[rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject)
erik.nordmark at sun.com (Erik Nordmark) Sun, 01 May 2005 03:36 UTC
From: "erik.nordmark at sun.com"
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:36:32 -0700
Subject: [rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4744@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com>
References: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4744@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com>
Message-ID: <42744EC0.7010302@sun.com>
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > For IEEE 802 standards that are at least six months old and for some drafts, free download is available under the "Get IEEE 802" program. See http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/. Thanks. 802.1D-2004 talks about the aspects of MAC service (reordering, duplication, etc) in section 6.3 which is probably sufficient to understand the MAC service. However, the normative reference for the MAC service is ISO/IEC 15802-1, and it seems like ISO charges money for that one. Erik Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j413aX615498 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.87.130]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j413aWi7004214 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:36:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j413aUTW308874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:36:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <42744EC0.7010302@sun.com> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:36:32 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4744@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4744@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject) X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 03:37:20 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 522 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > For IEEE 802 standards that are at least six months old and for some drafts, free download is available under the "Get IEEE 802" program. See http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/. Thanks. 802.1D-2004 talks about the aspects of MAC service (reordering, duplication, etc) in section 6.3 which is probably sufficient to understand the MAC service. However, the normative reference for the MAC service is ISO/IEC 15802-1, and it seems like ISO charges money for that one. Erik Received: from [192.168.1.47] (pool-71-106-98-38.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.98.38]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j413R2613265; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <42744C80.4010309@isi.edu> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:26:56 -0700 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <42726D57.1000301@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <42726D57.1000301@it.uc3m.es> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigCC14C6C18E1DFC6AEE2991BD" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] Max Network size X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 03:27:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1269 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigCC14C6C18E1DFC6AEE2991BD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guillermo Ib=E1=F1ez wrote: > I have a question: > What is the maximum network size (number of hosts) required/expected= =20 > in TRILL? May be it was already stated somewhere, I am not aware of it.= > Regards > Guillermo Ib=E1=F1ez There is no limit of design; it is based on the capability of edge RBridges to handle encapsulation tables, as well as of interior RBridges to have scalable routing. We expect to scale to numbers of hosts much higher than current bridges, but it's hard to predict what the knee of the design curve will be (IMO)= =2E Joe --------------enigCC14C6C18E1DFC6AEE2991BD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCdEyAE5f5cImnZrsRAlT8AJ43rwH9vB06xaiV4wlabmIFLGabeACg2Zyh pQO7jN1ZKBR+vZ5xOLYolrc= =RyuR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigCC14C6C18E1DFC6AEE2991BD-- Received: from tm3.ca.alcatel.com (kanfw1.ottawa.alcatel.ca [192.75.23.69]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j3U54V625431 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tm3.ca.alcatel.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3U54OlC026423; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:04:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <427311C3.116818C4@alcatel.com> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:04:03 -0400 From: Cheng-Yin Lee <Cheng-Yin.Lee@alcatel.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <p06200716be969e0fac11@[192.168.116.133]> <4270FDE9.1070509@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: cheng-yin.lee@alcatel.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] (no subject) X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 05:05:20 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1312 Margaret, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > (6) How does this work relate to the new work in the IEEE on the > Shortest Path Bridging PAR? This is a proposal in the IEEE to use an > STP-based (or STP-like?) distance-vector-based protocol to allow for > shortest path bridging. Given the existence of this work in the > IEEE, is TRILL still needed? If so, why? What properties (if any) > does TRILL bring that make it worth doing in addition to the planned > IEEE work? My personal opinion is Shortest Path Bridging and TRILL will serve different types of networks and markets. My understanding of Shortest Path Bridging is that it is effectively like distance vector [ although it assumes the same costs from source/root of tree to destination and in the reverse path (symmetric routes), otherwise it is reverse shortest path]. Hence, link state based TRILL should converge faster in a richly connected, large network in the event of link/router node state (not considering MAC addresses learning or updating, assuming a more scalable way will be developed for this) changes. In any case, if we may use this analogy, both RIP and link state protocols (OSPF/IS-IS ) are used today. Perhaps in future, some networks may use Shortest Path Bridging while others may use link state based TRILL. Thanks Cheng-Yin Received: from motgate5.mot.com (motgate5.mot.com [144.189.100.105]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j3U2mP624990 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from il06exr02.mot.com (il06exr02.mot.com [129.188.137.132]) by motgate5.mot.com (8.12.11/Motgate5) with ESMTP id j3U2r53k024616 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:53:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com [10.14.33.5]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j3U2p3bh016854 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:51:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <1LP6ZSBJ>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:48:21 -0400 Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4744@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com> From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:48:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Subject: [rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject) X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:49:16 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 603 For IEEE 802 standards that are at least six months old and for some drafts, free download is available under the "Get IEEE 802" program. See http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/. Donald -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 9:02 PM To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: Re: [rbridge] (no subject) ... AFAIK one has to pay to access the IEEE 802.1 standards documents, and googling for the relevant terms seem to find mostly things about some TRILL BoF :-) ... Erik Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j3U11X600244 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.83.36]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j3U11XjG014107 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3U11WRn117120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4272D8F0.5030600@sun.