
>     typically result in only a small improvement in capacity for a
>     network with roughly equal traffic between all pairs of nodes."
>     Compared to STP, the effect is dramatic. This is THE main
>     motivator for TRILL in the industry. Please reword the paragraph.


I would agree. The text was intended to be about the improvement
multi-pathing makes when your are already using least cost paths. Basically,
multi-pathing spreads traffic over more physical links. If most of your
traffic was on one least cost path because it was between two points in a
mesh, multi-pathing would make a lot of difference. On the other hand, if
you traffic is already very diverse, using least cost paths between many
points, it seems reasonable that multi-pathing causes less improvement.

...
>
> Dinesh


Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20080727/9c876d06/attachment-0001.html