[rbridge] Updating Expired Draft
margaret at thingmagic.com (Margaret Wasserman) Sat, 12 February 2005 04:45 UTC
From: "margaret at thingmagic.com"
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:45:03 +0000
Subject: [rbridge] Updating Expired Draft
In-Reply-To: <420AF5C8.2070603@sun.com>
References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> <420AF5C8.2070603@sun.com>
Message-ID: <p0620072fbe33a904be61@[192.168.2.2]>
X-Date: Sat Feb 12 04:45:03 2005
Radia, are you planning to update the rbridge proposal before the draft cut-off (21-Feb at 9am EST)? The current I-D has expired. Erik, will there be other I-Ds on the agenda? Margaret From touch at ISI.EDU Sat Feb 12 09:29:35 2005 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Sat Feb 12 09:31:12 2005 Subject: [rbridge] Updating Expired Draft In-Reply-To: <p0620072fbe33a904be61@[192.168.2.2]> References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> <420AF5C8.2070603@sun.com> <p0620072fbe33a904be61@[192.168.2.2]> Message-ID: <420E3CFF.9030108@isi.edu> I am ;-) If anyone has other mods, please send them to me. Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Radia, are you planning to update the rbridge proposal before the draft > cut-off (21-Feb at 9am EST)? The current I-D has expired. > > Erik, will there be other I-Ds on the agenda? > > Margaret > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 254 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20050212/2e42bb17/signature.bin Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j1CHTdQ14726; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:29:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420E3CFF.9030108@isi.edu> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:29:35 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updating Expired Draft References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> <420AF5C8.2070603@sun.com> <p0620072fbe33a904be61@[192.168.2.2]> In-Reply-To: <p0620072fbe33a904be61@[192.168.2.2]> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig2855B2E2AAB80C86E2E4519C" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 12 Feb 2005 17:31:11 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1141 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig2855B2E2AAB80C86E2E4519C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am ;-) If anyone has other mods, please send them to me. Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Radia, are you planning to update the rbridge proposal before the draft > cut-off (21-Feb at 9am EST)? The current I-D has expired. > > Erik, will there be other I-Ds on the agenda? > > Margaret > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enig2855B2E2AAB80C86E2E4519C 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 iD8DBQFCDjz/E5f5cImnZrsRAptKAJ4gu+p9SAcIz+ee8WXQmaXhqhW8SQCfdyPZ /otMM2+5waM1wWnGknUyTxA= =j0sb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig2855B2E2AAB80C86E2E4519C-- Received: from thingmagic.com ([204.9.221.21]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j1CChsQ23726 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 285577; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:42:19 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p0620072fbe33a904be61@[192.168.2.2]> In-Reply-To: <420AF5C8.2070603@sun.com> References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> <420AF5C8.2070603@sun.com> Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:40:23 -0500 To: rbridge@postel.org From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: margaret@thingmagic.com Cc: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: [rbridge] Updating Expired Draft X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 12 Feb 2005 12:45:02 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 190 Radia, are you planning to update the rbridge proposal before the draft cut-off (21-Feb at 9am EST)? The current I-D has expired. Erik, will there be other I-Ds on the agenda? Margaret 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 j1A5mwQ05234 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1A5mvnK024541 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:48:57 -0700 (MST) 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 <0IBO00501KHOM8@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:48:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.58] (vpn-129-147-152-33.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.152.33]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IBO002AFLHK9J@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:48:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:48:56 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Multicast options In-reply-to: <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <420AF5C8.2070603@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:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 10 Feb 2005 05:50:55 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1143 Aidan Williams wrote: > > If it is worth doing optimal forwarding for unicast why > is it not worth it for multicast? If there's no way to do pruning (as is the case with multicasts that aren't derived from IP multicast, and therefore not advertised by the endnodes in IGMP), then there's no particular "optimization" of delivery with one spanning tree vs another. I think the real "cost" of delivery should be the number of packet hops, and to deliver to all the links will be the same number of packet hops no matter which node is chosen to be the root of the tree. With unicast bridge-like spanning tree forwarding, then optimality of the paths can be quite different depending on which spanning tree is chosen. For IGMP-pruned multicast it's a different story. The Dijstra calculation is "greedy", and will calculate shortest paths to each link from the source, so if there are only listeners on a couple of links, then delivery will be optimized. Another reason one might argue for per-source spanning trees is to spread the traffic around. With one spanning tree, all multicast traffic will go on the same tree. Radia 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 j19LpSQ16362 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:51:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.87.130]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j19LpSPD012997 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:51:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j19Lp0fM864624; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:51:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420A85C3.2020909@sun.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:50:59 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols References: <4203D3BA.2050306@sun.com> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502080934250.27177@netcore.fi> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502080934250.27177@netcore.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:52:53 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1028 Pekka Savola wrote: > > I'd also like to consider using OSPF as a basis for the simple reason > that it has been widely implemented by the same vendors we'd like to > ship Rbridges. Those low-end router manufacturers don't implement > IS-IS, so this would incur a steeper curve for implementation. > > However, as for IPv6 one would have to use OSPFv3 as a basis (and then > one could use draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-01.txt), not OSPFv2, this does not > seem to be all that relevant consideration anymore because those low-end > vendors don't implement OSPFv3 in any case. > > That said, the arguments below seem to indicate that using OSPF has some > serious issues (mainly relating to IP address assignment) and IS-IS may > be a better fit, with an automated NSAP address "generation". > > To avoid rehashing this discussion over and over again, these > considerations should be nailed down in the charter or an internet-draft. Excellent suggestion. Any volunteers for starting to capture this as an I-D? Erik Received: from miews.nicta.com.au ([129.94.138.156]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j19503Q03337 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 21:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by miews.nicta.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 835AC12A595 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Feb 2005 15:59:56 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <420998CC.1090804@nicta.com.au> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:59:56 +1100 From: Aidan Williams <aidan@nicta.com.au> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Multicast options References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <42094E50.2090403@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: aidan@nicta.com.au X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 05:00:54 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2283 Radia Perlman wrote: > Some choices for RBridges are: a) send all multicasts on the single > computed spanning tree, and endnodes can filter by telling their > local NIC card b) like a), but have some link-local method of the > endnodes informing the RBridge what layer 2 multicast destinations > they want to receive, so the RBridge won't send on the last hop if > there are no listeners c) still send all multicasts on the single > computed spanning tree, but have RBridges stick locations of > receivers of G into their LSPs, and then prune that one spanning tree > if there are no downstream listeners for G d) compute per-source > spanning trees and filter them based on where the listeners are (like > MOSPF). > How about using a per-source spanning tree for distribution without passing listener location info around in the LSPs? IGMP snooping could then be used to prune the optimal tree for multicast IP traffic. This would be analogous to how current switches use IGMP messages to prune multicast distribution today. I agree that non-IP multicast probably boils down to option a). > Personally, I think d) (having RBridges compute separate per-source > spanning trees) is not worth the complexity, but it's not impossibly > complex/expensive. It doesn't require any extra messages on the wire > (since RBridges can compute any spanning tree they want from the link > state database). The difference between b) and c) is whether RBridges > pass around the location of receivers in their LSPs. So c), although > it allows more optimal data delivery, does involve more bandwidth for > the routing protocol (especially since LSP information will be more > volatile if location of receivers from groups is included). > If it is worth doing optimal forwarding for unicast why is it not worth it for multicast? Perhaps there is a hidden assumption that there won't be much multicast traffic. On the networks I'm using there can be a lot of multicast traffic and I would like it to take the best path from the sender to any receivers. I would like to see efficient multicast forwarding with some mechanism for pruning available. The pruning mechanism could be built into the rbridge protocol/design or could be achieved via a technique like IGMP snooping. - aidan Received: from palrel12.hp.com (palrel12.hp.com [156.153.255.237]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j190K3Q06352 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.92.1.67]) by palrel12.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7367D4005C7 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from cacexc06.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.92.1.28]) by cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:19:56 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [rbridge] Multicast options Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 16:19:56 -0800 Message-ID: <83AB0942FD087D499DF2DD5CEE1B6133013CC327@cacexc06.americas.cpqcorp.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Multicast options Thread-Index: AcUOORPnx6s2VnUyQ6K2RAy7txdtmAAAzZVw From: "Ghanwani, Anoop" <anoop.ghanwani@hp.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2005 00:19:56.0740 (UTC) FILETIME=[158EC840:01C50E3D] X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop.ghanwani@hp.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id j190K3Q06352 X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 00:20:49 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 550 > My suspicion is that for layer 2 multicasts other than > IP-derived ones, > we have no choice > but to do a), even though I think 802 is working on some IGMP-like > thing, since we > can't assume all endnodes will have implemented it. IEEE 802.1D has had for a while now a protocol called GMRP which limits the propagation of multicasts to segments of the spanning tree where there are registered participants. The protocol hasn't seen much deployment, since IGMP-snooping seems to work well for most applications that are out there. Anoop 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 j18Ng6Q26155 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:42:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j18Ng5PD007122 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:42:05 -0800 (PST) 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 <0IBM00H019QCNM@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:42:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.58] (vpn-129-150-16-79.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.16.79]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IBM00L099U4N9@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:42:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:42:08 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <42094E50.2090403@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:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Multicast options X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:42:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2792 It might help, for each of the items on the agenda, to start off with an email summarizing the problem, with alternatives, and some pros and cons. It's hard when all the discussion is jumbled up with a single subject line of "agenda items", so I'm starting a different thread, at least for this one, since I recently did a summary of the alternatives for a different discussion. The problem is: what should RBridges do with layer 2 multicast packets? The various alternatives are all tradeoffs between protocol complexity, protocol overhead, optimization of bandwidth for data packet delivery, compatibility with existing endnodes. Some choices for RBridges are: a) send all multicasts on the single computed spanning tree, and endnodes can filter by telling their local NIC card b) like a), but have some link-local method of the endnodes informing the RBridge what layer 2 multicast destinations they want to receive, so the RBridge won't send on the last hop if there are no listeners c) still send all multicasts on the single computed spanning tree, but have RBridges stick locations of receivers of G into their LSPs, and then prune that one spanning tree if there are no downstream listeners for G d) compute per-source spanning trees and filter them based on where the listeners are (like MOSPF). Doing anything other than a) assumes some sort of universally implemented IGMP-like thing at layer 2. Now we could do something fancy for IP-derived layer 2 multicasts, because we can assume that the IP multicast nodes will be doing IGMP (can we assume a particular version of IGMP or would RBridges need to understand all versions of IGMP), allowing more optimal delivery of multicasts derived from IP multicast addresses, and then send any other layer 2 multicasts everywhere (like bridges or a hard-wired Ethernet would do). My suspicion is that for layer 2 multicasts other than IP-derived ones, we have no choice but to do a), even though I think 802 is working on some IGMP-like thing, since we can't assume all endnodes will have implemented it. Personally, I think d) (having RBridges compute separate per-source spanning trees) is not worth the complexity, but it's not impossibly complex/expensive. It doesn't require any extra messages on the wire (since RBridges can compute any spanning tree they want from the link state database). The difference between b) and c) is whether RBridges pass around the location of receivers in their LSPs. So c), although it allows more optimal data delivery, does involve more bandwidth for the routing protocol (especially since LSP information will be more volatile if location of receivers from groups is included). If I have missed alternatives, or arguments, people should feel free to chime in. Radia Received: from netcore.fi (netcore.fi [193.94.160.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j187h4Q15977 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 23:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j187gu727650 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:42:57 +0200 Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:42:56 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols In-Reply-To: <4203D3BA.2050306@sun.com> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502080934250.27177@netcore.fi> References: <4203D3BA.2050306@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: pekkas@netcore.fi X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 07:46:09 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5737 On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote: > Below is an excerpt from emails between myself and Bob Hinden that tries > to capture some issues around the choice of routing protocol. > Hopefully this can stimulate further discussion on this topic. I'd also like to consider using OSPF as a basis for the simple reason that it has been widely implemented by the same vendors we'd like to ship Rbridges. Those low-end router manufacturers don't implement IS-IS, so this would incur a steeper curve for implementation. However, as for IPv6 one would have to use OSPFv3 as a basis (and then one could use draft-ietf-ospf-af-alt-01.txt), not OSPFv2, this does not seem to be all that relevant consideration anymore because those low-end vendors don't implement OSPFv3 in any case. That said, the arguments below seem to indicate that using OSPF has some serious issues (mainly relating to IP address assignment) and IS-IS may be a better fit, with an automated NSAP address "generation". To avoid rehashing this discussion over and over again, these considerations should be nailed down in the charter or an internet-draft. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Late agenda item?: ipvlx charter > Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:24:35 -0800 > From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> > To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> > > > Bob Hinden wrote: > >> I also wonder if we want to consider OSPF for this. The IETF owns all the >> IPR and can produce derivative standards, where the situation with ISIS is >> very different (e.g., OSI owns the basic protocol). It's going to be >> difficult for an L2 bridge implementor to figure out and understand which >> collection of IETF and OSI specs to use. Also, if I remember correctly, >> ISIS still requires manual configuration of 20 byte OSI NSAP addresses. >> This would be a pretty odd thing for a L2 bridge. > > AFAIK it is only the 6-byte MAC address that is the 'system ID' in > IS-IS. One would probably need to fill in some dummy value for the AFI > and area, but this can be done without any manual config since each box > is assumed to have a factory assigned unique MAC address. > > OSPF is a bit harder in fact, since (even with the IPv6 pieces in > OSPFv3) the OSPF router ID is a 4 byte number, and there isn't any > existing numbering space which could be used to create factory assigned > globally unique 32 bit numbers. > > While in principle OSPF is interesting and should be explored, there are > some additional items (in addition to the router ID assignment) which > makes using OSPF harder than IS-IS: > - the OSPF LSAs are specified to carry fixed length addresses (either > IPv4 or IPv6), so one would probably need to define a new (set of) > LSAs for TRILL Not a big deal really, but IS-IS was designed to > handle variable length NLRI from the start. > - OSPF is designed to run on top of IP whereas IS-IS runs directly on > IEEE 802.1. While rbridges (just like bridges) will probably be > assigned IP addresses for management purposes (SNMP), requiring an IP > address for the rbridge before it can start OSPF do build the > topology would be a severe limitation. One would want to allow > rbridges that don't have IP addresses (e.g. for home), or where the > IP addresses are assigned after the rbridges have established > connectivity across the link (assigned using stateless IPv6 or DHCP > for instance). > [Bob later told me: A possible choice when using OSPF is to use > OSPFv3 over IPv6 and IPv6 link-local addresses, since any device with > an IEEE MAC address can form an IPv6 link-local address.] > > So trust me, I did really like to use OSPF here, because of the IS-IS > specification issues but also because there are more open source OSPF > code out there for implementors to reuse. > > >> While on the general topic, RIPv2 might even be a reasonable choice for >> routing technology. It's a lot simpler to implement and would still work a >> lot better than spanning tree. > > TRILL does add one additional constraint on a routing protocol (beyond > carrying MAC addresses around) which is to be able to construct a > spanning tree between the rbridges. The spanning tree is needed for > flooding (ARP, ND, and any other broadcast/multicast). Doing this in a > link state protocol is relatively easy; each router can independently > calculate the spanning tree in a consistent manner. But it is far from > clear whether this can be be done in a distance vector protocol. > > Also, part of the goal for TRILL is to be better than the IEEE 802.1D > spanning tree, which has a worst-case convergence time of 45 seconds or > so. It isn't clear that RIP is a good fit for fast convergence. > >> My general question is: Is the decision on the routing technology to be >> used for this going to be something that the w.g. decides or is it just >> assumed it is ISIS? I would favor the former approach, but in either case >> I think it is important that the charter clarify this. > > The TRILL WG would need to make the choice. > If the actual routing protocol work is farmed out to the specific, > long-lived routing protocol WGs, the success would depend on those WGs > having interest in this space. > An option is that the TRILL WG define the > extension to the routing protocols, and just have that reviewed by the > routing protocol WG(s). > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings Received: from smtp807.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.186]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j17NsBQ03023 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:54:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp807.