[rbridge] area addr question

[James Carlson]

Donald Eastlake wrote:
> Wait a second... Before worrying about additional complexities to handle
> adjacent TRILL clouds with different area numbers, why is this
> happening? The spec requires them all to use area zero. The address
> space is flat so there doesn't seem to be any advantage to breaking it
> up.... And you will get more efficient routing paths if they all peer.

To be clear: I don't want to use different area numbers.  The current
spec says area zero only, and that's all I ever want to use.

Radia asked whether it was possibly configurable, and it is, and we were
discussing the implications of doing that.

> PS: If you do want the equivalent of the "root bridge ID" for RBridges,
> it is easy enough. They all have to determine the RBridge with
> the highest priority to be a distribution root for multidestination
> frames. The SystemID of that RBridge could serve as a "root RBridge ID"
> and could be included in TRILL Hellos. But, as I say, I just don't see
> the need or motivation for this.

You would also need to carry this information around through other areas
-- just as we currently do for root bridge IDs.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj at workingcode.com>