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:01:36 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <p06200716be969e0fac11@[192.168.116.133]> In-Reply-To: <p06200716be969e0fac11@[192.168.116.133]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] (no subject) X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:02:25 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 6138 Margaret Wasserman wrote: > (1) Is it (or is it not) a requirement/goal for the TRILL protocol to > be compatible with existing bridge/switch HW? There are some folks > who would like to see TRILL defined in a way that would allow it to > be implemented as a SW upgrade to existing bridges/switches, but that > has implication for the protocol itself -- in particular, > decrementing a TTL or making any header changes on through traffic > would preclude this. My personal take is that there are some key properties of TRILL that we'd want to preserve: - using a link state routing protocol - using encapsulation to carry packets between the trill devices - including a TTL in the encapsulation header as a "safety" should there be temporary routing loops For instance, it would not make sense to me to change the TRILL approach to not have a ttl even if this provided a way to reuse some hardware, because it would change some rather fundamental architectural properties of TRILL. Thus for somebody to build a trill device they'd need hardware that can insert and remove the encapsulation header and decrement ttl. But if there are other issues that relate to hardware capability or ease, such as details of the encapsulation header (alignment, order of fields, etc), I suspect there is a lot of flexibility. > (3) What (types of) mechanisms are needed for end station discovery? > There was a discussion on this on the list in early March, with the > apparent conclusion that we could use link-state for discovery of > directly connected nodes, but might need other mechanisms (probing?) > for detection of hosts connected via a hub or non-TRILL-aware bridge. > What mechanisms would be needed? And what are the impacts of these > mechanisms on network traffic, route thrashing, etc. I guess there are two related issues here. One is the protocol mechanism used to do station discovery, and the other is the degree of churn caused by this mechanism and whether or not this requires special considerations to avoid scaling issues. In terms of the protocol mechanism, TRILL would need to support stations behind bridges, in which case it can't do much better than the existing bridge learning techniques (look at the source L2 address of received packets). But in such a case it might make sense to use holddown techniques to not cause routing updates due to station inactivity, yet be able to react quickly when the station moves to another rbridge. For other types of attachments, for instance 802.11 or other protocols with a notion of associations, there is the option to integrate the rbridge functionality in the access point. In such a case the propagation of the L2 address into the rbridge routing can be driven directly by the host completing the association with the AP. This would offer a slight improvement over the AP/bridge interaction today, where the host has to send a broadcast packet to cause the bridges in the network to be updated with its new location. I guess it is too early to understand the performance tradeoffs between the different possible approaches for how the information is learned, how it is timed out or updated, and when this information is added and removed from the trill routing information. > (4) Which properties (if any) of the Ethernet service model may be > compromised or modified by TRILL. The Ethernet service model > includes properties such as in-order delivery of packets, no packet > duplication and timing limits (among other things? Bernard, is there > a definitive reference for this?). What changes for TRILL-connected > links? And, what effect would those changes have on protocols that > may depend on the existing Ethernet service model (such as (R)STP, > VLANs, ARP, ND, SEND, EAP methods, DNA...)? For the rest of the list: The IESG and IEEE 802 had some discussions about this and the notes are at <http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/IEEE/minutes0408.txt> My take is that TRILL needs to document the service mode it provides. My understanding is that IEEE 802.1 changed the service model when they developed RSTP, so that packet reordering and duplication is acceptable when there is a topology change (i.e., some bridge, port or link failing or being brought up). AFAIK one has to pay to access the IEEE 802.1 standards documents, and googling for the relevant terms seem to find mostly things about some TRILL BoF :-) > (5) Will a new (or substantially modified) routing paradigm be > required to do scalable Ethernet routing? Or can this be > accomplished with current routing protocols, perhaps with limited > extensions? I'll let Radia answer this one. > (6) How does this work relate to the new work in the IEEE on the > Shortest Path Bridging PAR? This is a proposal in the IEEE to use an > STP-based (or STP-like?) distance-vector-based protocol to allow for > shortest path bridging. Given the existence of this work in the > IEEE, is TRILL still needed? If so, why? What properties (if any) > does TRILL bring that make it worth doing in addition to the planned > IEEE work? For those that haven't see the new PAR, it is at <http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2005/new-seaman-shortest-path-0305-02.pdf> I'd be interested in what other folks think of the relationship between this proposed work in IEEE 802.1 and the TRILL work. From a quick look, the PAR doesn't seem to address the zero-configuration goal we've talked about for TRILL. The shortest path bridges need to be configured with the VLAN ID they use for their "personal" shortest path tree. The fact that the PAR overloads the VLAN ID as an identifier for each shortest path tree, seems to mean that the product of the number of VLANs and the number of (shortest path) bridges might be limited to a total of 4096. Thus if somebody is currently using 1024 VLANs, they can only have 4 shortest path bridges, which seems very limiting. This seems quite counter to the requests we had from Alex Zinin to think about scalability to reasonably large networks in the context of TRILL. Erik Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.136.121]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j3THMf622246 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1362A5D945 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:22:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (vpn-252-228.uc3m.es [163.117.252.228]) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3ECD5D91C for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:22:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <42726D57.1000301@it.uc3m.es> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:22:31 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Guillermo_Ib=E1=F1ez?= <gibanez@it.uc3m.es> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rbridge@postel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: gibanez@it.uc3m.es Subject: [rbridge] Max Network size X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:23:14 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 213 I have a question: What is the maximum network size (number of hosts) required/expected in TRILL? May be it was already stated somewhere, I am not aware of it. Regards Guillermo Ib??ez Univ. Carlos III Madrid Received: from [192.168.1.47] (pool-71-106-98-38.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.106.98.38]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j3SFEs601402; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4270FDE9.1070509@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:14:49 -0700 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <p06200716be969e0fac11@[192.168.116.133]> In-Reply-To: <p06200716be969e0fac11@[192.168.116.133]> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.91.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigDB5BA3E1932C8776569D4544" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] (no subject) X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:15:36 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5936 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigDB5BA3E1932C8776569D4544 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret Wasserman wrote: > As most of you probably know, the IESG has been talking about > chartering a TRILL WG. There were some issues raised in response to > the initial charter announcement that we are working through, but in > the meantime, it would be great to continue the technical discussions > on this list and to document the results of our discussions, either > in a separate framework/architecture document and/or in an updated > version of the rbridge proposal. > > I, personally, have a number of technical questions about TRILL. I > think it would be helpful to discuss and answer these questions > within the TRILL group: > > (1) Is it (or is it not) a requirement/goal for the TRILL protocol to > be compatible with existing bridge/switch HW? There are some folks > who would like to see TRILL defined in a way that would allow it to > be implemented as a SW upgrade to existing bridges/switches, but that > has implication for the protocol itself -- in particular, > decrementing a TTL or making any header changes on through traffic > would preclude this. An update to the rbridge I-D will be available very shortly; Radia, Alper, and I have been doing last-minute checks on it this week. The protocol does not modify the incoming packet - L2 or L3. It thus supports incremental deployment and upgrade, though benefit of those upgrades depends on linking the upgraded systems together as a 'campus'. The way a campus works may limit which upgraded systems can be linked together - i.e., it *may* limit non-upgraded bridges to connect to only one campus bridge, etc. So such upgrades may have impact only after enough of a topology is available to make an appropriate campus. I'm not as familiar with VLAN issues as Radia is, so she might speak to these issues: > (2) How will TRILL be compatible with existing (dynamic and > non-dynamic) VLANs? There are really a few questions here: > > (a) Is TRILL expected to run entirely under, and be invisible to, > existing IEEE 802 VLANs (as a replacement for (R)STP, but not for > VLAN)? If so, how does TRILL address (or even pertain) to the subnet > limitations of current VLANs? Eliminating this limit was discussed > in Radia's talk on the benefits of TRILL, but maybe our thinking has > evolved to the point where that no longer applies? > > (b) If it doesn't run entirely under existing IEEE 802 VLANs, how > does TRILL handle IP subnetting and limitation of broadcast/multicast > domains? > > (c) If TRILL does run under existing IEEE 802 VLANs, is there any > means to avoid unnecessary duplication of broadcast/multicast traffic > across TRILL-connected "links". Is avoiding this traffic necessary > for the protocol? Or merely a nice-to-have? > > (d) How will TRILL interoperate with dynamic VLANs? In particular, > how will TRILL work with dynamic VLANs when hosts move from one part > of a wireless network to another? Today, those hosts retain their IP > addresses and current connections by being detected at a new location > and attached to a dynamic VLAN in that location. Will this work over > TRILL-connected links? What will be the impact (if any) on the time > it takes to establish bridging to the new location? (I'm not sure > that there are any issues here, I just don't understand enough about > how dynamic VLANs work (yet) to know if there are any). > > (3) What (types of) mechanisms are needed for end station discovery? > There was a discussion on this on the list in early March, with the > apparent conclusion that we could use link-state for discovery of > directly connected nodes, but might need other mechanisms (probing?) > for detection of hosts connected via a hub or non-TRILL-aware bridge. > What mechanisms would be needed? And what are the impacts of these > mechanisms on network traffic, route thrashing, etc. > > (4) Which properties (if any) of the Ethernet service model may be > compromised or modified by TRILL. The Ethernet service model > includes properties such as in-order delivery of packets, no packet > duplication and timing limits (among other things? Bernard, is there > a definitive reference for this?). What changes for TRILL-connected > links? And, what effect would those changes have on protocols that > may depend on the existing Ethernet service model (such as (R)STP, > VLANs, ARP, ND, SEND, EAP methods, DNA...)? > > (5) Will a new (or substantially modified) routing paradigm be > required to do scalable Ethernet routing? Or can this be > accomplished with current routing protocols, perhaps with limited > extensions? > > (6) How does this work relate to the new work in the IEEE on the > Shortest Path Bridging PAR? This is a proposal in the IEEE to use an > STP-based (or STP-like?) distance-vector-based protocol to allow for > shortest path bridging. Given the existence of this work in the > IEEE, is TRILL still needed? If so, why? What properties (if any) > does TRILL bring that make it worth doing in addition to the planned > IEEE work? > > Thanks, > Margaret > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enigDB5BA3E1932C8776569D4544 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcP3pE5f5cImnZrsRAqGAAJ4pFFFuxc1igI4dnuFxyMydOrhKCACgpixZ kfBcrotHv0Ph06kzMTDCoxw= =zC1X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigDB5BA3E1932C8776569D4544-- Received: from thingmagic.com (tm-gw2.cictr.com [204.9.221.21] (may be forged)) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j3SELI614792 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [212.147.29.57] (account margaret HELO [192.168.116.133]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 355718 for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:17:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p06200716be969e0fac11@[192.168.116.133]> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:20:48 -0400 To: rbridge@postel.org From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: margaret@thingmagic.com Subject: [rbridge] (no subject) X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:22:09 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4205 As most of you probably know, the IESG has been talking about chartering a TRILL WG. There were some issues raised in response to the initial charter announcement that we are working through, but in the meantime, it would be great to continue the technical discussions on this list and to document the results of our discussions, either in a separate framework/architecture document and/or in an updated version of the rbridge proposal. I, personally, have a number of technical questions about TRILL. I think it would be helpful to discuss and answer these questions within the TRILL group: (1) Is it (or is it not) a requirement/goal for the TRILL protocol to be compatible with existing bridge/switch HW? There are some folks who would like to see TRILL defined in a way that would allow it to be implemented as a SW upgrade to existing bridges/switches, but that has implication for the protocol itself -- in particular, decrementing a TTL or making any header changes on through traffic would preclude this. (2) How will TRILL be compatible with existing (dynamic and non-dynamic) VLANs? There are really a few questions here: (a) Is TRILL expected to run entirely under, and be invisible to, existing IEEE 802 VLANs (as a replacement for (R)STP, but not for VLAN)? If so, how does TRILL address (or even pertain) to the subnet limitations of current VLANs? Eliminating this limit was discussed in Radia's talk on the benefits of TRILL, but maybe our thinking has evolved to the point where that no longer applies? (b) If it doesn't run entirely under existing IEEE 802 VLANs, how does TRILL handle IP subnetting and limitation of broadcast/multicast domains? (c) If TRILL does run under existing IEEE 802 VLANs, is there any means to avoid unnecessary duplication of broadcast/multicast traffic across TRILL-connected "links". Is avoiding this traffic necessary for the protocol? Or merely a nice-to-have? (d) How will TRILL interoperate with dynamic VLANs? In particular, how will TRILL work with dynamic VLANs when hosts move from one part of a wireless network to another? Today, those hosts retain their IP addresses and current connections by being detected at a new location and attached to a dynamic VLAN in that location. Will this work over TRILL-connected links? What will be the impact (if any) on the time it takes to establish bridging to the new location? (I'm not sure that there are any issues here, I just don't understand enough about how dynamic VLANs work (yet) to know if there are any). (3) What (types of) mechanisms are needed for end station discovery? There was a discussion on this on the list in early March, with the apparent conclusion that we could use link-state for discovery of directly connected nodes, but might need other mechanisms (probing?) for detection of hosts connected via a hub or non-TRILL-aware bridge. What mechanisms would be needed? And what are the impacts of these mechanisms on network traffic, route thrashing, etc. (4) Which properties (if any) of the Ethernet service model may be compromised or modified by TRILL. The Ethernet service model includes properties such as in-order delivery of packets, no packet duplication and timing limits (among other things? Bernard, is there a definitive reference for this?). What changes for TRILL-connected links? And, what effect would those changes have on protocols that may depend on the existing Ethernet service model (such as (R)STP, VLANs, ARP, ND, SEND, EAP methods, DNA...)? (5) Will a new (or substantially modified) routing paradigm be required to do scalable Ethernet routing? Or can this be accomplished with current routing protocols, perhaps with limited extensions? (6) How does this work relate to the new work in the IEEE on the Shortest Path Bridging PAR? This is a proposal in the IEEE to use an STP-based (or STP-like?) distance-vector-based protocol to allow for shortest path bridging. Given the existence of this work in the IEEE, is TRILL still needed? If so, why? What properties (if any) does TRILL bring that make it worth doing in addition to the planned IEEE work? Thanks, Margaret Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38LiN610330 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:44:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 14:44:15 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j38LhigU010076 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.175]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:44:09 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:44:09 -0700 Message-ID: <BC468F3648F16146B9FA9123627514F80A2B07@xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes Thread-Index: AcU8f2JRclUmE/xPTMKvzc2O4dVGOgAAx4Bw From: "Michael Smith \(michsmit\)" <michsmit@cisco.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2005 21:44:09.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[18C35010:01C53C84] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: michsmit@cisco.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id j38LiN610330 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:44:55 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3006 Erik, My apologies, I went back and looked at the presentation. The text should not be removed. It is as presented. In the meeting, I raised the point that the text is technically incorrect (meaning reordering is not only during network topology changes). My point below is that which was discussed in the meeting when it was presented. Thanks, Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 2:05 PM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes > > Michael Smith (michsmit) wrote: > > >>Goals: > >>zero configuration, > >>hosts can move without changing IP address, use best > pair-wise paths > >>and be able to load split, maybe optimize ARP / ND (don't always > >>flood), secure ND, hop count to reduce damage from loops, multiple > >>external attachment point support, no delay for new host > attachment, > >>support for multicast, to be no less secure than existing > bridges, no > >>changes to hosts, routers, or L2 bridges, support non-IP protocols, > >>handle IPv4&6, maybe interconnect different L2 technologies. > >>There are lots of questions about mobility, which goals are high > >>level, etc. > >>LAN Service is: > >>broadcast domain, > >>small probability of reordering and duplication (basically > only when > >>topology changes), > > > > > > The text "basically only when topology changes" should be removed. > > > > Rbridging will reorder during a stable topology. The reordering in > > rbridges happens when learning occurs. This is independent of > > topology changes. > > Michael, > > I don't understand the nature of your comment. The above are > notes from the presentation about the goals of TRILL. So are > you saying that 1. The minutes are incorrect, because that > presentation said something different? > 2. That the goals are unreasonable and a WG should have > different goals? > 3. That a particular proposed solution for TRILL might not > satisfy the goals? > > Only #1 would be appropriate comments on the minutes, since > their purpose is to record what was presented/discussed at > the meeting. > > > The point argued is that with today's rapid spanning tree there is > > only a remote chance of reordering and that is only during > a topology change. > > Traditional spanning tree has no such reordering > whatsoever. Learning > > occurs much more frequently as the L2 tables reach capacity due to > > churn of entries. This would cause rbridges to reorder more > > frequently as the > > L2 tables reach capacity (still a stable network topology). The > > discussion was questioning whether the probability can be viewed as > > small. > > This sure sounds like you are making point #3 above. > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38LYX608272 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38LYWXi020749 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:34:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.bur-mail2.east.sun.com by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) id <0IEN00701D90T7@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-25-194.