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2005 23:54:10 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:54:07 -0800 Message-ID: <000401c50d70$4ff2fd30$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 in-reply-to: <200502072144.j17LiDja013858@tobermory.localdomain> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:55:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1020 Thank you, Hilarie, Again, no disrespect toward anyone was intended - especially not toward Radia, Erik and Bob, the people whom I named on the ill-concieved message and the many people on the rbridge list who know much more about routing protocols than I do. Sincerely, Fred L. Templin fltemplin@acm.org fltemplin@ieee.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Hilarie Orman Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 1:44 PM To: rbridge@postel.org Subject: RE: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Fred L. Templin declared on Sun, 6 Feb 2005 at 14:48:00 -0800 : > I am sure > Erik would consult the appropriate routing experts as necessary I'd be sure, too, given Radia Perlman's involvement. Isn't her Infocomm paper the basis for the WG concept? I think rbridge has no lack of expertise. Hilarie Orman _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from mail.rfburst.com (mail.esmartstart.com [66.119.143.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j17LjJQ27582 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from tobermory.localdomain ([66.119.143.202]) by mail.rfburst.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j17LjE0J010756 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:45:14 -0700 Received: from tobermory.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tobermory.localdomain (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j17LiEe4013862 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:44:14 -0700 Received: (from ho@localhost) by tobermory.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j17LiDja013858; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:44:13 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 14:44:13 -0700 Message-Id: <200502072144.j17LiDja013858@tobermory.localdomain> From: "Hilarie Orman" <hilarie@purplestreak.com> To: rbridge@postel.org In-reply-to: Yourmessage <000201c50c9d$e97058a0$6401a8c0@grayling> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols X-esmartscan-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-esmartscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ho@alum.mit.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:46:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 316 Fred L. Templin declared on Sun, 6 Feb 2005 at 14:48:00 -0800 : > I am sure > Erik would consult the appropriate routing experts as necessary I'd be sure, too, given Radia Perlman's involvement. Isn't her Infocomm paper the basis for the WG concept? I think rbridge has no lack of expertise. Hilarie Orman Received: from smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.185]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j16MkqQ16842 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:46:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Feb 2005 22:46:52 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 14:48:00 -0800 Message-ID: <000201c50c9d$e97058a0$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <00df01c50b97$8f04a260$6401a8c0@grayling> Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 06 Feb 2005 22:49:32 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5758 I would like to apologize to Erik and to the list for my inappropriate message. I was just trying to be helpful, but in hindsight I am sure Erik would consult the appropriate routing experts as necessary and that my more helpful alternative would have been to remain silent. Sincerely, Fred L. Templin fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Fred L. Templin Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 7:30 AM To: 'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.' Subject: RE: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Erik, There are a lot of peopole who know a lot more about routing protocols than I do and I suspect even more than you and Bob. Folks like Fred Baker, Charles Perkins and perhaps Dave Oran just to name a few. Have they been following these discussions? Fred fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:58 AM To: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Below is an excerpt from emails between myself and Bob Hinden that tries to capture some issues around the choice of routing protocol. Hopefully this can stimulate further discussion on this topic. Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Late agenda item?: ipvlx charter Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:24:35 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> Bob Hinden wrote: > I also wonder if we want to consider OSPF for this. The IETF owns all > the IPR and can produce derivative standards, where the situation with > ISIS is very different (e.g., OSI owns the basic protocol). It's going > to be difficult for an L2 bridge implementor to figure out and > understand which collection of IETF and OSI specs to use. Also, if I > remember correctly, ISIS still requires manual configuration of 20 byte > OSI NSAP addresses. This would be a pretty odd thing for a L2 bridge. AFAIK it is only the 6-byte MAC address that is the 'system ID' in IS-IS. One would probably need to fill in some dummy value for the AFI and area, but this can be done without any manual config since each box is assumed to have a factory assigned unique MAC address. OSPF is a bit harder in fact, since (even with the IPv6 pieces in OSPFv3) the OSPF router ID is a 4 byte number, and there isn't any existing numbering space which could be used to create factory assigned globally unique 32 bit numbers. While in principle OSPF is interesting and should be explored, there are some additional items (in addition to the router ID assignment) which makes using OSPF harder than IS-IS: - the OSPF LSAs are specified to carry fixed length addresses (either IPv4 or IPv6), so one would probably need to define a new (set of) LSAs for TRILL Not a big deal really, but IS-IS was designed to handle variable length NLRI from the start. - OSPF is designed to run on top of IP whereas IS-IS runs directly on IEEE 802.1. While rbridges (just like bridges) will probably be assigned IP addresses for management purposes (SNMP), requiring an IP address for the rbridge before it can start OSPF do build the topology would be a severe limitation. One would want to allow rbridges that don't have IP addresses (e.g. for home), or where the IP addresses are assigned after the rbridges have established connectivity across the link (assigned using stateless IPv6 or DHCP for instance). [Bob later told me: A possible choice when using OSPF is to use OSPFv3 over IPv6 and IPv6 link-local addresses, since any device with an IEEE MAC address can form an IPv6 link-local address.] So trust me, I did really like to use OSPF here, because of the IS-IS specification issues but also because there are more open source OSPF code out there for implementors to reuse. > While on the general topic, RIPv2 might even be a reasonable choice > for > routing technology. It's a lot simpler to implement and would still > work a lot better than spanning tree. TRILL does add one additional constraint on a routing protocol (beyond carrying MAC addresses around) which is to be able to construct a spanning tree between the rbridges. The spanning tree is needed for flooding (ARP, ND, and any other broadcast/multicast). Doing this in a link state protocol is relatively easy; each router can independently calculate the spanning tree in a consistent manner. But it is far from clear whether this can be be done in a distance vector protocol. Also, part of the goal for TRILL is to be better than the IEEE 802.1D spanning tree, which has a worst-case convergence time of 45 seconds or so. It isn't clear that RIP is a good fit for fast convergence. > My general question is: Is the decision on the routing technology to > be > used for this going to be something that the w.g. decides or is it just > assumed it is ISIS? I would favor the former approach, but in either > case I think it is important that the charter clarify this. The TRILL WG would need to make the choice. If the actual routing protocol work is farmed out to the specific, long-lived routing protocol WGs, the success would depend on those WGs having interest in this space. An option is that the TRILL WG define the extension to the routing protocols, and just have that reviewed by the routing protocol WG(s). Erik _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.181]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j15FSrQ16308 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2005 15:28:53 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:30:01 -0800 Message-ID: <00df01c50b97$8f04a260$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <4203D3BA.2050306@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 05 Feb 2005 15:31:29 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5035 Erik, There are a lot of peopole who know a lot more about routing protocols than I do and I suspect even more than you and Bob. Folks like Fred Baker, Charles Perkins and perhaps Dave Oran just to name a few. Have they been following these discussions? Fred fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 11:58 AM To: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols Below is an excerpt from emails between myself and Bob Hinden that tries to capture some issues around the choice of routing protocol. Hopefully this can stimulate further discussion on this topic. Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Late agenda item?: ipvlx charter Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:24:35 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> Bob Hinden wrote: > I also wonder if we want to consider OSPF for this. The IETF owns all > the IPR and can produce derivative standards, where the situation with > ISIS is very different (e.g., OSI owns the basic protocol). It's going > to be difficult for an L2 bridge implementor to figure out and > understand which collection of IETF and OSI specs to use. Also, if I > remember correctly, ISIS still requires manual configuration of 20 byte > OSI NSAP addresses. This would be a pretty odd thing for a L2 bridge. AFAIK it is only the 6-byte MAC address that is the 'system ID' in IS-IS. One would probably need to fill in some dummy value for the AFI and area, but this can be done without any manual config since each box is assumed to have a factory assigned unique MAC address. OSPF is a bit harder in fact, since (even with the IPv6 pieces in OSPFv3) the OSPF router ID is a 4 byte number, and there isn't any existing numbering space which could be used to create factory assigned globally unique 32 bit numbers. While in principle OSPF is interesting and should be explored, there are some additional items (in addition to the router ID assignment) which makes using OSPF harder than IS-IS: - the OSPF LSAs are specified to carry fixed length addresses (either IPv4 or IPv6), so one would probably need to define a new (set of) LSAs for TRILL Not a big deal really, but IS-IS was designed to handle variable length NLRI from the start. - OSPF is designed to run on top of IP whereas IS-IS runs directly on IEEE 802.1. While rbridges (just like bridges) will probably be assigned IP addresses for management purposes (SNMP), requiring an IP address for the rbridge before it can start OSPF do build the topology would be a severe limitation. One would want to allow rbridges that don't have IP addresses (e.g. for home), or where the IP addresses are assigned after the rbridges have established connectivity across the link (assigned using stateless IPv6 or DHCP for instance). [Bob later told me: A possible choice when using OSPF is to use OSPFv3 over IPv6 and IPv6 link-local addresses, since any device with an IEEE MAC address can form an IPv6 link-local address.] So trust me, I did really like to use OSPF here, because of the IS-IS specification issues but also because there are more open source OSPF code out there for implementors to reuse. > While on the general topic, RIPv2 might even be a reasonable choice > for > routing technology. It's a lot simpler to implement and would still > work a lot better than spanning tree. TRILL does add one additional constraint on a routing protocol (beyond carrying MAC addresses around) which is to be able to construct a spanning tree between the rbridges. The spanning tree is needed for flooding (ARP, ND, and any other broadcast/multicast). Doing this in a link state protocol is relatively easy; each router can independently calculate the spanning tree in a consistent manner. But it is far from clear whether this can be be done in a distance vector protocol. Also, part of the goal for TRILL is to be better than the IEEE 802.1D spanning tree, which has a worst-case convergence time of 45 seconds or so. It isn't clear that RIP is a good fit for fast convergence. > My general question is: Is the decision on the routing technology to > be > used for this going to be something that the w.g. decides or is it just > assumed it is ISIS? I would favor the former approach, but in either > case I think it is important that the charter clarify this. The TRILL WG would need to make the choice. If the actual routing protocol work is farmed out to the specific, long-lived routing protocol WGs, the success would depend on those WGs having interest in this space. An option is that the TRILL WG define the extension to the routing protocols, and just have that reviewed by the routing protocol WG(s). Erik _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge 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 j15AL3Q17595 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:21:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC3845DFA for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:20:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from [163.117.252.29] (unknown [163.117.252.29]) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6E545DF5 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:20:56 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2c5c0d1424895d2f204e5f1a73a81fe0@it.uc3m.es> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Agenda items? Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 11:20:52 +0100 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: marcelo@it.uc3m.es X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 05 Feb 2005 10:22:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 195 > > 2. Threats and security considerations > What should the goal be? What can we do better? I can volunteer to try to make an initial threat analysis if you want me to. Regards, marcelo Received: from smtp801.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp801.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.180]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j157dpQ11653 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:39:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp801.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Feb 2005 07:39:51 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:40:58 -0800 Message-ID: <00d801c50b56$08f9f8a0$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <420410AD.9030306@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 05 Feb 2005 07:40:42 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1424 Erik, Understood, but what I meant to ask is whether Firewire devices will always sit behind a router *interface* for simplicity and security? The device with the router interface might have many other interfaces that act as Rbridge or even simple bridge interfaces, so the device itself would still be a hybrid. The zeroconf considerations would really be no different than what we have been discussing for generic RBridges, then - i.e., the goal is for no manual config needed. Fred fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 4:18 PM To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Fred L. Templin wrote: > If we can say that Firewire devices will only occur along the network > edges (rather than somewhere in the middle) and will always sit behind > a router (rather than a bridge) doesn't that make things more simple > and secure? Am I being unrealistic here? The issue that folks bring up is that random consumers can be expected to know how to configure the IP subnets into a router. Hence the desire for something that has the property of a bridge of not needing configuration. Erik _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge 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 j150HvQ08344 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:17:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.88.130]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j150Hrdt012168 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:17:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j150HnVV710097; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 16:17:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420410AD.9030306@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:17:49 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? References: <00d701c50b15$1cd3aba0$6401a8c0@grayling> In-Reply-To: <00d701c50b15$1cd3aba0$6401a8c0@grayling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 05 Feb 2005 00:18:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 518 Fred L. Templin wrote: > If we can say that Firewire devices will only occur along the > network edges (rather than somewhere in the middle) and will > always sit behind a router (rather than a bridge) doesn't that > make things more simple and secure? Am I being unrealistic here? The issue that folks bring up is that random consumers can be expected to know how to configure the IP subnets into a router. Hence the desire for something that has the property of a bridge of not needing configuration. Erik Received: from smtp814.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp814.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.84]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j14Nt8Q02250 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp814.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2005 23:55:07 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:56:09 -0800 Message-ID: <00d701c50b15$1cd3aba0$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <4203EE16.4040504@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 23:56:41 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 411 Erik, > In the past there has been home networking discussions worrying about > e.g. Ethernet and Firewire both being used for IP. If we can say that Firewire devices will only occur along the network edges (rather than somewhere in the middle) and will always sit behind a router (rather than a bridge) doesn't that make things more simple and secure? Am I being unrealistic here? Fred ftemplin@acm.org Received: from [128.9.160.144] (nib.isi.edu [128.9.160.144]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14NRSQ25585; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:27:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420404E0.1030608@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:27:28 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? References: <4203D512.505@sun.com> <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> <4203F177.5010509@isi.edu> <4204000F.8070406@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4204000F.8070406@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4F0B8ED0DBB7DB32161DA13B" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 23:29:24 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1351 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4F0B8ED0DBB7DB32161DA13B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Nordmark wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: > >> Also, if possible, to avoid BTNS (which may or may not be scheduled ;-), > > > Is this a prospective BoF? I don't find a WG by that name. The first BTNS happened last IETF; we requested a slot for this one to do charter bashing (not yet widely announced, since we didn't get the ACK for the slot yet). > > > ipv6* > > I had ipv6, v6ops, multi6, shim6. > Any other specific WG? Those were the ones I was thinking of. > I didn't want to add the mobility WGs that do v6 work since we'd either > have to meet at 4pm or on the weekend with such a long list of conflicts > :-) Agreed. --------------enig4F0B8ED0DBB7DB32161DA13B 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 iD8DBQFCBATgE5f5cImnZrsRAn8WAKCaU0L+55bw4vNqR9GRygZgnK1CvACfUsGA isDTUWJ1dB1DKvQpKDJra6k= =yy+D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4F0B8ED0DBB7DB32161DA13B-- Received: from mailout3 (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14NAYQ21637 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:10:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout3.samsung.com by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) id <0IBE00501TPFXO@mailout3.samsung.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:10:27 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp1 (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IBE007WITPFEX@mailout3.samsung.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:10:27 +0900 (KST) Received: from Alperyegin ([105.144.29.41]) by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IBE0056PTPD8G@mmp1.samsung.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:10:27 +0900 (KST) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:10:25 -0800 From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? In-reply-to: <4203EE16.4040504@sun.com> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <07a101c50b0e$b6b57480$291d9069@sisa.samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: alper.yegin@samsung.