Re: [Pppext] [rbridge] working group last call for PPP TRILL protocol control protocol [was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-02.txt]

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi James,

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM, James Carlson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> I don't understand why you say that. Seem to me that TRILL over PPP
>> just involves the formats, code points, and PPP procedures. Anyway, it
>> isn't clear to me that anyone will build a practical RBridge that
>> doesn't have a MAC address Ethernet interface even if it is just a
>> virtual internal interface for a virtual internal end station. If that
>> doesn't exist, you can't really address the RBridge for management or
>> maintenance.
>
> Sure, you could.  It would just have to be addressed via IP (e.g., via
> SNMP, ssh, or even TELNET) rather than by something locked into Ethernet.

Really? RBridge don't route on IP addresses. They route based on
nickname and, on ingress, they convert to nickname from MAC/VLAN. How
are you going to get an RBridge to route on an IP address?

Thanks,
Donald

> One could imagine a large TRILL bridge designed for telecom applications
> exclusively on the interior of the cloud, where the only possible links
> are point-to-point; no Ethernet need apply.
>
> Whether anyone ever builds that beast -- and, if so, whether it lacks
> any built-in mechanism for automatic System ID assignment -- is a
> different question.
>
> What we're really discussing is whether failing to cover this case with
> some sort of automatic resolution is a hole in the specification (as I
> think Mr. Simpson is contending), or whether it's just an unlikely
> corner that implementors should be warned away from (as I believe).
>
> --
> James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[e-mail]>