[rbridge] Tie breaking in trees
Dinesh G Dutt
ddutt at cisco.com
Sun Jun 7 16:41:50 PDT 2009
Strongly disagree. See my earlier response to Radia's original email,
Donald Eastlake wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Radia Perlman<Radia.Perlman at sun.com> wrote:
>> An alternative would be to replace a) with:
>> a) most preferred are those established by P2P Hellos. If there
>> are one or more of those, R1 is allowed to transmit on any of those,
>> and R2 is required to accept from any of those.
> I prefer this alternative. It is safe to multipath multi-destination
> frames across parallel one-hop links that are configured to be P2P. So
> I see no reason to add complexity at the receiver by requiring to it
> reject such frames on all but one of such P2P links.
It is not safe because IIC will have to be allowed on multiple
interfaces. What you're suggesting is adding more complexity.
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by
the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan
More information about the rbridge