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 23:10:43 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 575 > In the past there has been home networking discussions worrying about > e.g. Ethernet and Firewire both being used for IP. I don't have more detailed data points, but this is what I heard earlier too (I'll see if I can get more concrete data). Besides, how can we ensure that LANs will stick to a uniform 48-bit address space for the foreseeable future? I read that IEEE is already discouraging use of 48-bit identifiers in favor of EUI-64. I think it is worth investigating the feasibility and cost of inheriting that aspect of "routers" for this "hybrid". Alper Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14N6vQ20518 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.85.105]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14N6upv002345 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:06:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j14N6tP5670107; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:06:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4204000F.8070406@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:06:55 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? References: <4203D512.505@sun.com> <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> <4203F177.5010509@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4203F177.5010509@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 23:08:49 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 384 Joe Touch wrote: > Also, if possible, to avoid BTNS (which may or may not be scheduled ;-), Is this a prospective BoF? I don't find a WG by that name. > ipv6* I had ipv6, v6ops, multi6, shim6. Any other specific WG? I didn't want to add the mobility WGs that do v6 work since we'd either have to meet at 4pm or on the weekend with such a long list of conflicts :-) 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 j14N4OQ19914 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.85.105]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14N4LiI027171 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j14N4KKj669355; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:04:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4203FF74.6040102@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:04:20 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Agenda items? References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> <4203EBA2.505@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4203EBA2.505@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 23:04:39 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 363 Joe Touch wrote: > | 5. Choices for ARP/ND > | > | We had some discussion on the list about this and how it relates to > | intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. > | > | Any volunteers? > | > | 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast > | > | Any volunteers? > > I'll take #5; I can help with #6 (related, IMO) if needed). Thanks, Erik Received: from smtp819.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp819.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.5]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j14MAvQ05169 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp819.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2005 22:10:55 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:11:58 -0800 Message-ID: <00ce01c50b06$8e1a1330$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 22:13:16 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 9117 Radia, I would be happy to volunteer to talk about mixing L2 link types, but my attendance at IETF-62 is looking doubtful at the moment since I am currently under a budget crunch and I have been summoned for jury duty on March 1st. (The first issue has an obvious solution, but the second is a wait-and-see scenario as to whether I would be picked for a jury). So, I guess I am volunteering(*) with an asterisk, i.e., provided I am somehow able to attend. Fred L. Templin American Kestrel Consulting sparrowhawk@falcosparverius.com osprey67@falcosparverius.com fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:03 PM To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Is it possible to request that this not be Friday? A lot of people make plane reservations early assuming that they don't want to stay on Friday. As for the agenda...looks great. I'm happy to lead any of the discussions below if you don't have other volunteers. Though for the one you have me down for (mixing L2 link types) I can talk about some ways of doing it, but I'm still not really clear on why people want this, and what types of links they'd like to mix. Is there someone who would like to talk about the problem statement? Radia Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Are there other conflicts which we must avoid? > > Erik > > > This might be approved as a WG before the meeting, but we will > schedule it as a BoF for the time being. > > a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: > TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) > b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears: > INT > c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: > multi6, shim6, ipv6, v6ops, is-is, ospf > > d. Expected Attendance (figures from the previous IETF are sent when > WG/BOF scheduling opens) > 100 (based on IPVLX BoF) > > e. Special requests (i.e. multicast): > f. Number of slots: > 1 > > g. Length of slot: > 2 1/2 hours > > Bof Description: See proposed charter below. > This is a follow-on to the IPVLX BoF in Aug 2004 > > Bof Chair: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> > > Mailing list: rbridge@postel.org > Subscribe: http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Web page: http://www.postel.org/rbridge/ > With additional information as well as mailing list archives > > > Agenda: > ------- > > - Welcome and Administrivia 5 minutes Chair > > - Charter review 10 minutes Chair > > - Problem statement discussion 30 minutes 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? > > > - Threats and security considerations 10 minutes ??? > What should the goal be? What can we do better? > > - Requirements on routing protocols 20 minutes ??? > For zero configuration > Carrying MAC addresses > Broadcast > IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else > > - Connecting different L2 types 30 minutes Radia Perlman? > > - Choices for ARP/ND 10 minutes ??? > Constraints from security discussion (intentionally duplicate L2 > addresses), mobility, SeND support, etc. > > > - Choices for broadcast/multicast 10 minutes ??? > Worth doing any optimizations? Spanning tree between rbridges? > > > > Proposed charter: > ----------------- > > TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) > > > While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit > configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology, > they are more limited than IP routers since bridges only support IEEE > 802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 interconnection method > (dynamically created spanning tree formation using bridges) is not as > flexible and robust as layer 3 routing. > > The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of > configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies. > > The design should have the following properties: > - zero configuration of the hybrid devices > - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address > - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest > paths, > and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased > aggregate bandwidth > - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets > (potentially > avoid flooding all the time) > - support Secure Neighbor Discovery > - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the > presence > of temporary routing loops > - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network > - no delay when a new node is attached to the network > - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to > look at optimizations for IP multicast) > - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the > protocol > can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect) > > A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is > extended > to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is friendly to > zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state routing protocols > since they can easily be extended to provide for broadcast, which is > believed > to be difficult for distance vector protocols. > This working group will define the requirements on such routing > protocol(s), > and select the routing protocol(s) to be used. The intent is that the > actual > extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with > expertise > in the routing protocol(s). > > The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect > different > layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP > protocols, > even though one can not combine those two features together; the > interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 > address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of > protocols. > Whether the same or different address formats are used, there might be > a need > to handle different MTUs. > > The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges > and routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP > routers and bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6 > > The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide > - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always > flooded everywhere) > - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might > just > fall out from supporting L2 multicast) > - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 > technologies > > > The work consists of several, separable pieces: > - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one or > more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the > extensions to > a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the > specific routing protocol WG. > - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation > header for > data packets, and how to map that information to various link types > (e.g., > IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS) > - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is > performed, > taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor > Discovery. > - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2 > technologies, that have different address format/length, are > interconnected. > > Deliverables > - A short draft on the problem statement and goals > - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing > protocols to support the trill concept, and other requirements on > the routing protocols. > - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general > and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs > - ARP and ND draft > - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies > - Threat analysis document > > Goals and Milestones > > Jun 05 Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for > Informational Sep 05 Routing protocol support requirements to IESG > for Informational Dec 05 Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed > Standard Sep 05 ARP & ND to IESG for Proposed Standard Mar 06 > Interconnecting Layer 2 Technologies document to IESG for > Proposed Standard > Dec 05 Threat analysis to IESG for Informational > > --- > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from [128.9.168.55] (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14M2YQ02418; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:02:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4203F177.5010509@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 14:04:39 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? References: <4203D512.505@sun.com> <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 22:03:25 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 741 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Radia Perlman wrote: | Is it possible to request that this not be Friday? A lot of people make | plane reservations | early assuming that they don't want to stay on Friday. I'd second that. Also, if possible, to avoid BTNS (which may or may not be scheduled ;-), as well as some related groups: l2vpn rtgarea ipv6* It's hard to avoid the following but would be useful due to some significant (IMO) overlap: tsvwg tcpm saag Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCA/F3E5f5cImnZrsRAtqYAKDxWO3Ib8MOT9ng4WoHhIOf2YT2NQCfSBfd qDSH9WDDL3JJha5F5sqe5a4= =s8t2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14LoGQ29005 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:50:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.88.130]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14LoFpv002975 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:50:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j14LoE9G647748; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:50:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4203EE16.4040504@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:50:14 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? References: <4203D512.505@sun.com> <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 21:50:42 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2148 Radia Perlman wrote: > Is it possible to request that this not be Friday? A lot of people make > plane reservations > early assuming that they don't want to stay on Friday. I'll try. > As for the agenda...looks great. I'm happy to lead any of the > discussions below > if you don't have other volunteers. Though for the one you have me down > for (mixing > L2 link types) I can talk about some ways of doing it, but I'm still not > really clear > on why people want this, and what types of links they'd like to mix. Is > there > someone who would like to talk about the problem statement? I know a problem statement has been discussed in the IPv6 WG as part of the ndproxy draft, which has two examples related to home networking: 1. The ISP assigns a /64 prefix to the PPP link to the home, but the subscriber wants to use the /64 for the home link as well. Thus you have PPP on one side of a device, and an IEEE 802 network on the other side, and want to share the same /64 subnet prefix. 2. The home subnet is assigned a /64 subnet prefix, but the user also has a WIFI AP, and want to hang another wired link of a WIFI client. Today such an IPv4 802.11 client might be a NAT box, so the question that's been asked in the IPv6 WG is whether something is needed to make this less likely for IPv6. (See figures in the ndproxy draft.) In this case, the 802.11 client could just be a vanilla 802.11D bridge, but the argument is that it is hard to build such a thing using a regular 802.11 client NIC (not possible to be promiscious, which is required to be a bridge is the main argument I think) In any case, a TRILL based solution wouldn't need to connect different L2s address formats in this case, since they are both IEEE 802 ones. In the past there has been home networking discussions worrying about e.g. Ethernet and Firewire both being used for IP. Perhaps there is someone working on home networking that can help us shine some light on this. If the only argument for different L2 address formats is the PPP one (#1 above), it probably doesn't fit in TRILL. Erik Received: from [128.9.168.55] (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14LbeQ25676; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:37:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4203EBA2.505@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:39:46 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Agenda items? References: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 21:38:52 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 636 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Erik Nordmark wrote: ... | 5. Choices for ARP/ND | | We had some discussion on the list about this and how it relates to | intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. | | Any volunteers? | | 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast | | Any volunteers? I'll take #5; I can help with #6 (related, IMO) if needed). Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCA+uiE5f5cImnZrsRAqOFAJ0ZtYvoXST964E7F8HJU3yDf5LZcwCgwW8/ zB2GsohZKRnUncjFZwr1HTk= =xdt2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from smtp817.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp817.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.3]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j14L6lQ17503 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:06:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp817.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2005 21:06:46 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:07:53 -0800 Message-ID: <00ca01c50afd$97f9a090$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <4203D512.505@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 21:09:23 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 7649 > Are there other conflicts which we must avoid? Only that the name 'TRILL' is already taken - by a *birdseed* company! (See: http://www.trill.com.) Fred L. Templin American Kestrel Consulting sparrowhawk@falcosparverius.com osprey67@falcosparverius.com fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:04 PM To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? Are there other conflicts which we must avoid? Erik This might be approved as a WG before the meeting, but we will schedule it as a BoF for the time being. a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears: INT c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: multi6, shim6, ipv6, v6ops, is-is, ospf d. Expected Attendance (figures from the previous IETF are sent when WG/BOF scheduling opens) 100 (based on IPVLX BoF) e. Special requests (i.e. multicast): f. Number of slots: 1 g. Length of slot: 2 1/2 hours Bof Description: See proposed charter below. This is a follow-on to the IPVLX BoF in Aug 2004 Bof Chair: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> Mailing list: rbridge@postel.org Subscribe: http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Web page: http://www.postel.org/rbridge/ With additional information as well as mailing list archives Agenda: ------- - Welcome and Administrivia 5 minutes Chair - Charter review 10 minutes Chair - Problem statement discussion 30 minutes 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? - Threats and security considerations 10 minutes ??? What should the goal be? What can we do better? - Requirements on routing protocols 20 minutes ??? For zero configuration Carrying MAC addresses Broadcast IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else - Connecting different L2 types 30 minutes Radia Perlman? - Choices for ARP/ND 10 minutes ??? Constraints from security discussion (intentionally duplicate L2 addresses), mobility, SeND support, etc. - Choices for broadcast/multicast 10 minutes ??? Worth doing any optimizations? Spanning tree between rbridges? Proposed charter: ----------------- TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology, they are more limited than IP routers since bridges only support IEEE 802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 interconnection method (dynamically created spanning tree formation using bridges) is not as flexible and robust as layer 3 routing. The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies. The design should have the following properties: - zero configuration of the hybrid devices - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest paths, and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased aggregate bandwidth - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets (potentially avoid flooding all the time) - support Secure Neighbor Discovery - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the presence of temporary routing loops - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network - no delay when a new node is attached to the network - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to look at optimizations for IP multicast) - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the protocol can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect) A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is extended to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is friendly to zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state routing protocols since they can easily be extended to provide for broadcast, which is believed to be difficult for distance vector protocols. This working group will define the requirements on such routing protocol(s), and select the routing protocol(s) to be used. The intent is that the actual extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with expertise in the routing protocol(s). The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect different layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP protocols, even though one can not combine those two features together; the interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of protocols. Whether the same or different address formats are used, there might be a need to handle different MTUs. The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges and routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers and bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6 The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always flooded everywhere) - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might just fall out from supporting L2 multicast) - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 technologies The work consists of several, separable pieces: - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one or more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the extensions to a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the specific routing protocol WG. - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation header for data packets, and how to map that information to various link types (e.g., IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS) - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is performed, taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor Discovery. - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2 technologies, that have different address format/length, are interconnected. Deliverables - A short draft on the problem statement and goals - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing protocols to support the trill concept, and other requirements on the routing protocols. - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs - ARP and ND draft - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies - Threat analysis document Goals and Milestones Jun 05 Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for Informational Sep 05 Routing protocol support requirements to IESG for Informational Dec 05 Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed Standard Sep 05 ARP & ND to IESG for Proposed Standard Mar 06 Interconnecting Layer 2 Technologies document to IESG for Proposed Standard Dec 05 Threat analysis to IESG for Informational --- _______________________________________________ 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 j14L38Q16697 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14L37Vu023864 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:03:07 -0700 (MST) 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 <0IBE00M01NNTPE@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:03:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.58] (vpn-129-150-16-79.