[rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (trill)
touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Fri, 17 June 2005 16:16 UTC
From: "touch at ISI.EDU"
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:16:13 -0700
Subject: [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (trill)
In-Reply-To: <42B2CF0F.1040904@cisco.com>
References: <200506151852.OAA14446@ietf.org> <108401c571f5$47520150$72849ed9@Puppy> <42B1E9F8.8080608@cisco.com> <014f01c572ba$261103e0$7f849ed9@Puppy> <42B27577.3080107@cisco.com> <022a01c57332$18697290$7f849ed9@Puppy> <42B2CF0F.1040904@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <42B2F74D.3050003@isi.edu>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 W. Mark Townsley wrote: > > Adrian Farrel wrote: > > >> > In any case, given that ISIS is not mentioned in the TRILL charter, and >> > presumably that we haven't actually made the choice of *which* routing >> > protocol TRILL will use at the charter level, I agree that this reference >> > should be removed. >> >>OK, that makes sense. Thanks. >> >>It occurs to me that a fundamental difference between CCAMP and TRILL >>may be that (at this stage) CCAMP assumes the existence of an IP-based >>control plane. TRILL will (presumably? possibly?) > > I believe "presumably," at least that is my understanding thus far. The idea > that there is at least one mode of operation that passes packets right "out of > the box" is fundamental. Certainly, an IP address needs to exist on the node for > it to be properly managed, but it seems that this is *after* its connection to > the network has started to cause big problems ;-) > > > determine that the > >>routing protocol should be carried direct over the MAC layer. >>Nevertheless, we will probably want to flood the same or similar >>information about the links. > > Yes, I think that this is the part that we should be sure to collaborate on. If > CCAMP has already provided extensions to routing protocols to flood MACs, we > should probably try and do it as similarly as possible for the poor coders out > there that will end up doing both, while ensuring we have the proper code-points > in place to avoid stepping on one another where it hurts. > > Thanks, > > - Mark My impression is that TRILL is an architecture into which CCAMP might be plugged, but not necessarily exclusively CCAMP. I don't see any conflict or need to differentiate if that's the case. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCsvdNE5f5cImnZrsRAvYqAKDCAnAsHC/mwi5wkrvDSJaKl2LPhwCfY9Q7 hnNJTxQkTkkQuS/0lnhOZLA= =CsGn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … W. Mark Townsley
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … Joe Touch
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … W. Mark Townsley
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … W. Mark Townsley
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … Joe Touch
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection … Margaret Wasserman
- [trill] WG Review: Transparent Interconnection of… The IESG