[rbridge] # of tree issues: default # of distribution trees, minimum acceptable supported # of trees

[Dinesh G Dutt]

I don't like (c) at all. (b) is a fine solution and I believe it is 
already there.

I don't have a strong opinion on the min number of multicast trees that 
an Rbridge MUST support. But asking for anything more than 1 seems 
over-zealous,

Dinesh
Radia Perlman wrote:
> Easy question: what do you prefer the default # of trees to calculate be?
>
> Harder question: What is the minimum acceptable # of trees an implementation
> is willing to compute? (this is currently not specified in the spec. 
> Should it be?)
>
> Ugly question: What happens if R3 can only support, say, 3 trees and
> the highest priority guy specifies, say, 5 trees? There are various
> potential answers to this:
>
> a) if we ignore the question, it will go away
> b) we should put "number of trees I support" into the LSP, and
> the highest priority RBridge is not allowed to specify a number
> greater than the minimum supported by any RBridge
> c) require RBridges to support as many trees as the highest
> priority RBridge demands
> _______________________________________________
> 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