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.16.79]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IBE008SXNT6AO@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:03:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:03:09 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? In-reply-to: <4203D512.505@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4203E30D.7050500@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 References: <4203D512.505@sun.com> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 21:05:11 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 8135 Is it possible to request that this not be Friday? A lot of people make plane reservations early assuming that they don't want to stay on Friday. As for the agenda...looks great. I'm happy to lead any of the discussions below if you don't have other volunteers. Though for the one you have me down for (mixing L2 link types) I can talk about some ways of doing it, but I'm still not really clear on why people want this, and what types of links they'd like to mix. Is there someone who would like to talk about the problem statement? Radia Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Are there other conflicts which we must avoid? > > Erik > > > This might be approved as a WG before the meeting, but we will schedule > it as a BoF for the time being. > > a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: > TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) > b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears: > INT > c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: > multi6, shim6, ipv6, v6ops, is-is, ospf > > d. Expected Attendance (figures from the previous IETF are sent when > WG/BOF scheduling opens) > 100 (based on IPVLX BoF) > > e. Special requests (i.e. multicast): > f. Number of slots: > 1 > > g. Length of slot: > 2 1/2 hours > > Bof Description: See proposed charter below. > This is a follow-on to the IPVLX BoF in Aug 2004 > > Bof Chair: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> > > Mailing list: rbridge@postel.org > Subscribe: http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Web page: http://www.postel.org/rbridge/ > With additional information as well as mailing list archives > > > Agenda: > ------- > > - Welcome and Administrivia 5 minutes Chair > > - Charter review 10 minutes Chair > > - Problem statement discussion 30 minutes 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? > > > - Threats and security considerations 10 minutes ??? > What should the goal be? What can we do better? > > - Requirements on routing protocols 20 minutes ??? > For zero configuration > Carrying MAC addresses > Broadcast > IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else > > - Connecting different L2 types 30 minutes Radia Perlman? > > - Choices for ARP/ND 10 minutes ??? > Constraints from security discussion (intentionally duplicate L2 > addresses), mobility, SeND support, etc. > > > - Choices for broadcast/multicast 10 minutes ??? > Worth doing any optimizations? Spanning tree between rbridges? > > > > Proposed charter: > ----------------- > > TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) > > > While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit > configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology, > they are more limited than IP routers since bridges > only support IEEE 802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 > interconnection method (dynamically created spanning tree > formation using bridges) is not as flexible and robust as layer 3 > routing. > > The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of > configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies. > > The design should have the following properties: > - zero configuration of the hybrid devices > - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address > - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest > paths, > and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased > aggregate bandwidth > - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets > (potentially > avoid flooding all the time) > - support Secure Neighbor Discovery > - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the > presence > of temporary routing loops > - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network > - no delay when a new node is attached to the network > - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to > look at optimizations for IP multicast) > - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the > protocol > can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect) > > A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is > extended > to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is friendly to > zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state routing protocols > since they can easily be extended to provide for broadcast, which is > believed > to be difficult for distance vector protocols. > This working group will define the requirements on such routing > protocol(s), > and select the routing protocol(s) to be used. The intent is that the > actual > extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with > expertise > in the routing protocol(s). > > The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect > different > layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP > protocols, > even though one can not combine those two features together; the > interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 > address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of > protocols. > Whether the same or different address formats are used, there might be > a need > to handle different MTUs. > > The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges > and routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers > and bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6 > > The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide > - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always > flooded everywhere) > - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might > just > fall out from supporting L2 multicast) > - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 > technologies > > > The work consists of several, separable pieces: > - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one or > more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the > extensions to > a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the > specific routing protocol WG. > - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation > header for > data packets, and how to map that information to various link types > (e.g., > IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS) > - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is > performed, > taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor > Discovery. > - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2 > technologies, that have different address format/length, are > interconnected. > > Deliverables > - A short draft on the problem statement and goals > - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing > protocols to support the trill concept, and other requirements on > the routing protocols. > - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general > and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs > - ARP and ND draft > - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies > - Threat analysis document > > Goals and Milestones > > Jun 05 Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for Informational > Sep 05 Routing protocol support requirements to IESG for Informational > Dec 05 Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed Standard > Sep 05 ARP & ND to IESG for Proposed Standard > Mar 06 Interconnecting Layer 2 Technologies document to IESG for > Proposed Standard > Dec 05 Threat analysis to IESG for Informational > > --- > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14K3WQ02021 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.81.36]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14K3Wpv023559 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:03:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j14K3U59619327; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:03:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4203D512.505@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:03:30 -0800 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Conflicts to avoid for BoF/WG? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 20:04:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 6981 Are there other conflicts which we must avoid? Erik This might be approved as a WG before the meeting, but we will schedule it as a BoF for the time being. a. Working Group or BOF full name with acronym in brackets: TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) b. AREA under which Working Group or BOF appears: INT c. CONFLICTS you wish to avoid, please be as specific as possible: multi6, shim6, ipv6, v6ops, is-is, ospf d. Expected Attendance (figures from the previous IETF are sent when WG/BOF scheduling opens) 100 (based on IPVLX BoF) e. Special requests (i.e. multicast): f. Number of slots: 1 g. Length of slot: 2 1/2 hours Bof Description: See proposed charter below. This is a follow-on to the IPVLX BoF in Aug 2004 Bof Chair: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> Mailing list: rbridge@postel.org Subscribe: http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Web page: http://www.postel.org/rbridge/ With additional information as well as mailing list archives Agenda: ------- - Welcome and Administrivia 5 minutes Chair - Charter review 10 minutes Chair - Problem statement discussion 30 minutes 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? - Threats and security considerations 10 minutes ??? What should the goal be? What can we do better? - Requirements on routing protocols 20 minutes ??? For zero configuration Carrying MAC addresses Broadcast IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else - Connecting different L2 types 30 minutes Radia Perlman? - Choices for ARP/ND 10 minutes ??? Constraints from security discussion (intentionally duplicate L2 addresses), mobility, SeND support, etc. - Choices for broadcast/multicast 10 minutes ??? Worth doing any optimizations? Spanning tree between rbridges? Proposed charter: ----------------- TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology, they are more limited than IP routers since bridges only support IEEE 802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 interconnection method (dynamically created spanning tree formation using bridges) is not as flexible and robust as layer 3 routing. The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies. The design should have the following properties: - zero configuration of the hybrid devices - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest paths, and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased aggregate bandwidth - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets (potentially avoid flooding all the time) - support Secure Neighbor Discovery - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the presence of temporary routing loops - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network - no delay when a new node is attached to the network - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to look at optimizations for IP multicast) - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the protocol can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect) A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is extended to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is friendly to zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state routing protocols since they can easily be extended to provide for broadcast, which is believed to be difficult for distance vector protocols. This working group will define the requirements on such routing protocol(s), and select the routing protocol(s) to be used. The intent is that the actual extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with expertise in the routing protocol(s). The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect different layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP protocols, even though one can not combine those two features together; the interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of protocols. Whether the same or different address formats are used, there might be a need to handle different MTUs. The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges and routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers and bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6 The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always flooded everywhere) - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might just fall out from supporting L2 multicast) - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 technologies The work consists of several, separable pieces: - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one or more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the extensions to a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the specific routing protocol WG. - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation header for data packets, and how to map that information to various link types (e.g., IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS) - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is performed, taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor Discovery. - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2 technologies, that have different address format/length, are interconnected. Deliverables - A short draft on the problem statement and goals - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing protocols to support the trill concept, and other requirements on the routing protocols. - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs - ARP and ND draft - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies - Threat analysis document Goals and Milestones Jun 05 Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for Informational Sep 05 Routing protocol support requirements to IESG for Informational Dec 05 Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed Standard Sep 05 ARP & ND to IESG for Proposed Standard Mar 06 Interconnecting Layer 2 Technologies document to IESG for Proposed Standard Dec 05 Threat analysis to IESG for Informational --- 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 j14Jw2Q00614 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.88.31]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14Jvmdt005503 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 12:57:48 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j14Jvk7p616169; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 11:57:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4203D3BA.2050306@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:57:46 -0800 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-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Choice of routing protocols X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 19:58:54 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4378 Below is an excerpt from emails between myself and Bob Hinden that tries to capture some issues around the choice of routing protocol. Hopefully this can stimulate further discussion on this topic. Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Late agenda item?: ipvlx charter Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:24:35 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> Bob Hinden wrote: > I also wonder if we want to consider OSPF for this. The IETF owns all > the IPR and can produce derivative standards, where the situation with > ISIS is very different (e.g., OSI owns the basic protocol). It's going > to be difficult for an L2 bridge implementor to figure out and > understand which collection of IETF and OSI specs to use. Also, if I > remember correctly, ISIS still requires manual configuration of 20 byte > OSI NSAP addresses. This would be a pretty odd thing for a L2 bridge. AFAIK it is only the 6-byte MAC address that is the 'system ID' in IS-IS. One would probably need to fill in some dummy value for the AFI and area, but this can be done without any manual config since each box is assumed to have a factory assigned unique MAC address. OSPF is a bit harder in fact, since (even with the IPv6 pieces in OSPFv3) the OSPF router ID is a 4 byte number, and there isn't any existing numbering space which could be used to create factory assigned globally unique 32 bit numbers. While in principle OSPF is interesting and should be explored, there are some additional items (in addition to the router ID assignment) which makes using OSPF harder than IS-IS: - the OSPF LSAs are specified to carry fixed length addresses (either IPv4 or IPv6), so one would probably need to define a new (set of) LSAs for TRILL Not a big deal really, but IS-IS was designed to handle variable length NLRI from the start. - OSPF is designed to run on top of IP whereas IS-IS runs directly on IEEE 802.1. While rbridges (just like bridges) will probably be assigned IP addresses for management purposes (SNMP), requiring an IP address for the rbridge before it can start OSPF do build the topology would be a severe limitation. One would want to allow rbridges that don't have IP addresses (e.g. for home), or where the IP addresses are assigned after the rbridges have established connectivity across the link (assigned using stateless IPv6 or DHCP for instance). [Bob later told me: A possible choice when using OSPF is to use OSPFv3 over IPv6 and IPv6 link-local addresses, since any device with an IEEE MAC address can form an IPv6 link-local address.] So trust me, I did really like to use OSPF here, because of the IS-IS specification issues but also because there are more open source OSPF code out there for implementors to reuse. > While on the general topic, RIPv2 might even be a reasonable choice for > routing technology. It's a lot simpler to implement and would still > work a lot better than spanning tree. TRILL does add one additional constraint on a routing protocol (beyond carrying MAC addresses around) which is to be able to construct a spanning tree between the rbridges. The spanning tree is needed for flooding (ARP, ND, and any other broadcast/multicast). Doing this in a link state protocol is relatively easy; each router can independently calculate the spanning tree in a consistent manner. But it is far from clear whether this can be be done in a distance vector protocol. Also, part of the goal for TRILL is to be better than the IEEE 802.1D spanning tree, which has a worst-case convergence time of 45 seconds or so. It isn't clear that RIP is a good fit for fast convergence. > My general question is: Is the decision on the routing technology to be > used for this going to be something that the w.g. decides or is it just > assumed it is ISIS? I would favor the former approach, but in either > case I think it is important that the charter clarify this. The TRILL WG would need to make the choice. If the actual routing protocol work is farmed out to the specific, long-lived routing protocol WGs, the success would depend on those WGs having interest in this space. An option is that the TRILL WG define the extension to the routing protocols, and just have that reviewed by the routing protocol WG(s). Erik Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j14FI4Q15024 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.86.38]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j14FI4pv008453 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:18:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j14FI4Zc538524; Fri, 4 Feb 2005 07:18:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42039202.60202@sun.com> Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 07:17:22 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> <420024A9.1020308@isi.edu> <420176E1.2080107@sun.com> <4201852E.9090200@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <4201852E.9090200@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 15:18:43 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2259 Joe Touch wrote: >> So perhaps you can list the numerous problems. > > > It works fine, as you noted, over pt-pt links, but not over things that > are intended to look like shared media, e.g., subnets. And the numerous problems in that case are .... > Why? It walks like a router, talks like a router, and quacks like a > router. Examining the IP layer, changing L2 headers, etc. The only thing > it doesn't do that a router does - so far - is decrement the TTL. Others > would be, e.g., to limit all 1's broadcast. It might route the packet based on the L2 address instead of IP, for instance. Hence using a different term than "router" aids in clarity IMHO. >> What we are talking about is a hybrid, which includes L2 semantics but >> might not preserve L2 semantics when carrying IP packets. > > > Huh? You're preserving L2 semantics but only for IP, which doesn't care > (above) about such preservation? I think you need to re-read what I wrote above. > But we were talking about such support in ways that avoided broadcast... Who has been talking about hybrid devices which interconnect broadcast and NMBA L2s? >> At another end of the scale we have what I'd call "IP works". In this >> case the cloud of interconnected hybrids collectively exhibit behavior >> so that IPv*/ARP/ND/DHCP etc work as expected. > > > Why can't we call that a router that doesn't decrement TTL? Because, AFAIK, it forwards packets based on L2 addresses. (Remember, we had this mailing list discussion about packets sent to off-subnet destinations and the interaction with redirects etc, which resulted in at a minimum packets destined off-subnet need to be routed based on the L2 destination.) > Bridges can - and do limit the spread of multicast. They do not limit > the spread of broadcast based on L3 semantics (unless doing explicit > proxy-arp, but that's not what we're talking about). I'm confused. We'd talked about ARP/ND flooding a while back, and concluded there were security and robustness issues around that, which need considerations. But I thought the current topic was about interconnecting different types of L2s (with different address formats), which is orthogonal to any limitations on the flooding of broadcasts. 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 j140u2Q25785 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.81.144]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j140u1dt018441; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:56:01 -0700 (MST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j140twdf285247; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:56:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4202C81E.3040608@sun.com> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:55:58 -0800 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: michsmit@cisco.com, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Agenda items? References: <200502032232.BBQ09239@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <200502032232.BBQ09239@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 00:57:26 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 753 Michael Smith wrote: > I think an important issue to discuss is packet reordering. The current > rbridge proposal introduces a significant possibility of L2 packet > reordering within a network with a stable topology. IEEE bridges do not > reorder packets except in some corner cases with the new rapid spanning tree > protocol and even then, it is only during a network topology change. The > traditional spanning tree protocol (non-rapid spanning tree) provides no > packet reordering even during topology change. Since rbridges are targeted > to support non-IP protocols, this issue should be addressed. Perhaps it makes sense to add this under #1, and expand that item to cover the "service" provided by the cloud of hybrid devices. 