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.25.194]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IEN00CGGD9JJA@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:34:32 -0700 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <4256F1E6.8080000@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4256F8E8.3010907@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <BC468F3648F16146B9FA9123627514F80A2AEA@xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com> <4256F1E6.8080000@sun.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] reordering X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:34:56 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2641 Michael Smith said: >> >>Rbridging will reorder during a stable topology. The reordering in >>rbridges happens when learning occurs. This is independent of topology >>changes. >> >> To explain to the technical point you are raising to the llist (because it's not really a change to the minutes, but is instead a technical point that should be discussed on the list), the strawman draft design does have that property, because when endnode A talks to endnode B, if the RBridges do not yet know where B is, they will send it on a spanning tree, and when they do find out who the egress RBridge is, they will send it directly. A variant that has been discussed is to use the link state information to calculate a per-ingress RBridge spanning tree. Then all the paths will be optimal (except during topology change). But of course it is more expensive to calculate all those trees. So it's an engineering tradeoff. MOSPF calculated per-source spanning trees, by the way. All this stuff is an engineering tradeoff, so we shouldn't necessarily assume one thing is cast in stone if we find out it precludes other good properties. I asked what protocols still depend on in-order delivery, and it didn't seem like a lot of them do. And in the installations with SNA or whatever legacy protocols we're talking about, they're not forced to use RBridges...they could stick with standard bridges. I'd hope modern protocols are not being designed that would break if packets get reordered. And if it's OK to sometimes reorder (when topology changes), then I'd think it couldn't be fatal to reorder at other times too. So, could someone list the protocols that break with reordering, and how widely deployed they are, and whether they need the features of RBridge, or are doing just fine with bridges? If they are important, AND if they need the features of RBridges rather than bridges, then RBridges could send unknown destination frames to a spanning tree rooted at the ingress RBridge, and that would solve the problem. The question again is, are these protocols worth the cost of computing all these extra trees? On the upside if it's considered important enough to do all these trees, the cost of the extra trees is totally internal to the RBridge (computation, extra forwarding tables). And on another upside of the extra trees...for multicast packets for high-bandwidth applications (which will usually be IP multicast applications, so will be using IGMP), having per-ingress RBridge trees, plus pruning based on IGMP snooping, will minimize the number of packet-hops necessary to distribute that data. Radia Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38L5t600704 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.81.36]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38L5sK2017278 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:05:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j38L5rt6724740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4256F222.2080906@sun.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:05:38 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <4256BDE2.8090200@sun.com> <4256E527.5040704@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4256E527.5040704@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:06:56 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1075 Radia Perlman wrote: > A couple of corrections: > > Under "VLANs" you don't say what was presented, just the discussion > afterwards. > Here's a summary of what was presented: > > Presented a modified design, where the "egress RBridge" is included in > the header > (between the outer header, which bridges would see, and the inner frame > which is > exactly as transmitted by the endnode). Forwarding is to the egress > RBridge. > This enables the core to forward solely based on egress RBridge, and not > need > to have endnode addresses in forwarding tables. It also means that only > RBridges > attached to a particular VLAN need to know about the endnodes in that VLAN. I'll add that. > So for simplicity, I'd remove: > > Radia Perlman: I wasn't provided with the whole problem, just told to > develop a spanning protocol. > > and replace it with: > Radia Perlman: At that point in time they would never have > considered adding an encapsulation header. It would have made > the devices too complex and there were hard limits on > frame sizes. ok Erik Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38L4u600144 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.89.31]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38L4tXi003694 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:04:56 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j38L4rqD724201 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4256F1E6.8080000@sun.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:04:38 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <BC468F3648F16146B9FA9123627514F80A2AEA@xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <BC468F3648F16146B9FA9123627514F80A2AEA@xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:05:57 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2109 Michael Smith (michsmit) wrote: >>Goals: >>zero configuration, >>hosts can move without changing IP address, use best >>pair-wise paths and be able to load split, maybe optimize ARP >>/ ND (don't always flood), secure ND, hop count to reduce >>damage from loops, multiple external attachment point >>support, no delay for new host attachment, support for >>multicast, to be no less secure than existing bridges, no >>changes to hosts, routers, or L2 bridges, support non-IP >>protocols, handle IPv4&6, maybe interconnect different L2 >>technologies. >>There are lots of questions about mobility, which goals are >>high level, etc. >>LAN Service is: >>broadcast domain, >>small probability of reordering and duplication (basically >>only when topology changes), > > > The text "basically only when topology changes" should be removed. > > Rbridging will reorder during a stable topology. The reordering in > rbridges happens when learning occurs. This is independent of topology > changes. Michael, I don't understand the nature of your comment. The above are notes from the presentation about the goals of TRILL. So are you saying that 1. The minutes are incorrect, because that presentation said something different? 