[rbridge] Tie breaking in trees

[Dinesh G Dutt]

Strongly disagree. See my earlier response to Radia's original email,

Dinesh
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.

Dinesh
> Thanks,
> Donald
> _______________________________________________
> 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