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 j140cNQ20532 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:38:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j140cMdv008225 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:38:23 -0700 (MST) 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 <0IBD00I012X099@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:38:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.58] (vpn-129-150-16-79.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.16.79]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IBD008PE33X42@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:38:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:38:25 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Agenda items? In-reply-to: <200502032340.BBQ19184@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> To: michsmit@cisco.com, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4202C401.4020300@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:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 References: <200502032340.BBQ19184@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 04 Feb 2005 00:38:39 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 932 Michael Smith wrote: > >Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. My understanding of the proposal >is that packets sent to an unknown L2 destination will be treated as >broadcast and sent along the single spanning tree. Once the destination is >known, packets will follow the shortest path which may or may not be the >same as the spanning tree path. Packets in transit via the spanning tree >may quite easily be passed by subsequent packets following the shortest >path, hence the reordering. > > > Ah yes, that might cause some reordering. I'm not sure how much we should/need to stand on our head to avoid reordering, especially if it's OK to "sometimes" do it (after a topology change), so it's clearly assumed that reordinering sometimes is not fatal. But it's definitely an issue we should discuss. It would be nice for applications to realize they are working on a network and be written appropriately. Radia Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j13NegQ06289 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:40:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2005 15:48:12 -0800 Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j13NeYoQ017307; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:40:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from michsmitw2k02 ([10.34.37.93]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BBQ19184; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:40:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200502032340.BBQ19184@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> From: "Michael Smith" <michsmit@cisco.com> To: "'Alper Yegin'" <alper.yegin@samsung.com>, "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Agenda items? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:40:02 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <072501c50a44$57ba7ae0$291d9069@sisa.samsung.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 Thread-Index: AcUKRJTG14ZirDnRRE6997BN5xpldAAAzM5A X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: michsmit@cisco.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: michsmit@cisco.com, "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, 03 Feb 2005 23:43:11 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4872 > From: Alper Yegin [mailto:alper.yegin@samsung.com] > > I have some clarification questions... > > > I think an important issue to discuss is packet reordering. The > current > > rbridge proposal introduces a significant possibility of L2 packet > > reordering within a network with a stable topology. > > What aspect of rbridge would cause this? Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken. My understanding of the proposal is that packets sent to an unknown L2 destination will be treated as broadcast and sent along the single spanning tree. Once the destination is known, packets will follow the shortest path which may or may not be the same as the spanning tree path. Packets in transit via the spanning tree may quite easily be passed by subsequent packets following the shortest path, hence the reordering. > > > IEEE bridges do not > > reorder packets except in some corner cases with the new rapid > spanning > > tree > > protocol and even then, it is only during a network topology change. > The > > traditional spanning tree protocol (non-rapid spanning > tree) provides > no > > packet reordering even during topology change. Since rbridges are > > targeted to support non-IP protocols, this issue should be > addressed. > > Is this increased reordering probability going to break > anything? Or, are you just identifying something that may > impact IP+ layer performance? If I recall correctly, SNA has serious problems with reordering. I did some quick googling and apparently so do Netware, and DecNet. For example, check the last couple of paragraphs in the following article: http://www.telecommagazine.com/default.asp?journalid=3&func=departments&page =0409t05&year=2004&month=9 Michael > > Thank you. > > Alper > > > > > > > > > Michael > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > > > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:19 PM > > > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > > > Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items? > > > > > > > > > It is time to start thinking about the agenda for the > BoF/WG meeting > > > in Minneapolis. > > > > > > Presumably we should go over the charter, but I'd like to > also spend > > > time on technical discussions, which is the subject of this email. > > > > > > I think there are several technical items that makes sense to > > > discuss, and I've tried to capture things from memory here. > > > If you had additional items let me know we can add them (but you > > > might get volunteered :-). > > > If you need stimulation it might make sense to re-read > > > draft-perlman-rbridge, and see if there are issues that come to > mind. > > > > > > What I'd like for each of these items is to have a volunteer who > > > will present the topic with the issues and the tradeoffs (but no > > > "solutions"), so that we all can try to understand the different > > > issues, and how they might interact. > > > > > > I'd like to see each topic be presented in advance (so that folks > > > can read about it) either as a concise email to the list > (which we > > > can reference using URLs to the archive) or in the form > of a short > > > internet draft. > > > > > > Here are the topics I have so far: > > > 1. What is the desired semantics of the cloud of hybrids? > > > Just "strict IEEE > > > 802 bridge equivalence", "IP works", or something in between? > > > > > > I'll volunteer myself to lead the discussion on this topic. > > > > > > 2. Threats and security considerations > > > What should the goal be? What can we do better? > > > > > > Does anybody who brought this up on the list want to > volunteer? > > > > > > 3. Requirements on routing protocols > > > For zero configuration > > > Carrying MAC addresses > > > Broadcast > > > IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else > > > > > > Volunteer? I can dig out the discussion I had with > Bob Hinden if > > > that would stimulate someone to want to discuss this. > > > > > > 4. Connecting different L2 types (with different L2 > address formats) > > > > > > I think I've convinced Radia to lead this one > > > > > > 5. Choices for ARP/ND > > > > > > We had some discussion on the list about this and how > it relates > > > to > > > intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. > > > > > > Any volunteers? > > > > > > 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast > > > > > > Any volunteers? > > > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > > > > Erik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rbridge mailing list > > > rbridge@postel.org > > > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 j13NVrQ03851 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:31:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j13NVqVw017040 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:31:53 -0700 (MST) 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 <0IBC00801ZZBSW@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:31:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.58] (vpn-129-150-16-79.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.16.79]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0IBD008QU01342@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:31:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:31:55 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Agenda items? In-reply-to: <200502032232.BBQ09239@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> To: michsmit@cisco.com, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4202B46B.20302@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:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 References: <200502032232.BBQ09239@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 23:32:38 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4179 RBridges wouldn't reorder either, except after a topology change, unless people wanted to path split across multiple paths on an ongoing basis. That would be problematic (because of reordering) even for applications that can tolerate reordering because of issues like a) TCP trying to discover the round-trip delay b) TCP having to buffer out-of-order messages However, using multiple paths is still possible if, (as is common with today's routers) care is taken to send all packets for a given flow on the same choice, for instance by doing a hash of addresses and ports to make a selection among equivalent paths to D. Is there some way other than path splitting that you see the RBridge proposal reordering packets within a network with a stable topology? Radia Michael Smith wrote: >I think an important issue to discuss is packet reordering. The current >rbridge proposal introduces a significant possibility of L2 packet >reordering within a network with a stable topology. IEEE bridges do not >reorder packets except in some corner cases with the new rapid spanning tree >protocol and even then, it is only during a network topology change. The >traditional spanning tree protocol (non-rapid spanning tree) provides no >packet reordering even during topology change. Since rbridges are targeted >to support non-IP protocols, this issue should be addressed. > >Michael > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org >>[mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark >>Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:19 PM >>To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. >>Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items? >> >> >>It is time to start thinking about the agenda for the BoF/WG >>meeting in Minneapolis. >> >>Presumably we should go over the charter, but I'd like to >>also spend time on technical discussions, which is the >>subject of this email. >> >>I think there are several technical items that makes sense to >>discuss, and I've tried to capture things from memory here. >>If you had additional items let me know we can add them (but >>you might get volunteered :-). >>If you need stimulation it might make sense to re-read >>draft-perlman-rbridge, and see if there are issues that come to mind. >> >>What I'd like for each of these items is to have a volunteer >>who will present the topic with the issues and the tradeoffs >>(but no "solutions"), so that we all can try to understand >>the different issues, and how they might interact. >> >>I'd like to see each topic be presented in advance (so that >>folks can read about it) either as a concise email to the >>list (which we can reference using URLs to the archive) or in >>the form of a short internet draft. >> >>Here are the topics I have so far: >>1. What is the desired semantics of the cloud of hybrids? >>Just "strict IEEE >> 802 bridge equivalence", "IP works", or something in between? >> >> I'll volunteer myself to lead the discussion on this topic. >> >>2. Threats and security considerations >> What should the goal be? What can we do better? >> >> Does anybody who brought this up on the list want to volunteer? >> >>3. Requirements on routing protocols >> For zero configuration >> Carrying MAC addresses >> Broadcast >> IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else >> >> Volunteer? I can dig out the discussion I had with Bob Hinden if >> that would stimulate someone to want to discuss this. >> >>4. Connecting different L2 types (with different L2 address formats) >> >> I think I've convinced Radia to lead this one >> >>5. Choices for ARP/ND >> >> We had some discussion on the list about this and how it >>relates to >> intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. >> >> Any volunteers? >> >>6. Choices for broadcast/multicast >> >> Any volunteers? >> >>What am I missing? >> >> >> Erik >> >>_______________________________________________ >>rbridge mailing list >>rbridge@postel.org >>http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> >> >_______________________________________________ >rbridge mailing list >rbridge@postel.org >http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > Received: from mailout2.samsung.com (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j13N1uQ25089 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:01:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from custom-daemon.mailout2.samsung.com by mailout2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) id <0IBC00H04YN2SM@mailout2.samsung.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:01:50 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp1 (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25]) by mailout2.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IBC0062TYN1SO@mailout2.samsung.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:01:49 +0900 (KST) Received: from Alperyegin ([105.144.29.41]) by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IBC00DSWYMZN8@mmp1.samsung.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:01:49 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:01:47 -0800 From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Agenda items? In-reply-to: <200502032232.BBQ09239@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> To: michsmit@cisco.com, "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <072501c50a44$57ba7ae0$291d9069@sisa.samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: alper.yegin@samsung.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 23:03:05 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3750 I have some clarification questions... > I think an important issue to discuss is packet reordering. The current > rbridge proposal introduces a significant possibility of L2 packet > reordering within a network with a stable topology. What aspect of rbridge would cause this? > IEEE bridges do not > reorder packets except in some corner cases with the new rapid spanning > tree > protocol and even then, it is only during a network topology change. The > traditional spanning tree protocol (non-rapid spanning tree) provides no > packet reordering even during topology change. Since rbridges are > targeted > to support non-IP protocols, this issue should be addressed. Is this increased reordering probability going to break anything? Or, are you just identifying something that may impact IP+ layer performance? Thank you. Alper > > Michael > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:19 PM > > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > > Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items? > > > > > > It is time to start thinking about the agenda for the BoF/WG > > meeting in Minneapolis. > > > > Presumably we should go over the charter, but I'd like to > > also spend time on technical discussions, which is the > > subject of this email. > > > > I think there are several technical items that makes sense to > > discuss, and I've tried to capture things from memory here. > > If you had additional items let me know we can add them (but > > you might get volunteered :-). > > If you need stimulation it might make sense to re-read > > draft-perlman-rbridge, and see if there are issues that come to mind. > > > > What I'd like for each of these items is to have a volunteer > > who will present the topic with the issues and the tradeoffs > > (but no "solutions"), so that we all can try to understand > > the different issues, and how they might interact. > > > > I'd like to see each topic be presented in advance (so that > > folks can read about it) either as a concise email to the > > list (which we can reference using URLs to the archive) or in > > the form of a short internet draft. > > > > Here are the topics I have so far: > > 1. What is the desired semantics of the cloud of hybrids? > > Just "strict IEEE > > 802 bridge equivalence", "IP works", or something in between? > > > > I'll volunteer myself to lead the discussion on this topic. > > > > 2. Threats and security considerations > > What should the goal be? What can we do better? > > > > Does anybody who brought this up on the list want to volunteer? > > > > 3. Requirements on routing protocols > > For zero configuration > > Carrying MAC addresses > > Broadcast > > IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else > > > > Volunteer? I can dig out the discussion I had with Bob Hinden if > > that would stimulate someone to want to discuss this. > > > > 4. Connecting different L2 types (with different L2 address formats) > > > > I think I've convinced Radia to lead this one > > > > 5. Choices for ARP/ND > > > > We had some discussion on the list about this and how it > > relates to > > intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. > > > > Any volunteers? > > > > 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast > > > > Any volunteers? > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > Erik > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j13MWLQ15708 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2005 14:39:51 -0800 Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j13MWEHo013984 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from michsmitw2k02 ([10.34.37.93]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BBQ09239; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200502032232.BBQ09239@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> From: "Michael Smith" <michsmit@cisco.com> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Agenda items? Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:32:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 Thread-Index: AcUJl6v7JQzDlg78RwGWk9mqxBkiwwAptcpg X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: michsmit@cisco.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: michsmit@cisco.com, "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, 03 Feb 2005 22:32:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3207 I think an important issue to discuss is packet reordering. The current rbridge proposal introduces a significant possibility of L2 packet reordering within a network with a stable topology. IEEE bridges do not reorder packets except in some corner cases with the new rapid spanning tree protocol and even then, it is only during a network topology change. The traditional spanning tree protocol (non-rapid spanning tree) provides no packet reordering even during topology change. Since rbridges are targeted to support non-IP protocols, this issue should be addressed. Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Erik Nordmark > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:19 PM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items? > > > It is time to start thinking about the agenda for the BoF/WG > meeting in Minneapolis. > > Presumably we should go over the charter, but I'd like to > also spend time on technical discussions, which is the > subject of this email. > > I think there are several technical items that makes sense to > discuss, and I've tried to capture things from memory here. > If you had additional items let me know we can add them (but > you might get volunteered :-). > If you need stimulation it might make sense to re-read > draft-perlman-rbridge, and see if there are issues that come to mind. > > What I'd like for each of these items is to have a volunteer > who will present the topic with the issues and the tradeoffs > (but no "solutions"), so that we all can try to understand > the different issues, and how they might interact. > > I'd like to see each topic be presented in advance (so that > folks can read about it) either as a concise email to the > list (which we can reference using URLs to the archive) or in > the form of a short internet draft. > > Here are the topics I have so far: > 1. What is the desired semantics of the cloud of hybrids? > Just "strict IEEE > 802 bridge equivalence", "IP works", or something in between? > > I'll volunteer myself to lead the discussion on this topic. > > 2. Threats and security considerations > What should the goal be? What can we do better? > > Does anybody who brought this up on the list want to volunteer? > > 3. Requirements on routing protocols > For zero configuration > Carrying MAC addresses > Broadcast > IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else > > Volunteer? I can dig out the discussion I had with Bob Hinden if > that would stimulate someone to want to discuss this. > > 4. Connecting different L2 types (with different L2 address formats) > > I think I've convinced Radia to lead this one > > 5. Choices for ARP/ND > > We had some discussion on the list about this and how it > relates to > intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. > > Any volunteers? > > 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast > > Any volunteers? > > What am I missing? > > > Erik > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from [128.9.168.55] (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j13HNrQ16280; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:23:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42025EA6.6030108@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:25:58 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <4201772E.3080204@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4201772E.3080204@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 17:25:54 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5905 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Posted to www.postel.org/rbridge Once we lock on a name, I'll add that to the website... Joe - -- Erik Nordmark wrote: | | I generated an update because Margaret asked for one. As part of doing | that I've tried to capture something about what has been discussed on | the list. | | Next step is to figure out an agenda for Minneapolis. | | Erik | | | [Note: name change from IPVLX to TRILL] | | TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) | | | While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit | configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology, | they