[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-----