2. That the goals are unreasonable and a WG should have different goals? 3. That a particular proposed solution for TRILL might not satisfy the goals? Only #1 would be appropriate comments on the minutes, since their purpose is to record what was presented/discussed at the meeting. > The point argued is that with today's rapid spanning tree there is only > a remote chance of reordering and that is only during a topology change. > Traditional spanning tree has no such reordering whatsoever. Learning > occurs much more frequently as the L2 tables reach capacity due to churn > of entries. This would cause rbridges to reorder more frequently as the > L2 tables reach capacity (still a stable network topology). The > discussion was questioning whether the probability can be viewed as > small. This sure sounds like you are making point #3 above. Erik Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38KAG617359 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 13:10:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38KAFXi028580 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:10:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.bur-mail2.east.sun.com by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) id <0IEN0000195D8G@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:10:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-25-194.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.25.194]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IEN00CMI9D2JA@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:10:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:10:15 -0700 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <4256BDE2.8090200@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4256E527.5040704@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <4256BDE2.8090200@sun.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:10:58 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1483 A couple of corrections: Under "VLANs" you don't say what was presented, just the discussion afterwards. Here's a summary of what was presented: Presented a modified design, where the "egress RBridge" is included in the header (between the outer header, which bridges would see, and the inner frame which is exactly as transmitted by the endnode). Forwarding is to the egress RBridge. This enables the core to forward solely based on egress RBridge, and not need to have endnode addresses in forwarding tables. It also means that only RBridges attached to a particular VLAN need to know about the endnodes in that VLAN. ****** As for my answer to Bob Hinden...the comment in the minutes was really sort of a joke that I was making, and not the real answer. After I made the comment about being guilty of doing what is one of my pet peeves (solving one thing rather than looking at the bigger picture), I said what the real answer was, which was that at that point in time they would never have considered adding an encapsulation header. It would have made the devices too complex, and there were hard limits on frame sizes. So for simplicity, I'd remove: Radia Perlman: I wasn't provided with the whole problem, just told to develop a spanning protocol. and replace it with: Radia Perlman: At that point in time they would never have considered adding an encapsulation header. It would have made the devices too complex and there were hard limits on frame sizes. Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38IdF620764 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2005 11:38:40 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,88,1112598000"; d="scan'208"; a="247671012:sNHT2035657616" Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j38IbpER021309 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.175]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:38:36 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:38:36 -0700 Message-ID: <BC468F3648F16146B9FA9123627514F80A2AEA@xmb-sjc-217.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes Thread-Index: AcU8YNgVegMfwovMR4S77kN/O8KwhQABvRsA From: "Michael Smith \(michsmit\)" <michsmit@cisco.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Apr 2005 18:38:36.0808 (UTC) FILETIME=[2CF06880:01C53C6A] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: michsmit@cisco.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id j38IdF620764 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:40:43 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 9316 Erik, One comment inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:23 AM > To: rbridge@postel.org > Subject: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes > > > I just realized I need to get these submitted today. So > please send in any corrections you have. > > Erik > > TRILL > BoF Chair Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> > > 1. Welcome and Administrivia, Erik Nordmark > ------------------------------------------- > > Scribe: Donald Eastlake, ... > > 2. Problem statement discussion, Erik Nordmark > ---------------------------------------------- > > Including the "service" that a cloud of hybrid devices will > provide, whether it is equivalent to IEEE 802.1D devices, or > handles IP packets differently. > When is it ok to reorder packets? MTU considerations? > > L2 solutions have many benefits. Will use IEEE 802 networks > as an example but can apply to Fibrechannel, MPLS, etc. > We also have L3 technology which may provide benefits in > terms of robustness, etc. > There is a desire to combine the above to create best of both > worlds for a LAN (where a LAN is approximately a broadcast > domain). Motivations: > better robustness, better aggregate bandwidth than L2 > bridges, better latency, user of shortest path, ability to > interconnect different L2 types?, bigger LANs? > > TRILL Model > Goals: > zero configuration, > hosts can move without changing IP address, use best > pair-wise paths and be able to load split, maybe optimize ARP > / ND (don't always flood), secure ND, hop count to reduce > damage from loops, multiple external attachment point > support, no delay for new host attachment, support for > multicast, to be no less secure than existing bridges, no > changes to hosts, routers, or L2 bridges, support non-IP > protocols, handle IPv4&6, maybe interconnect different L2 > technologies. > There are lots of questions about mobility, which goals are > high level, etc. > LAN Service is: > broadcast domain, > small probability of reordering and duplication (basically > only when topology changes), The text "basically only when topology changes" should be removed. Rbridging will reorder during a stable topology. The reordering in rbridges happens when learning occurs. This is independent of topology changes. The point argued is that with today's rapid spanning tree there is only a remote chance of reordering and that is only during a topology change. Traditional spanning tree has no such reordering whatsoever. Learning occurs much more frequently as the L2 tables reach capacity due to churn of entries. This would cause rbridges to reorder more frequently as the L2 tables reach capacity (still a stable network topology). The discussion was questioning whether the probability can be viewed as small. >MTU (most LANs have uniform MTUs). > Question of fitting L2 info into current size caches... > Q: What about wireless? > Nordmark: TRILL is independent of whether links are wireless. > Which LAN service does IP need? > Some special cases for IPv4/IPv6 ARP may improve service but > perhaps it is better if ARP doesn't need special treatment. > > 3. Threats and security considerations, Marcelo Bagnulo. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Security goals: minimum is same as current bridges. > New features may enable usage beyond the capabilities of > classic bridges. > ... > Examples of attacks presented for bridges and Rbridges. > Q: Does this security analysis take into account all of the > ongoing and proposed security and QoS work in IEEE 802.1? > Nordmark: No. > Q: Why are we considering these details presuming a solution? > Nordmark: It is good to start considering security from the beginning. > Mark Townsley: This is a little deep for this stage although > some good things came out of it. Let's move on. > > 4. ARP/ND and Broadcast/Multicast Issues > ---------------------------------------- > > Joe Touch and Yu-Shun Wang (presented by Yu-Shun Wang as Joe > Touch had a > conflict) > Various questions of exact size of network, what a campus > means, what a bridge is, what the goals are, ... DAD ... DNA > ... Real networks all have VLANs. > Q: How can you detect a device if it's moving and not > connected and someone takes its MAC address? > Wang: Not worried about MAC addresses, I was talking about > IPv4/6 addresses. > Q: Are you trying to solve duplicate MAC address problem? > Wang: No. > > 5. Requirements on routing protocols, Alex Zinin, zinin@psg.com > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Alex presented considerable material on scalability functions > for different types of overhead. > Paul Congdon: Do you consider dynamic VLAN formation in the core? > Zinin: No, only static VLAN in my analysis so far. > ... > Margaret Wasserman: Do you have a comparison with RSTP? > Zinin: Not in this presentation. > ... > Reachability is less volatile than activity. > ... > Advantages of reachability. "CNLS(?)" announces all hosts and works. > The built in protocol limits on update rates are not enough > to assure stability. > Recommend using a single routing instance over all VLANs but > restricted flooding of information only to nodes that need > that information. > Q: Are you assuming station number scales with VLANs? > A: No, but there are typically more stations in systems with > many VLANs. > > 6. TRILL issue: VLANs, Radia Perlman > ------------------------------------ > ... > Margaret Wasserman: Would Rbridge flooding zones be IP subnets? > Radia Perlman: No. [Later Radia posted an email saying that > different Rbridge VLANs would be separate IP subnets.] > Wasserman: What would happen with mobility? > Perlman: You can keep same IP if you move. > Comment: All this should be compared with what's in 802.1, > 802.1ah, MAC in MAC encapsulation, etc. > Q: GVRPN MAC tunneling... Is there parallel work in L2VPN? > Daly: Reminds me of similar aspects of RFC 2357(?) Like MPLS. > Q: What is the scope? Looks like BGPv3, ..., in same enterprise. > Nordmark: This is not being proposed for the Internet backbone. > Q: Is there a conflict with L2VPN? Both seem to be used for > aggregation. > > 7. Connecting different L2 types, Radia Perlman > ----------------------------------------------- > > Forwarding between different link types works for IP but > probably too hard in general for incompatible link types. > This presentation of mine is to try to convince people NOT to > include Rbridging different types of links in the scope of > the proposed WG. > Comments: All comments made opposed doing this between > different types of links. > > 8. Discussion > ------------- > > Nordmark: The intended network scope where this would be > applied is not "provider" but "local". > Comment: "Provider" is not the same as "wide area". > Comment: We should figure out what has been done elsewhere. > Nordmark: I've been looking for that. No one else is doing > shortest path. > Comment: Big overlap with L2VPN. VPLS area in L2VPN. Shortest > path for unicast. GMPLS. Issues with packet re-ordering and > MAC address. The alternative of encapsulating in IP header > means you can then just use IP on intermediate nodes so only > edge devices need to learn MAC addresses. > Nordmark: But IP does not autoconfigure. > Paul Congdon: There seems to be more awareness of what 802.1 is doing. > Original list of goals included shortest path. That is not > addressed by IEEE 802.1 but I think the other goals are > addressed by 802.1. > Nordmark: Link state with limited flooding would solve > scalability. That technique might also fit into L2VPN. > Bob Hinden: Haven't heard clear case as to why this is better > than alternatives. > Nordmark: shortest path, nothing else provides it. > Hinden: You can do a lot of things with routers, can you do > something better with them? > Nordmark: We've tried that with the ZROUTER BoF. I was there. > But you still have to change address when you move. > Hinden to Radia: Why didn't you invent this when you invented > STP (the spanning tree protocol)? > Radia Perlman: I wasn't provided with the whole problem, just > told to develop a spanning protocol. > Zinin: Big difference between this and L2VPN is that L2VPN > uses IP while this defines forwarding and routing in L2. X > does solve the problem with state in core devices but that's > not the problem. Critical problem is edge bridge problem. > Would rather try to solve problem with IP. > Nordmark: We tried that and gave up. > Margaret Wasserman: How many in the room are on the rbridge > mailing list and read it? (Many hand go up.) > Wasserman: How many have support from their management to > work on this? > Quite a few indicate they do.) > Wasserman: Three choice poll: > (1) ready to work on this, > (2) interesting think but we need to look further, > (3) no work should be done on this in the IETF. > (1) ~10. > (2) Many > (3) ~12. > Wasserman: The rough consensus is to look into this further. > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j38HN0629008 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:23:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.85.105]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j38HMxXi023425 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:23:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j38HMwee624980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4256BDE2.8090200@sun.com> Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:22:42 -0700 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rbridge@postel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Draft Minneapolis minutes X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:23:54 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 7721 I just realized I need to get these submitted today. So please send in any corrections you have. Erik TRILL BoF Chair Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> 1. Welcome and Administrivia, Erik Nordmark ------------------------------------------- Scribe: Donald Eastlake, ... 2. Problem statement discussion, Erik Nordmark ---------------------------------------------- Including the "service" that a cloud of hybrid devices will provide, whether it is equivalent to IEEE 802.1D devices, or handles IP packets differently. When is it ok to reorder packets? MTU considerations? L2 solutions have many benefits. Will use IEEE 802 networks as an example but can apply to Fibrechannel, MPLS, etc. We also have L3 technology which may provide benefits in terms of robustness, etc. There is a desire to combine the above to create best of both worlds for a LAN (where a LAN is approximately a broadcast domain). Motivations: better robustness, better aggregate bandwidth than L2 bridges, better latency, user of shortest path, ability to interconnect different L2 types?, bigger LANs? TRILL Model Goals: zero configuration, hosts can move without changing IP address, use best pair-wise paths and be able to load split, maybe optimize ARP / ND (don't always flood), secure ND, hop count to reduce damage from loops, multiple external attachment point support, no delay for new host attachment, support for multicast, to be no less secure than existing bridges, no changes to hosts, routers, or L2 bridges, support non-IP protocols, handle IPv4&6, maybe interconnect different L2 technologies. There are lots of questions about mobility, which goals are high level, etc. LAN Service is: broadcast domain, small probability of reordering and duplication (basically only when topology changes), MTU (most LANs have uniform MTUs). Question of fitting L2 info into current size caches... Q: What about wireless? Nordmark: TRILL is independent of whether links are wireless. Which LAN service does IP need? Some special cases for IPv4/IPv6 ARP may improve service but perhaps it is better if ARP doesn't need special treatment. 3. Threats and security considerations, Marcelo Bagnulo. -------------------------------------------------------- Security goals: minimum is same as current bridges. New features may enable usage beyond the capabilities of classic bridges. ... Examples of attacks presented for bridges and Rbridges. Q: Does this security analysis take into account all of the ongoing and proposed security and QoS work in IEEE 802.1? Nordmark: No. Q: Why are we considering these details presuming a solution? Nordmark: It is good to start considering security from the beginning. Mark Townsley: This is a little deep for this stage although some good things came out of it. Let's move on. 4. ARP/ND and Broadcast/Multicast Issues ---------------------------------------- Joe Touch and Yu-Shun Wang (presented by Yu-Shun Wang as Joe Touch had a conflict) Various questions of exact size of network, what a campus means, what a bridge is, what the goals are, ... DAD ... DNA ... Real networks all have VLANs. Q: How can you detect a device if it's moving and not connected and someone takes its MAC address? Wang: Not worried about MAC addresses, I was talking about IPv4/6 addresses. Q: Are you trying to solve duplicate MAC address problem? Wang: No. 5. Requirements on routing protocols, Alex Zinin, zinin@psg.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex presented considerable material on scalability functions for different types of overhead. Paul Congdon: Do you consider dynamic VLAN formation in the core? Zinin: No, only static VLAN in my analysis so far. ... Margaret Wasserman: Do you have a comparison with RSTP? Zinin: Not in this presentation. ... Reachability is less volatile than activity. ... Advantages of reachability. "CNLS(?)" announces all hosts and works. The built in protocol limits on update rates are not enough to assure stability. Recommend using a single routing instance over all VLANs but restricted flooding of information only to nodes that need that information. Q: Are you assuming station number scales with VLANs? A: No, but there are typically more stations in systems with many VLANs. 6. TRILL issue: VLANs, Radia Perlman ------------------------------------ ... Margaret Wasserman: Would Rbridge flooding zones be IP subnets? Radia Perlman: No. [Later Radia posted an email saying that different Rbridge VLANs would be separate IP subnets.] Wasserman: What would happen with mobility? Perlman: You can keep same IP if you move. Comment: All this should be compared with what's in 802.1, 802.1ah, MAC in MAC encapsulation, etc. Q: GVRPN MAC tunneling... Is there parallel work in L2VPN? Daly: Reminds me of similar aspects of RFC 2357(?) Like MPLS. Q: What is the scope? Looks like BGPv3, ..., in same enterprise. Nordmark: This is not being proposed for the Internet backbone. Q: Is there a conflict with L2VPN? Both seem to be used for aggregation. 7. Connecting different L2 types, Radia Perlman ----------------------------------------------- Forwarding between different link types works for IP but probably too hard in general for incompatible link types. This presentation of mine is to try to convince people NOT to include Rbridging different types of links in the scope of the proposed WG. Comments: All comments made opposed doing this between different types of links. 8. Discussion ------------- Nordmark: The intended network scope where this would be applied is not "provider" but "local". Comment: "Provider" is not the same as "wide area". Comment: We should figure out what has been done elsewhere. Nordmark: I've been looking for that. No one else is doing shortest path. Comment: Big overlap with L2VPN. VPLS area in L2VPN. Shortest path for unicast. GMPLS. Issues with packet re-ordering and MAC address. The alternative of encapsulating in IP header means you can then just use IP on intermediate nodes so only edge devices need to learn MAC addresses. Nordmark: But IP does not autoconfigure. Paul Congdon: There seems to be more awareness of what 802.1 is doing. Original list of goals included shortest path. That is not addressed by IEEE 802.1 but I think the other goals are addressed by 802.1. Nordmark: Link state with limited flooding would solve scalability. That technique might also fit into L2VPN. Bob Hinden: Haven't heard clear case as to why this is better than alternatives. Nordmark: shortest path, nothing else provides it. Hinden: You can do a lot of things with routers, can you do something better with them? Nordmark: We've tried that with the ZROUTER BoF. I was there. But you still have to change address when you move. Hinden to Radia: Why didn't you invent this when you invented STP (the spanning tree protocol)? Radia Perlman: I wasn't provided with the whole problem, just told to develop a spanning protocol. Zinin: Big difference between this and L2VPN is that L2VPN uses IP while this defines forwarding and routing in L2. X does solve the problem with state in core devices but that's not the problem. Critical problem is edge bridge problem. Would rather try to solve problem with IP. Nordmark: We tried that and gave up. Margaret Wasserman: How many in the room are on the rbridge mailing list and read it? (Many hand go up.) Wasserman: How many have support from their management to work on this? Quite a few indicate they do.) Wasserman: Three choice poll: (1) ready to work on this, (2) interesting think but we need to look further, (3) no work should be done on this in the IETF. (1) ~10. (2) Many (3) ~12. Wasserman: The rough consensus is to look into this further.
- [rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject) Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject) Erik Nordmark
- [rbridge] Get IEEE 802, RE: (no subject) Ghanwani, Anoop