are more limited than IP routers since bridges | only support IEEE 802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 | interconnection method (dynamically created spanning tree | formation using bridges) is not as flexible and robust as layer 3 routing. | | The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of | configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies. | | The design should have the following properties: | - zero configuration of the hybrid devices | - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address | - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest paths, | and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased | aggregate bandwidth | - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets | (potentially | avoid flooding all the time) | - support Secure Neighbor Discovery | - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the presence | of temporary routing loops | - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network | - no delay when a new node is attached to the network | - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to | look at optimizations for IP multicast) | - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the | protocol | can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect) | | A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is | extended | to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is friendly to | zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state routing protocols | since they can easily be extended to provide for broadcast, which is | believed | to be difficult for distance vector protocols. | This working group will define the requirements on such routing | protocol(s), | and select the routing protocol(s) to be used. The intent is that the | actual | extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with | expertise | in the routing protocol(s). | | The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect different | layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP | protocols, | even though one can not combine those two features together; the | interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 | address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of protocols. | Whether the same or different address formats are used, there might be a | need | to handle different MTUs. | | The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges | and routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers | and bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6 | | The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide | - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always | flooded everywhere) | - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might just | fall out from supporting L2 multicast) | - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 | technologies | | | The work consists of several, separable pieces: | - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one or | more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the extensions to | a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the | specific routing protocol WG. | - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation header for | data packets, and how to map that information to various link types | (e.g., | IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS) | - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is | performed, | taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor | Discovery. | - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2 | technologies, that have different address format/length, are | interconnected. | | Deliverables | - A short draft on the problem statement and goals | - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing | protocols to support the rbridge concept, and other requirements on | the routing protocols. | - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general | and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs | - ARP and ND draft | - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies | - Threat analysis document | | Goals and Milestones | | Jun 05 Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for Informational | Sep 05 Routing protocol support requirements to IESG for Informational | Dec 05 Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed Standard | Sep 05 ARP & ND to IESG for Proposed Standard | Mar 06 Interconnecting Layer 2 Technologies document to IESG for | Proposed Standard | Dec 05 Threat analysis to IESG for Informational | | --- | | _______________________________________________ | rbridge mailing list | rbridge@postel.org | http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCAl6mE5f5cImnZrsRAktPAKD988gLmW4jP0EY+Qc8SOCJBHlV/QCg9BqH F28k49z2KZrv7B7Gg9i3pgY= =FRcU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from [128.9.168.55] (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j13HC0Q12548; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:12:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42025BDD.509@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:14:05 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <41F99A4C.1020701@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <41F99A4C.1020701@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: [rbridge] updated BOF website X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 17:13:12 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 135 Hi, all, The Rbridge / IPVLX BOF website has been updated with the current proposed charter (1/27/2005). www.postel.org/rbridge Joe Received: from smtp807.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp807.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.186]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j13FhmQ13177 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:43:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp807.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2005 15:43:48 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] IPvLX acronym and URLs Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:44:55 -0800 Message-ID: <006501c50a07$4f3995f0$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <000f01c508ae$6fa20cf0$6401a8c0@grayling> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 15:44:35 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 750 The placeholder web page at 'ipvlx.{com,org.net}' has been updated. Fred fltemplin@acm.org -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Fred L. Templin Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:36 PM To: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] IPvLX acronym and URLs I have reserved the acronym "IPvLX" and domain names 'ipvlx.{com,org,net}' with the intention of turning them over at any time the chairs feel they are ready to begin using them for the WG's efforts - just let me know when you'd like to take them over, Erik. Fred fltemplin@acm.org _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j132JxQ25598 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.84.45]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j132Jxpv028022 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j132JuaU611510; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:19:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42018A21.70006@sun.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:19:13 -0800 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 02:21:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2081 It is time to start thinking about the agenda for the BoF/WG meeting in Minneapolis. Presumably we should go over the charter, but I'd like to also spend time on technical discussions, which is the subject of this email. I think there are several technical items that makes sense to discuss, and I've tried to capture things from memory here. If you had additional items let me know we can add them (but you might get volunteered :-). If you need stimulation it might make sense to re-read draft-perlman-rbridge, and see if there are issues that come to mind. What I'd like for each of these items is to have a volunteer who will present the topic with the issues and the tradeoffs (but no "solutions"), so that we all can try to understand the different issues, and how they might interact. I'd like to see each topic be presented in advance (so that folks can read about it) either as a concise email to the list (which we can reference using URLs to the archive) or in the form of a short internet draft. Here are the topics I have so far: 1. What is the desired semantics of the cloud of hybrids? Just "strict IEEE 802 bridge equivalence", "IP works", or something in between? I'll volunteer myself to lead the discussion on this topic. 2. Threats and security considerations What should the goal be? What can we do better? Does anybody who brought this up on the list want to volunteer? 3. Requirements on routing protocols For zero configuration Carrying MAC addresses Broadcast IS-IS vs. OSPF vs. something else Volunteer? I can dig out the discussion I had with Bob Hinden if that would stimulate someone to want to discuss this. 4. Connecting different L2 types (with different L2 address formats) I think I've convinced Radia to lead this one 5. Choices for ARP/ND We had some discussion on the list about this and how it relates to intentionally duplicate L2 addresses, mobility, etc. Any volunteers? 6. Choices for broadcast/multicast Any volunteers? What am I missing? Erik Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j131wBQ20189; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:58:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4201852E.9090200@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:58:06 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> <420024A9.1020308@isi.edu> <420176E1.2080107@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <420176E1.2080107@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig84DA250CF4941CFCE2D19255" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 02:00:15 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5169 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig84DA250CF4941CFCE2D19255 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Nordmark wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: > >> The basis of the Internet is a single address layer that spans >> different link layers. There are numerous problems stemming from the >> rbridge basically needing to proxy the semantics of two different L2 >> systems. > > The Internet architecture assumes very little about the L2 > infrastructure. For instance, it works with L2s that preserve the same > L2 header (Ethernet being one example) but also over L2s that only use > local identifiers (such as DLCIs in frame relay). > > I don't see how running IP over a L2 where the L2 headers are different > when received than when transmitted will cause problems, as long as the > protocols involved in L2 address resolution are handled correctly. > > So perhaps you can list the numerous problems. It works fine, as you noted, over pt-pt links, but not over things that are intended to look like shared media, e.g., subnets. >> What you're proposing is a router that doesn't decrement the TTL. > > No. And I think it is in the interest of clarity, especially during > these formative times, that we don't reuse old terms for new things. > So please call it a hybrid, a rbridge, a frobnits, but not a router or a > bridge, since that will confuse things with the routers and bridges that > exist today. Why? It walks like a router, talks like a router, and quacks like a router. Examining the IP layer, changing L2 headers, etc. The only thing it doesn't do that a router does - so far - is decrement the TTL. Others would be, e.g., to limit all 1's broadcast. >> That's not the same as a bridge that uses routing (vs. spanning tree) >> internally; the former doesn't include L2 semantics, the latter does. >> The latter presumes a single L2 semantics, which is easy to verify. >> The former (as you suggest) allows multiple L2s, but does NOT preserve >> L2 semantics. > > What we are talking about is a hybrid, which includes L2 semantics but > might not preserve L2 semantics when carrying IP packets. Huh? You're preserving L2 semantics but only for IP, which doesn't care (above) about such preservation? >> That means a lot of IP will break where/when the L2s have different >> semantics, e.g., NBMA vs. broadcast. We don't have a uniform L2 >> emulation protocol on which to base an interoperability layer (the >> PILC WG noted some of its expected properties, but didn't spec it out >> as such). This work seems like it should avoid L2 translation until >> that canonical virtual L2 can be spec'd. > > I don't think anybody has argued that the protocol will support any L2. > What's being suggested is that it support some degree of non-uniformity. > And since we are assuming that ARP/ND be used for L2 address resolution > there is an unstated assumption that all such L2 support > broadcast/multicast. But we were talking about such support in ways that avoided broadcast... >> That the routing inside the rbridge is opaque to things outside the >> rbridge. > > OK, that I understand. > > I think there is a range of semantics that are possible for the hybrids, > and the WG needs to discuss them. > At one end we have what you seem to be arguing for, which I'll call > strict IEEE 802 bridge equivalence, > This means that the cloud of interconnected hybrids behave the same way > as an IEEE compliant bridge. I think this means that not only are the L2 > headers not modified, but also that the packets are delivered on the > ports where an IEEE 802 bridge would deliver them (i.e. all ports for > broadcast and multicast). Agreed. > At another end of the scale we have what I'd call "IP works". In this > case the cloud of interconnected hybrids collectively exhibit behavior > so that IPv*/ARP/ND/DHCP etc work as expected. Why can't we call that a router that doesn't decrement TTL? > Note that there are probably interesting points between these scales. > One is what existing switch products do for multicast, which is to do > IGMP/MLD snooping to limit the spread of multicast. > Presumably there are others as well. > > Erik Bridges can - and do limit the spread of multicast. They do not limit the spread of broadcast based on L3 semantics (unless doing explicit proxy-arp, but that's not what we're talking about). If there's an intermediate point between the above two, it'd be useful to figure out what it IS and why it's needed before we created a WG to design it. Joe --------------enig84DA250CF4941CFCE2D19255 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 iD8DBQFCAYUuE5f5cImnZrsRAsGoAJ9g8M2fCGr7gpA9r2zMUSRwjlmU7gCbB5wG O+9HYX4iFiQAT2FrVdLCW7M= =8XFu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig84DA250CF4941CFCE2D19255-- 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 j130x8Q04446 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.85.31]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j130x7Vu007795 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:59:07 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j130x6Pq569280; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:59:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4201772E.3080204@sun.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:58:22 -0800 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-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 01:00:43 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5170 I generated an update because Margaret asked for one. As part of doing that I've tried to capture something about what has been discussed on the list. Next step is to figure out an agenda for Minneapolis. Erik [Note: name change from IPVLX to TRILL] TRansparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) While IEEE 802 bridges are attractive due to not needing explicit configuration and allowing hosts to move within the bridged topology, they are more limited than IP routers since bridges only support IEEE 802 technologies, and the most common layer 2 interconnection method (dynamically created spanning tree formation using bridges) is not as flexible and robust as layer 3 routing. The WG will design a hybrid solution that combines the simplicity of configuration while taking full advantage of complex topologies. The design should have the following properties: - zero configuration of the hybrid devices - ability for hosts to move without changing their IP address - it should be possible to forward packets using pair-wise shortest paths, and exploit the redundant paths through the network for increased aggregate bandwidth - possible optimizations for ARP and Neighbor Discovery packets (potentially avoid flooding all the time) - support Secure Neighbor Discovery - the packet header should have a hop count for robustness in the presence of temporary routing loops - nodes should be able to have multiple attachments to the network - no delay when a new node is attached to the network - multicast should work (and after a re-charter it might make sense to look at optimizations for IP multicast) - be no less secure than existing bridges (and explore whether the protocol can make "L2 address theft" harder or easier to detect) A required piece of the solution is an IP routing protocol which is extended to carry L2 address reachability, handle broadcast, and is friendly to zero-configuration. Likely candidate are the link-state routing protocols since they can easily be extended to provide for broadcast, which is believed to be difficult for distance vector protocols. This working group will define the requirements on such routing protocol(s), and select the routing protocol(s) to be used. The intent is that the actual extensions to the routing protocol(s) be performed in the WGs with expertise in the routing protocol(s). The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect different layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP protocols, even though one can not combine those two features together; the interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of protocols. Whether the same or different address formats are used, there might be a need to handle different MTUs. The WG will design a protocol that combines the benefits of bridges and routers in a way that will co-exist with existing hosts, IP routers and bridges. The design must support both IPv4 and IPv6 The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide - Possible optimizations for ARP and ND packets (not always flooded everywhere) - Being able to carry IP broadcast and multicast packets (which might just fall out from supporting L2 multicast) - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 technologies The work consists of several, separable pieces: - Defining the requirement on the routing protocol(s), and select one or more routing protocols. The detailed specification of the extensions to a particular routing protocol will be left as an action item for the specific routing protocol WG. - Defining what information must be carried in an encapsulation header for data packets, and how to map that information to various link types (e.g., IEEE LAN, Fibrechannel, MPLS) - Defining how address resolution (ARP and Neighbor Discovery) is performed, taking into account the desire to be compatible with Secure Neighbor Discovery. - Defining how the solution extends to the case when multiple layer 2 technologies, that have different address format/length, are interconnected. Deliverables - A short draft on the problem statement and goals - A document defining what information needs to be carried in routing protocols to support the rbridge concept, and other requirements on the routing protocols. - Encapsulation draft specifying what needs to be carried in general and the specific format to use on IEEE LANs - ARP and ND draft - Draft on interconnecting different types of layer 2 technologies - Threat analysis document Goals and Milestones Jun 05 Problem statement and Goals submitted to IESG for Informational Sep 05 Routing protocol support requirements to IESG for Informational Dec 05 Encapsulation document to IESG for Proposed Standard Sep 05 ARP & ND to IESG for Proposed Standard Mar 06 Interconnecting Layer 2 Technologies document to IESG for Proposed Standard Dec 05 Threat analysis to IESG for Informational --- 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 j130vqQ04096 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:57:52 -0800 (PST) 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 j130vmiI008646 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:57:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j130vm6J567991; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:57:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420176E1.2080107@sun.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:57:05 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> <420024A9.1020308@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <420024A9.1020308@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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, 03 Feb 2005 00:59:04 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3328 Joe Touch wrote: > The basis of the Internet is a single address layer that spans different > link layers. There are numerous problems stemming from the rbridge > basically needing to proxy the semantics of two different L2 systems. The Internet architecture assumes very little about the L2 infrastructure. For instance, it works with L2s that preserve the same L2 header (Ethernet being one example) but also over L2s that only use local identifiers (such as DLCIs in frame relay). I don't see how running IP over a L2 where the L2 headers are different when received than when transmitted will cause problems, as long as the protocols involved in L2 address resolution are handled correctly. So perhaps you can list the numerous problems. > What you're proposing is a router that doesn't decrement the TTL. No. And I think it is in the interest of clarity, especially during these formative times, that we don't reuse old terms for new things. So please call it a hybrid, a rbridge, a frobnits, but not a router or a bridge, since that will confuse things with the routers and bridges that exist today. > That's > not the same as a bridge that uses routing (vs. spanning tree) > internally; the former doesn't include L2 semantics, the latter does. > The latter presumes a single L2 semantics, which is easy to verify. The > former (as you suggest) allows multiple L2s, but does NOT preserve L2 > semantics. What we are talking about is a hybrid, which includes L2 semantics but might not preserve L2 semantics when carrying IP packets. > That means a lot of IP will break where/when the L2s have different > semantics, e.g., NBMA vs. broadcast. We don't have a uniform L2 > emulation protocol on which to base an interoperability layer (the PILC > WG noted some of its expected properties, but didn't spec it out as > such). This work seems like it should avoid L2 translation until that > canonical virtual L2 can be spec'd. I don't think anybody has argued that the protocol will support any L2. What's being suggested is that it support some degree of non-uniformity. And since we are assuming that ARP/ND be used for L2 address resolution there is an unstated assumption that all such L2 support broadcast/multicast. > That the routing inside the rbridge is opaque to things outside the > rbridge. OK, that I understand. I think there is a range of semantics that are possible for the hybrids, and the WG needs to discuss them. At one end we have what you seem to be arguing for, which I'll call strict IEEE 802 bridge equivalence, This means that the cloud of interconnected hybrids behave the same way as an IEEE compliant bridge. I think this means that not only are the L2 headers not modified, but also that the packets are delivered on the ports where an IEEE 802 bridge would deliver them (i.e. all ports for broadcast and multicast). At another end of the scale we have what I'd call "IP works". In this case the cloud of interconnected hybrids collectively exhibit behavior so that IPv*/ARP/ND/DHCP etc work as expected. Note that there are probably interesting points between these scales. One is what existing switch products do for multicast, which is to do IGMP/MLD snooping to limit the spread of multicast. Presumably there are others as well. 