Re: [trill] RBridge Channel versus ESADI for MAC address flush

Haoweiguo <> Mon, 15 February 2016 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE8D1A88C8 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:24:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.207
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.207 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ChMUggzdCMZB for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FBCE1A88C1 for <>; Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CIN91728; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 01:24:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 01:21:43 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:21:39 +0800
From: Haoweiguo <>
To: Donald Eastlake <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [trill] RBridge Channel versus ESADI for MAC address flush
Thread-Index: AQHRZQbv4ilh7oQ4G0K6LRAd8hiDYZ8sUsM5
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 01:21:38 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.56C128D4.0097, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: ac99e4cfba6cda8f3b20a746e6491d29
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [trill] RBridge Channel versus ESADI for MAC address flush
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 01:24:43 -0000

I think RBridge channnel based solution is better. RBridge channel based solution is a stateless solution, ESADI is a stateful solution which relies on periodic state synchronization on edge RBridges.
RBridge channel is more lightweight and can acts as a MAC flush building block for data plane and control plane MAC learning solution. If we use ESADI for MAC flush, when MAC learning is through data plane, the MAC flush solution is too heavy.
My two cents.
From: Donald Eastlake []
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 0:59
Subject: [trill] RBridge Channel versus ESADI for MAC address flush

At the last TRILL WG meeting in Yokohama, towards the end of the
second session, there was a discussion of the best mechanism to
implement a remote RBridge MAC address flush mechanism.
draft-hao-trill-address-flush proposes to use RBridge Channel messages
[RFC7178] but some people suggest the use of ESADI messages [RFC7357].
There was no resolution of this at the meeting so the Chair indicated
that it should be taken to the mailing list. This message is to start
the discussion. I'll post separately with my personal opinion.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA