Re: [trill] FGL "safe" mode in fine labels

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

On 3/20/13 2:19 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:

 > The above says to me that you now have a TRILL campus where R1 does
 > process FGL frames and R2 does not. But doesn't that contradict the
 > model:
 >
 >> 1) VL-only (today's deployment), then
 >> 2) A mixture of VL and FGL-safe, until
 >> 3) EVERYone upgraded to FGL-safe, then
 >> 4) FGL-links can be introduced.

FWIW Your use of "FGL-link" is not consistent with the definition in the 
document.
The document defines it as "A link where all of the attached TRILL 
switches are FGL."

I think what you refer to in #4 is what the document calls FGL-edge.

 > Or maybe we are having a violent agreement? if we are at step 2)
 > above, then isn't the entire campus operating in "VL mode"? I.e., at
 > step 2, no one is sending/receiving/processing FGL frames. (Right?)
 >
 > It's not until step 3/4 that you see *any* FGL frames being used. And
 > for that, you can't have *any* RBs still operating only in VL mode -
 > they *all* have to support FGL.

While the above 1-4 is a reasonable way to deploy FGL, the protocol 
mechanisms must be robust against there (perhaps accidentally) being VL 
RBridges when FGL-edges are in use; whether that is because not all was 
upgraded to FGL-safe, or after everything is FGL-safe someone (perhaps 
accidentally) connects one or more VL RBridges to the network.

That is why we have the rules about safety - not forwarding a FGL frame 
to a VL RBridge.

Regards,
    Erik