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 j12LFFQ27041 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:15:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.82.37]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j12LFFiI024253; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:15:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j12LFEDQ442363; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:15:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420142B7.8090400@sun.com> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:14:31 -0800 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: michsmit@cisco.com, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <200502020150.BBN74825@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <200502020150.BBN74825@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:16:58 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1385 Michael Smith wrote: >>The solutions that have been discussed will replace the L2 >>headers (at least in some cases, and encapsulate in another >>L2 header in some cases), and not decrement the L3 TTL, which >>is different than a bridge (which doesn't replace the L2 >>header) and a router (which decrements TTL). > > > Some specific examples may help clarify, but the above statement sounds like > the traditional bridge of yore i.e. bridges with ethernet and token ring > interfaces that swap MAC headers to the appropriate canonical format and > encapsulating bridging packets over ATM and Frame Relay using RFC1483 and > RFC1490. I guess there is a difference between the theory of bridges, captured in IEEE standards, and what products actually do. I don't think the IEEE standards talk about what bridges between e.g. Ethernet and Token Ring do, but I recall products doing somethings like handling bit-order issues with the addresses in arp packets, and the need to fragment IP packets due to the different MTUs. Radia's rbridge draft (I think) talks about optimizations for IP where the IP packet would transit a cloud of rbridges unmodified, but where the L2 header might be different on exit than on entry. This isn't a problem for IP, since IP doesn't look at the L2 header, but can't be applied to non-IP (aka unknown to the rbridge) protocols. Erik Received: from smtp815.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp815.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.170.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j12J3GQ19680 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp815.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Feb 2005 19:03:15 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:04:22 -0800 Message-ID: <003201c5095a$01ae6480$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4445@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org Subject: [rbridge] An IPvLX Study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:04:36 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3062 Joe Touch and I have been discussing off-list about a study I have been involved with over the past few years which has resulted in the following two Internet-Drafts: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-ipvlx-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-ipvlx-errata-05.txt and an updated version that will obsolete both of these at: http://ipvlx.com/IPVLX.txt The study proposes mechanisms and operational practices for establishing virtual links between IP peer end nodes. The virtual link can provide authentication (e.g., using Secure Neighbor Discovery - SEND) and confidentiality (e.g., using IPSec). In some cases, the virtual link can be extended all the way to the end nodes but in other cases it may be desireable to terminate the link at a router in the end node's network, e.g., to protect people and assets from would-be attackers. (Both alternatives are supported in the model proposed by the study.) The study proposes IPv6 as the L3 protocol for end-node addressing and IPv4 as the L2 protocol, i.e., IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling, but it could easily be extended to deal generically with IP-in-IP tunneling (where "IP" could refer to any IP version). The study proposes special nodes called: "IPvLX Gateways" that get involved in establishing and providing transit switching for virtual links. These nodes exhibit some of the same hybrid routing/bridging features proposed for Rbridges, and can be deployed incrementally without requiring flag-day upgrades of existing routers and bridges. In fact, IPvLX gateways need only be deployed in the same locations that an IPv4 NAT would be deployed. While the study presents a big-picture proposal for a next-generation Internet architecture, it is also useful to consider the component aspects seperately. In particular: 1) Autoconfiguration - IPvLX nodes automatically configure themselves for operation with zero configuration. 2) Encapsulation - the study proposes a special encapsulation in the L2 (IPv4) header to encode flow identification information. 3) Link adaptation - the study proposes a link adaptation scheme used by virtual link endpoints to dynamically determine the best-fit L2 segment size (without packet loss) while presenting a uniform MTU to L3. 4) Virtual link extension - the study proposes methods for establishing virtual links through Secure Neighbor Discovery and establishing soft state for flow switching in intermediate IPvLX gateways. 5) Error handling - a method for relaying ICMPv4 error messages back to the IPvLX gateway at the near-end of a virtual link is proposed. 6) Mobilitiy - aspects of IPvLX node mobility are discussed. Although this study is now concluded, it is my sincere hope that some/all of its aspects may be found useful for adoption as work items for this group and that others will be interested in helping to carry the work forward. Please send any questions/comments, Fred L. Templin American Kestrel Consulting fltemplin@acm.org Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j12ItlQ17298; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:55:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4201222D.5000809@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:55:41 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michsmit@cisco.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <200502021844.BBO48908@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <200502021844.BBO48908@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigEAE780B311462D93FB27EA79" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:56:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1495 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigEAE780B311462D93FB27EA79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Smith wrote: ... > Yes, I was referring to traditional translational bridges which "adapt" the > headers. AFAIK, a bridge either retains the MAC header (transparent > bridging), translates the MAC header (translational bridging), strips the > header and terminates the frame (i.e. BPDUs), or encapsulates/decapsulates > it when transporting across specific media types. I was assuming that > "replace the MAC header" in this context was referring to translational > bridging. If not, it would be nice to see a specific example as to what is > meant by "replace" and if it implies something beyond the capabilities just > stated. Sure - translating 802 token ring to 802 ethernet is easy. IMO, they're effectively a single L2 by design. Translating 802 to ATM is not. Joe --------------enigEAE780B311462D93FB27EA79 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 iD8DBQFCASItE5f5cImnZrsRAjD9AKDGqQkjt8aXZh9lwzSTox1dIxzpxACglDC3 S9okJ2jNxNibzj47cJkS9ic= =HffL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigEAE780B311462D93FB27EA79-- Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j12Is5Q16883 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.9.49]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j12Irxpv004414 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:54:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from thunk (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66]) by eastmail1bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j12IrxQp019048; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thunk (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j12Irx0e015333; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk.east.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) id j12Irxne015332; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:53:59 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.east.sun.com: sommerfeld set sender to sommerfeld@sun.com using -f Subject: Re: [rbridge] What should be the goal in terms of security? From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> In-Reply-To: <17BF9DA6-751F-11D9-A2CE-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> References: <17BF9DA6-751F-11D9-A2CE-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1107370438.13538.378.camel@thunk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.325 Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:53:58 -0500 X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: sommerfeld@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:54:34 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 255 On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 08:33, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > If the goal is to replace routers by rbridges I would hope that this is not our goal. Maybe we need to state this extremely clearly at the start of every paragraph of the charter. 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 j12IiqQ13392 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:44:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2005 11:55:08 +0000 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j12IigPA011070; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:44:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from michsmitw2k02 ([10.34.37.29]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BBO48908; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:44:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200502021844.BBO48908@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> From: "Michael Smith" <michsmit@cisco.com> To: "'Joe Touch'" <touch@ISI.EDU>, "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Updated charter Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:44:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <42011369.2050301@isi.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 Thread-Index: AcUJUIv0ZBym4UXuQZWe4aCeshBvHAABWIFg X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: michsmit@cisco.com Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: michsmit@cisco.com, "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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:46:57 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1770 > From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch@ISI.EDU] > > Michael Smith wrote: > > > >>From: Erik Nordmark > >> > >>Joe Touch wrote: > ... > >>The solutions that have been discussed will replace the L2 > headers (at > >>least in some cases, and encapsulate in another > >>L2 header in some cases), and not decrement the L3 TTL, which is > >>different than a bridge (which doesn't replace the L2 > >>header) and a router (which decrements TTL). > > > > Some specific examples may help clarify, but the above statement > > sounds like the traditional bridge of yore i.e. bridges > with ethernet > > and token ring interfaces that swap MAC headers to the appropriate > > canonical format and encapsulating bridging packets over > ATM and Frame > > Relay using RFC1483 and RFC1490. > > How they're encapsulated isn't important per se. Traditional > bridges between ethernet and 802 token ring don't change the > MAC header; they adapt between to access protocols, frame > structures, etc, but the addresses are consistent. Or are you > referring to somthing else, and if so, perhaps it'd be useful > to understand why it's extinct at this point... Yes, I was referring to traditional translational bridges which "adapt" the headers. AFAIK, a bridge either retains the MAC header (transparent bridging), translates the MAC header (translational bridging), strips the header and terminates the frame (i.e. BPDUs), or encapsulates/decapsulates it when transporting across specific media types. I was assuming that "replace the MAC header" in this context was referring to translational bridging. If not, it would be nice to see a specific example as to what is meant by "replace" and if it implies something beyond the capabilities just stated. Michael > > Joe > Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j12HqmQ26471; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:52:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42011369.2050301@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:52:41 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: michsmit@cisco.com, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <200502020150.BBN74825@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <200502020150.BBN74825@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig235A12815E7C72515D71009C" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:56:29 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1760 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig235A12815E7C72515D71009C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Smith wrote: > >>From: Erik Nordmark >> >>Joe Touch wrote: ... >>The solutions that have been discussed will replace the L2 >>headers (at least in some cases, and encapsulate in another >>L2 header in some cases), and not decrement the L3 TTL, which >>is different than a bridge (which doesn't replace the L2 >>header) and a router (which decrements TTL). > > Some specific examples may help clarify, but the above statement sounds like > the traditional bridge of yore i.e. bridges with ethernet and token ring > interfaces that swap MAC headers to the appropriate canonical format and > encapsulating bridging packets over ATM and Frame Relay using RFC1483 and > RFC1490. How they're encapsulated isn't important per se. Traditional bridges between ethernet and 802 token ring don't change the MAC header; they adapt between to access protocols, frame structures, etc, but the addresses are consistent. Or are you referring to somthing else, and if so, perhaps it'd be useful to understand why it's extinct at this point... Joe --------------enig235A12815E7C72515D71009C 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 iD8DBQFCARNqE5f5cImnZrsRAhZlAKCffUDXfWnGTAIVhD4KEcVA27lW/wCgxdsE kzpguWruhtn8eMdjvN2c/NY= =c8ks -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig235A12815E7C72515D71009C-- Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j12Hh7Q23311; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:43:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42011121.9070103@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:42:57 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] What should be the goal in terms of security? References: <17BF9DA6-751F-11D9-A2CE-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <17BF9DA6-751F-11D9-A2CE-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig05488C457DE0055518EA91F4" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:46:06 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1896 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig05488C457DE0055518EA91F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > Hi all, > > after all the discussion about ARP and flooding and so on, i guess that > an important point should be to clearly define what is the goal of the > rbridge solution in terms of security. I mean it seems to me that the > security provided by a router and the security provided by a bridge are > quite different. I mean, in arp, hijacking a link layer address seems to > be an important vulnerability, since it may allow sniffing and spoofing > any interface of the cloud. Besides, the potential DOS attakcs that may > result because of broacasts used for discovery may be important. All > this issues are not present in a routed network AFAICT. > > So i guess that the first question is: an rbridge solution should > provide the level of security of a bridged network or the level of > security of a routed network? > > If the goal is to replace routers by rbridges, i would say that the > routed network security level is required.... The goal, IMO, is to replace bridges by rbridges. rbridges ought to provide no worse security than bridges, with better performance (cross-section bandwidth, more than anything else IMO). Joe --------------enig05488C457DE0055518EA91F4 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 iD8DBQFCAREmE5f5cImnZrsRAu1mAJ4rENiWnerHvR713HcXKiV8z5jjxACdGPe+ 22HU+KHRKlrPlf4R9jGFnQM= =8rQ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig05488C457DE0055518EA91F4-- Received: from motgate7.mot.com (motgate7.mot.com [129.188.136.7]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j12EpgQ03075 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 06:51:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate7.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate7) with ESMTP id j12EgEKU017438 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:42:15 -0700 (MST) Received: from ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com [10.14.33.5]) by il06exr04.mot.com (Motorola/il06exr04) with ESMTP id j12EoMfg006281 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:50:22 -0600 Received: by ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <ZH8S4MMZ>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:51:40 -0500 Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238105CD4445@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com> From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: rbridge@postel.org Subject: RE: [rbridge] What should be the goal in terms of security? Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:51:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:52:33 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1601 I certainly never thought of Rbridges as an idea for downgrading the network by replacing routers but as a way of upgrading bridges to get such benefits of "routing" as you can get while still avoiding the configuration penalties of IP routing. More security is better if you can get it without undue penalty but bridged security is adequate, in my opinion. Donald -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:34 AM To: 'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.' Subject: [rbridge] What should be the goal in terms of security? Hi all, after all the discussion about ARP and flooding and so on, i guess that an important point should be to clearly define what is the goal of the rbridge solution in terms of security. I mean it seems to me that the security provided by a router and the security provided by a bridge are quite different. I mean, in arp, hijacking a link layer address seems to be an important vulnerability, since it may allow sniffing and spoofing any interface of the cloud. Besides, the potential DOS attakcs that may result because of broacasts used for discovery may be important. All this issues are not present in a routed network AFAICT. So i guess that the first question is: an rbridge solution should provide the level of security of a bridged network or the level of security of a routed network? If the goal is to replace routers by rbridges, i would say that the routed network security level is required.... any thoughts...? marcelo Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (smtp03.uc3m.es [163.117.136.123]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j12DXmQ12721 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 05:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp03.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010EE324BF for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:33:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from [163.117.139.55] (unknown [163.117.139.55]) by smtp03.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AE13244A for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:33:41 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <17BF9DA6-751F-11D9-A2CE-000D93ACD0FE@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:33:58 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: marcelo@it.uc3m.es Subject: [rbridge] What should be the goal in terms of security? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:34:49 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 954 Hi all, after all the discussion about ARP and flooding and so on, i guess that an important point should be to clearly define what is the goal of the rbridge solution in terms of security. I mean it seems to me that the security provided by a router and the security provided by a bridge are quite different. I mean, in arp, hijacking a link layer address seems to be an important vulnerability, since it may allow sniffing and spoofing any interface of the cloud. Besides, the potential DOS attakcs that may result because of broacasts used for discovery may be important. All this issues are not present in a routed network AFAICT. So i guess that the first question is: an rbridge solution should provide the level of security of a bridged network or the level of security of a routed network? If the goal is to replace routers by rbridges, i would say that the routed network security level is required.... any thoughts...? marcelo Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j121ovQ01994 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:50:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2005 17:59:58 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com [171.71.163.13]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j121onoQ013973 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from michsmitw2k02 ([10.34.37.29]) by mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BBN74825; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:50:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200502020150.BBN74825@mira-sjc5-f.cisco.com> From: "Michael Smith" <michsmit@cisco.com> To: "'Developing a hybrid router/bridge.'" <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Updated charter Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 17:50:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 Thread-Index: AcUIt/alyqjZHbx7QH24ttJ7w07JBgAEEV9A X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: michsmit@cisco.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: michsmit@cisco.com, "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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:54:19 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2766 > From: Erik Nordmark > > Joe Touch wrote: > > > While I cannot argue with the motivation, I don't think this is a > > place where we can "eat our cake and have it too". IMO, briding > > dissimilar MTUs might be possible, but bridging different > L2 address > > spaces implies a common address space, which means > something very much > > like IP (with all the warts noted above). > > > > FWIW, if we end up peeking into L3 to get this done, then > we ought to > > call it a router and be done with it. > > The charter calls it neither a router nor a bridge, but a hybrid. > > The solutions that have been discussed will replace the L2 > headers (at least in some cases, and encapsulate in another > L2 header in some cases), and not decrement the L3 TTL, which > is different than a bridge (which doesn't replace the L2 > header) and a router (which decrements TTL). Some specific examples may help clarify, but the above statement sounds like the traditional bridge of yore i.e. bridges with ethernet and token ring interfaces that swap MAC headers to the appropriate canonical format and encapsulating bridging packets over ATM and Frame Relay using RFC1483 and RFC1490. Michael > > Is there a problem with the devices being hybrids? > They will preserve the behavior that an IP packet injected at > one end of > the link will appear unmodified at the other end. > > > > Optimizing is one thing, but talking about specifics (involving > > flooding) or not is where the charter is getting a bit overspecific. > > Ack. Let me see what additional comments Margaret receives > from the IESG > and IAB. > > > As to the last bullet, see RFC1812, which IMO provides > exactly the L3 > > operations that interconnect disparate L2s. > > > >> FYI: Some more IAB/IESG comments have come in asking for more > >> clarifications on the relationship between this WG and the routing > >> protocol WG(s), so we will most likely need more detail on > that front > >> in the charter. > > > > > > Agreed. This doesn't appear to discuss the encapsulation of routing > > within the rbridge - that it is necessarily opaque to other routing > > protocols, e.g., BGP in ways unlike other routing protocols. > > Do you mean opaque to the routing protocol used to carry IP > reachability? (where the ipvlx routing protocol carries L2 address > reachability) > Or something different? > > > Concrete list of work items, agreed. > > > > Concrete list of approaches to those work items is the task > of the WG, IMO. > > I'll make another pass over the charter and hopefully fix this. > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j120s6Q14689; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:54:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420024A9.1020308@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:54:01 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4A0EFA413916A050477FEE0E" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:55:33 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3427 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4A0EFA413916A050477FEE0E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Nordmark wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: > >> While I cannot argue with the motivation, I don't think this is a >> place where we can "eat our cake and have it too". IMO, briding >> dissimilar MTUs might be possible, but bridging different L2 address >> spaces implies a common address space, which means something very much >> like IP (with all the warts noted above). >> >> FWIW, if we end up peeking into L3 to get this done, then we ought to >> call it a router and be done with it. > > The charter calls it neither a router nor a bridge, but a hybrid. > > The solutions that have been discussed will replace the L2 headers (at > least in some cases, and encapsulate in another L2 header in some > cases), and not decrement the L3 TTL, which is different than a bridge > (which doesn't replace the L2 header) and a router (which decrements TTL). > > Is there a problem with the devices being hybrids? > They will preserve the behavior that an IP packet injected at one end of > the link will appear unmodified at the other end. The basis of the Internet is a single address layer that spans different link layers. There are numerous problems stemming from the rbridge basically needing to proxy the semantics of two different L2 systems. What you're proposing is a router that doesn't decrement the TTL. That's not the same as a bridge that uses routing (vs. spanning tree) internally; the former doesn't include L2 semantics, the latter does. The latter presumes a single L2 semantics, which is easy to verify. The former (as you suggest) allows multiple L2s, but does NOT preserve L2 semantics. That means a lot of IP will break where/when the L2s have different semantics, e.g., NBMA vs. broadcast. We don't have a uniform L2 emulation protocol on which to base an interoperability layer (the PILC WG noted some of its expected properties, but didn't spec it out as such). This work seems like it should avoid L2 translation until that canonical virtual L2 can be spec'd. ... >>> FYI: Some more IAB/IESG comments have come in asking for more >>> clarifications on the relationship between this WG and the routing >>> protocol WG(s), so we will most likely need more detail on that front >>> in the charter. >> >> Agreed. This doesn't appear to discuss the encapsulation of routing >> within the rbridge - that it is necessarily opaque to other routing >> protocols, e.g., BGP in ways unlike other routing protocols. > > Do you mean opaque to the routing protocol used to carry IP > reachability? (where the ipvlx routing protocol carries L2 address > reachability) > Or something different? That the routing inside the rbridge is opaque to things outside the rbridge. Joe --------------enig4A0EFA413916A050477FEE0E 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 iD8DBQFCACSqE5f5cImnZrsRAtuUAJ9Kmux5UbEffRpteUGVcmPo97WV9gCfW3Bk tkyJ1ecJUZP2u9QNaqHwpj0= =8b2H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4A0EFA413916A050477FEE0E-- 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 j11NboQ22296 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:37:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.17.55]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j11NbnVu003547 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:37:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.9.61.11] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j11NbnsW908987; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:37:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420012A1.9070007@sun.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:37:05 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:39:01 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2144 Joe Touch wrote: > While I cannot argue with the motivation, I don't think this is a place > where we can "eat our cake and have it too". IMO, briding dissimilar > MTUs might be possible, but bridging different L2 address spaces implies > a common address space, which means something very much like IP (with > all the warts noted above). > > FWIW, if we end up peeking into L3 to get this done, then we ought to > call it a router and be done with it. The charter calls it neither a router nor a bridge, but a hybrid. The solutions that have been discussed will replace the L2 headers (at least in some cases, and encapsulate in another L2 header in some cases), and not decrement the L3 TTL, which is different than a bridge (which doesn't replace the L2 header) and a router (which decrements TTL). Is there a problem with the devices being hybrids? They will preserve the behavior that an IP packet injected at one end of the link will appear unmodified at the other end. > Optimizing is one thing, but talking about specifics (involving > flooding) or not is where the charter is getting a bit overspecific. Ack. Let me see what additional comments Margaret receives from the IESG and IAB. > As to the last bullet, see RFC1812, which IMO provides exactly the L3 > operations that interconnect disparate L2s. > >> FYI: Some more IAB/IESG comments have come in asking for more >> clarifications on the relationship between this WG and the routing >> protocol WG(s), so we will most likely need more detail on that front >> in the charter. > > > Agreed. This doesn't appear to discuss the encapsulation of routing > within the rbridge - that it is necessarily opaque to other routing > protocols, e.g., BGP in ways unlike other routing protocols. Do you mean opaque to the routing protocol used to carry IP reachability? (where the ipvlx routing protocol carries L2 address reachability) Or something different? > Concrete list of work items, agreed. > > Concrete list of approaches to those work items is the task of the WG, IMO. I'll make another pass over the charter and hopefully fix this. Erik Received: from [192.168.1.47] (lsanca1-ar42-4-61-185-150.lsanca1.dsl-verizon.net [4.61.185.150]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j11MvnQ11748; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:57:49 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42000967.7000700@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:57:43 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.1.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig69DD4763F6BD5673533869E8" X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:58:36 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4037 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig69DD4763F6BD5673533869E8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Nordmark wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: > >> Why is interconnection of different L2 technologies either useful or >> relevant? IMO, that's not a bridge anymore. >> >> I thought the goal was to build something that looked like a bridge from >> the outside. Interconnecting different L2's (different address formats, >> TTLs, etc.) is a router, isn't it? > > There were folks that expressed interest in this at the BoF, and I > suspect the motivation is the same as for the rest of the work i.e. > avoid the subnet numbering issue one has with IP routers, have the > plug&play of bridges, and a robust protocol. While I cannot argue with the motivation, I don't think this is a place where we can "eat our cake and have it too". IMO, briding dissimilar MTUs might be possible, but bridging different L2 address spaces implies a common address space, which means something very much like IP (with all the warts noted above). FWIW, if we end up peeking into L3 to get this done, then we ought to call it a router and be done with it. >> Also, some of the charter is over-specific: >> >> | The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide >> | - Optimizations so that ARP and ND packets are not always >> | flooded everywhere >> | - Being able to carry IP multicast packets using flooding (which will >> | presumably fall out by being able to flood L2 multicast packets, so >> there >> | might not be any specific work needed here). >> | - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 >> technologies >> >> IMO, if we want to include, in general terms "optimizations to avoid >> unnecessary flooding", or "ability to efficiently handle multicast", >> that's good, but specifying HOW those should be achieved, or what >> defined efficient, IMO is what the WG ought to decide. > > Margaret has been circulating the draft charter amount the IAB and IESG > in advance of it being on their agenda (next week). > The above items were added because Rob Austein thought the charter was > quite nebulous on what was needed in terms of L3, so I tried to clarify > things. > > My take is that optimizing multicast delivery above just making it work, > is something which a WG can look into once they've delivered the basic > technology i.e. something that would be reasonable to add after a > recharter. Optimizing is one thing, but talking about specifics (involving flooding) or not is where the charter is getting a bit overspecific. As to the last bullet, see RFC1812, which IMO provides exactly the L3 operations that interconnect disparate L2s. > FYI: Some more IAB/IESG comments have come in asking for more > clarifications on the relationship between this WG and the routing > protocol WG(s), so we will most likely need more detail on that front in > the charter. Agreed. This doesn't appear to discuss the encapsulation of routing within the rbridge - that it is necessarily opaque to other routing protocols, e.g., BGP in ways unlike other routing protocols. >> Similar comments apply to the list of work items. > > My experience is that the IESG wants to see a concrete list of work > items before they want to charter a WG. Concrete list of work items, agreed. Concrete list of approaches to those work items is the task of the WG, IMO. Joe --------------enig69DD4763F6BD5673533869E8 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 iD8DBQFCAAlnE5f5cImnZrsRAud2AKDif0+WwpxBZJCOR4xiRdhkyRR3cgCg8Knj eWAQPqIPMFy94iJ1TRN9F80= =SDML -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig69DD4763F6BD5673533869E8-- Received: from smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.187]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j11MZ9Q05582 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:35:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 22:35:07 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:36:12 -0800 Message-ID: <000f01c508ae$6fa20cf0$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <42000186.6020600@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org Cc: Subject: [rbridge] IPvLX acronym and URLs X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:36:58 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 286 I have reserved the acronym "IPvLX" and domain names 'ipvlx.{com,org,net}' with the intention of turning them over at any time the chairs feel they are ready to begin using them for the WG's efforts - just let me know when you'd like to take them over, Erik. Fred fltemplin@acm.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j11MONQ02823 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:24:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.88.31]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j11MO9pv014674; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:24:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j11MO6f5880548; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:24:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42000186.6020600@sun.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:24:06 -0800 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: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> In-Reply-To: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] Re: Updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:24:33 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 576 Fred L. Templin wrote: > Erik, > > The updated Rbridge charter you posted on 1/27/05 doesn't say anything > about MTU issues for bridging dissimilar layer 2 media. Can we have a > bullet under work items and deliverables that specifically calls for > work on MTU issues? Perhaps it isn't a separable deliverable, but instead a goal for the solution to work when the MTUs are different, which might be the case even for L2s that use the same address format (such as one Ethernet with and one Ethernet without jumbo frame support) I can add this to the charter. 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 j11MLqQ02078 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:21:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.87.31]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j11MLqiI006105 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:21:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.146.89.82] (par.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.89.82]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j11MLljo880021; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:21:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <420000FB.5030303@sun.com> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:21:47 -0800 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> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> In-Reply-To: <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:22:33 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2248 Joe Touch wrote: > Why is interconnection of different L2 technologies either useful or > relevant? IMO, that's not a bridge anymore. > > I thought the goal was to build something that looked like a bridge from > the outside. Interconnecting different L2's (different address formats, > TTLs, etc.) is a router, isn't it? There were folks that expressed interest in this at the BoF, and I suspect the motivation is the same as for the rest of the work i.e. avoid the subnet numbering issue one has with IP routers, have the plug&play of bridges, and a robust protocol. > Also, some of the charter is over-specific: > > | The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide > | - Optimizations so that ARP and ND packets are not always > | flooded everywhere > | - Being able to carry IP multicast packets using flooding (which will > | presumably fall out by being able to flood L2 multicast packets, so > there > | might not be any specific work needed here). > | - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 > technologies > > IMO, if we want to include, in general terms "optimizations to avoid > unnecessary flooding", or "ability to efficiently handle multicast", > that's good, but specifying HOW those should be achieved, or what > defined efficient, IMO is what the WG ought to decide. Margaret has been circulating the draft charter amount the IAB and IESG in advance of it being on their agenda (next week). The above items were added because Rob Austein thought the charter was quite nebulous on what was needed in terms of L3, so I tried to clarify things. My take is that optimizing multicast delivery above just making it work, is something which a WG can look into once they've delivered the basic technology i.e. something that would be reasonable to add after a recharter. FYI: Some more IAB/IESG comments have come in asking for more clarifications on the relationship between this WG and the routing protocol WG(s), so we will most likely need more detail on that front in the charter. > Similar comments apply to the list of work items. My experience is that the IESG wants to see a concrete list of work items before they want to charter a WG. Erik Received: from [128.9.168.55] (upn.isi.edu [128.9.168.55]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j11K15Q17356; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 12:01:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <41FFE070.3080405@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:02:56 -0800 From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Updated charter References: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> In-Reply-To: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:03:08 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2134 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Fred L. Templin wrote: | Erik, | | The updated Rbridge charter you posted on 1/27/05 doesn't say anything | about MTU issues for bridging dissimilar layer 2 media. Can we have a | bullet under work items and deliverables that specifically calls for | work on MTU issues? | | Fred | fltemplin@acm.org That part of the proposed charter, notably: | The working group will look into solutions that can interconnect different | layer 2 technologies, and also look at providing support for non-IP protocols, | even though one can not combine those two features together; the | interconnection of different layer 2 technologies (with different layer 2 | address formats) will most likely only work for the IP family of protocols. Why is interconnection of different L2 technologies either useful or relevant? IMO, that's not a bridge anymore. I thought the goal was to build something that looked like a bridge from the outside. Interconnecting different L2's (different address formats, TTLs, etc.) is a router, isn't it? - ---- Also, some of the charter is over-specific: | The working group will not work any layer 3 aspects except to provide | - Optimizations so that ARP and ND packets are not always | flooded everywhere | - Being able to carry IP multicast packets using flooding (which will | presumably fall out by being able to flood L2 multicast packets, so there | might not be any specific work needed here). | - Defining the L3 operations needed to interconnect different L2 technologies IMO, if we want to include, in general terms "optimizations to avoid unnecessary flooding", or "ability to efficiently handle multicast", that's good, but specifying HOW those should be achieved, or what defined efficient, IMO is what the WG ought to decide. Similar comments apply to the list of work items. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB/+BwE5f5cImnZrsRAjbgAJ9703XR7CGqFqkso+2kCK2/m7g7yQCg5RLI JaxkiK8bI97zofOyoDnZcoM= =Pb2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.187]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with SMTP id j11JkWQ13414 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from unknown (HELO grayling) (osprey67@63.197.18.101 with login) by smtp808.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2005 19:46:31 -0000 From: "Fred L. Templin" <fltemplin@acm.org> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:47:37 -0800 Message-ID: <000901c50896$e2619610$6401a8c0@grayling> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: fltemplin@acm.org Cc: Subject: [rbridge] Updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:48:31 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 263 Erik, The updated Rbridge charter you posted on 1/27/05 doesn't say anything about MTU issues for bridging dissimilar layer 2 media. Can we have a bullet under work items and deliverables that specifically calls for work on MTU issues? Fred fltemplin@acm.org
- [rbridge] Agenda items? Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] Agenda items? Erik Nordmark
- [rbridge] Agenda items? Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Agenda items? Erik Nordmark
- [rbridge] Agenda items? marcelo bagnulo braun
- [rbridge] Updating Expired Draft Margaret Wasserman