[rbridge] Fwd: Re: WG Review: Transparent Interconnection of Lots ofLinks (trill)

[pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola)]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> But this seems to create confusion. Maybe I'm confused, but I don't
> think TRILL is going after creating larger layer 2 nets at all, right?
> Just attempting to do something more clever than a spanning tree for the
> layer 2 catenet.

Maybe not intentionally, but I think that will be the result.  A usage 
case that has been shown has been a hospital whose network (with 
thousands of hosts) is a single broadcast domain.

I think everyone can agree that instead of making such large broadcast 
domains, the network should be split up by routing instead.

While TRILL would "fix" the usage case above so that using a single 
broadcast domain would still "work", that would still be very bad 
network design, and in the longer term, it would probably be 
counter-productive.

(In our environment, what we've seen recently is *decrease* in the 
size of broadcast domains/subnets due to the requirements to isolate 
and filter the traffic from other hosts at the site.  Using a single 
domain makes this security issue much worse.)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings