[rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection
touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Fri, 18 March 2005 15:13 UTC
From: "touch at ISI.EDU"
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:13:59 -0800
Subject: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection
In-Reply-To: <1d30c01c52b96$d89a0b30$8310fe81@etri.info>
References: <1d30c01c52b96$d89a0b30$8310fe81@etri.info>
Message-ID: <423AF037.1000905@isi.edu>
CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > Dear Joe Touch, > > Thak you for your prompt response :-) > > Joe wrote: > >>>oh.I see.. >>>so, you argue that rbridge shouldn't prob end-station for liveness test >>>or terminals shouldn't report status, but do link-status update >>>as frequently as MAC entries appear in rbridge's MAC table, right? >> >>The last step does not follow from the first. The updates need to happen >>relatively quickly when changes appear, but there may be delays to >>aggregate changes and avoid routing storms that would be triggered by a >>series of MAC changes. > > ok.. now we came back to the point that begins this mail thread. > on Thu Mar 3 15:36:48 PST 2005, Alex Zinin started this discussion > with following question. > > "..MAC address info would account for the largest portion of information > distributed in the link-state routing protocol running in rbridges. Hence, > it's important to understand the change dynamics for it, as this will affect > how much information will be flooded around, and as a result affect > scalability of the technology. Without trying to pin it down here and now, I'd > like to understand what we can and can't get here." > > so, my question is same. > what are the characteristics of your "delayed update" approach? IMO, similar to that of a set of learning bridges. I want to make sure that an rbridge campus doesn't flood broadcasts [to discover new, otherwise silent nodes] into its access links just to reduce broadcasts internally. > I think your proposal of "delay for aggregate changes" or other's "probing/reporting" > are in-effect different optimization technique of simple dynamic link-state update. > they both have pros and cons. I think it needs to be cleared before you guys > move to next step. I agree that however new nodes are discovered - via probing, snooping source MAC addresses, or peeking into ARP queries/replies - that the impact of these changes on the routing need to be considered, including the impact of aggregation and hysteresis of the routing updates. > (% oh, by the way, Alex's text is not copywrited, isn't it? ;-) > > >>>Reading past discussion on this mail thread, it seems other >>>people have little bit different idea. >> >>Yes, but they have not considered (IMO) the full impact of the >>optimization on the L2 devices attached to an rbridge. Probing is fine >>when L2 devices are directly attached, but when two rbridge campuses are >>connected, or when L2 devices connect to conventional bridged subnets >>then to an rbridge campus, such probing can cause broadcast storms on >>the attached subnets. >> >>It seems dangerous and inappropriate for an rbridge to try to avoid >>internal broadcasts by periodically issuing external broadcasts, but I >>haven't see anyone who has proposed this optimization address the >>situation I raised as a counterexample. > > that point will be noted as a weakness of probing technique, together > with my point of unnecessary buildup of MAC info. > to clear my position, I don't think both probing and delayed update > are so good solution for scalability. rbridge needs a third approach. There are three current approaches that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and all the pros and cons of each need to be addressed: - probing - snooping MAC sources (like current learning bridges) - snooping ARP content Is there a fourth approach that this list does not cover? >>>ok... anyway, let's suppose in your way that link-status update >>>will happen in that frequency, and see what problem you will face. >>>I am wondering if you know how often terminals broadcast ARP >>>and how frequently MAC entries are changing. >> >>I don't know, but also don't care. ;-) IMO, an rbridge could work if it >>does as well as a bridge, and bridges do not do periodic liveness tests. > > MAC learning in bridge is performed in wire speed using CAM memory. > However, link-status update and route calculation are complex procedure > that have to be executed in control plane. the overhead can not be compared. MAC learning also updates the spanning tree, which can be a complex control-plane procedure, and that is the correlary part of a learning bridge to the routing protocol updates. >>>suppose that rbridges are spreading ARP in a systematic way that >>>duplicates of ARPs are forwarded via SPF tree rooted at source rbridge. >>>intermediate rbridges remember upstream node. >>> >>>when the destination terminal replies ARP reply, the rbridges install MAC >>>forwarding state using the information contained in ARP message. >> >>You don't need to peek inside the ARP to figure anything out. The MAC >>addresses at issue (that might have changed) are in the source address >>of the ARP packet. > > I don't use ARP message as it is. I manipulate some values in ARP message. > it requires ARP snooping by intermediate nodes. I don't think anyone else has proposed manipulating ARP; that might or might not be 'on the table'. >>>the rbridge passes the ARP reply to upstream node, as a result, MAC forwarding >>>path is established between source and destination terminal. >> >>OK - how does that work for the first ARP? The routing tables are empty. >>So you distribute the arp via SPF - SPF isn't a broadcast tree. You need >>to use broadcast on the first ARP, or it will never reach the dest. > > Good question !!! > In my method, ARP messages carry a routing metric field that records > path length the message has traversed. ARPs are broadcast ;-) That's a lot of work... > When a switch receives ARP request, it increments the metric value > and spreads duplicates of the message blindly to all output links. > Other switches that receive this ARP also repeat the same procedure. > If a switch receives duplicates of ARP more than once, it repeats the copy and > broadcast action ONLY WHEN the metric value (i.e. path length) is *SMALL*. > As a result, only the message that has traversed via *shortest path* > is accepted finally and propagate network. Why are you using ARP for route distribution? Rbridge is intended (IMO) to see how we can use existing routing protocols inside. If there is a new one, it needs to be described in more detail than just an email, and proposed to the group as an alternative to existing routing... > For example in diagram below, switch S4 may receive ARP > messages from S2 and S3. Whichever arrives first, S4 selects > the one with smallest metric in the end. In the diagram, > it is the ARP that S3 has passed to S4 (m=2). > > ARP(m=3) > [S1]-----------[S2] > | | > ARP(m=1) | ARP(m=2) | ARP(m=3) > [Ta]----------[S3]-----------[S4]------------[Tb] > > see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal-00.txt > for detail. > > >>The return ARP goes directly to the source of the original ARP. But you >>didn't add anything to the routing tables yet, because you describe >>doing this only for ARP replies. The return ARP has no way to get back! >> > > > In my method, intermediate switches must record the upstream node > that has passed ARP of the lowest metric value. > ARP reply is returned hop-by-hop. When a switch receives ARP reply, > the switch install MAC forwarding state and passes > the ARP reply only to the upstream node of the lowest metric value. > As a result, MAC forwarding path of shortest-path between source > and destination is established. > This routing method has been proven by simulation and published in > several papers. Citations would help ;-) As would an ID proposing it as a standard, if it is being considered in this context. >>>For your information, the goal of Pbridge is briefly stated in section >>>1.1 Scope of 802.1ad as following; >> >>You are forwarding proprietary specs of the IEEE. Please check copyright >>issues before doing so again (it would be useful for this list not to >>get into trouble with the IEEE)... > > thank you for reminding me. > I'll be more careful when I excerpt other's. > > >>>>>In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of >>>>>systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. >>>>>I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks >>>>>and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. >>>> >>>>I think you have that backwards; I would have rbridges of groups of >>>>10,000 and IP routers between the groups. >>> >>>you misunderstand the nature of market requirement. >>>it's not just a matter of scalability but matter of management and policy. >>>network managers need a tool to group people and control >>>privilege of accessing a group. >> >>Describe how that works on a set of learning bridges. > > ok. it may not be easy in current design of rbridge, > however in my method, > the connectivity between terminals is established using ARP. > therefore switches may control connectivity by filtering > ARP messages according to policy. > of course this filtering action is performed in control plane and > data plane still works in L2. > there are many types of policy implementable using the method. > for example, network managers may group terminals into subnet. > switches inside the subnet do not need to configure any subnet info. > only the border switches of a subnet need this information to > filter ARPs arriving from outside. > It will effectively reduce broadcast storm and help to improve security. Those two assertions don't necessarily relate to each other... ;-) >>>two, IEEE pbridge will scale better. >>>three, processing overhead at that scale will seriously be heavy. >> >>If you think a pbridge is a better solution, why are you here? If we >>change rbridge enough to make it look like a pbridge, we're done - just >>go to the IEEE ;-) >> >>Joe > > to clear my position, I am NEVER a proponent of IEEE pbridge. > I don't think IEEE pbridge will be so scalable. > It also doesn't fit to NGN market requirement exactly. > I'd rather think rbridge may have more potential if it make use of > IP scalability and control well. > Note that IP scalability is mostly achieved from flexible addressing structure > that IETF has developed for many years of experience. > If rbridge doesn't successfully employ this good features of routers, > people will see rbridge just as another pbridge. > Overall, it seems like you have a proposal for an alternative for how routing is done inside an rbridge. You need to document it as a protocol spec, and see what people think of it. It would be useful to consider how legacy systems will be supported (e.g., legacy bridges inside an rbridge campus!), as well as the pros and cons of the approach in your writeup. I look forward to evaluating the draft when it is available. Joe -------------- 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/20050318/e774b674/signature.bin Received: from [206.117.27.252] (host252.tethered.net [206.117.27.252]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2IFELq00703; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:14:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <423AF037.1000905@isi.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:13:59 -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: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <1d30c01c52b96$d89a0b30$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <1d30c01c52b96$d89a0b30$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enigFC7464FF9C6C389000372FE1" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:15:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 11660 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigFC7464FF9C6C389000372FE1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > Dear Joe Touch, > > Thak you for your prompt response :-) > > Joe wrote: > >>>oh.I see.. >>>so, you argue that rbridge shouldn't prob end-station for liveness test >>>or terminals shouldn't report status, but do link-status update >>>as frequently as MAC entries appear in rbridge's MAC table, right? >> >>The last step does not follow from the first. The updates need to happen >>relatively quickly when changes appear, but there may be delays to >>aggregate changes and avoid routing storms that would be triggered by a >>series of MAC changes. > > ok.. now we came back to the point that begins this mail thread. > on Thu Mar 3 15:36:48 PST 2005, Alex Zinin started this discussion > with following question. > > "..MAC address info would account for the largest portion of information > distributed in the link-state routing protocol running in rbridges. Hence, > it's important to understand the change dynamics for it, as this will affect > how much information will be flooded around, and as a result affect > scalability of the technology. Without trying to pin it down here and now, I'd > like to understand what we can and can't get here." > > so, my question is same. > what are the characteristics of your "delayed update" approach? IMO, similar to that of a set of learning bridges. I want to make sure that an rbridge campus doesn't flood broadcasts [to discover new, otherwise silent nodes] into its access links just to reduce broadcasts internally. > I think your proposal of "delay for aggregate changes" or other's "probing/reporting" > are in-effect different optimization technique of simple dynamic link-state update. > they both have pros and cons. I think it needs to be cleared before you guys > move to next step. I agree that however new nodes are discovered - via probing, snooping source MAC addresses, or peeking into ARP queries/replies - that the impact of these changes on the routing need to be considered, including the impact of aggregation and hysteresis of the routing updates. > (% oh, by the way, Alex's text is not copywrited, isn't it? ;-) > > >>>Reading past discussion on this mail thread, it seems other >>>people have little bit different idea. >> >>Yes, but they have not considered (IMO) the full impact of the >>optimization on the L2 devices attached to an rbridge. Probing is fine >>when L2 devices are directly attached, but when two rbridge campuses are >>connected, or when L2 devices connect to conventional bridged subnets >>then to an rbridge campus, such probing can cause broadcast storms on >>the attached subnets. >> >>It seems dangerous and inappropriate for an rbridge to try to avoid >>internal broadcasts by periodically issuing external broadcasts, but I >>haven't see anyone who has proposed this optimization address the >>situation I raised as a counterexample. > > that point will be noted as a weakness of probing technique, together > with my point of unnecessary buildup of MAC info. > to clear my position, I don't think both probing and delayed update > are so good solution for scalability. rbridge needs a third approach. There are three current approaches that are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and all the pros and cons of each need to be addressed: - probing - snooping MAC sources (like current learning bridges) - snooping ARP content Is there a fourth approach that this list does not cover? >>>ok... anyway, let's suppose in your way that link-status update >>>will happen in that frequency, and see what problem you will face. >>>I am wondering if you know how often terminals broadcast ARP >>>and how frequently MAC entries are changing. >> >>I don't know, but also don't care. ;-) IMO, an rbridge could work if it >>does as well as a bridge, and bridges do not do periodic liveness tests. > > MAC learning in bridge is performed in wire speed using CAM memory. > However, link-status update and route calculation are complex procedure > that have to be executed in control plane. the overhead can not be compared. MAC learning also updates the spanning tree, which can be a complex control-plane procedure, and that is the correlary part of a learning bridge to the routing protocol updates. >>>suppose that rbridges are spreading ARP in a systematic way that >>>duplicates of ARPs are forwarded via SPF tree rooted at source rbridge. >>>intermediate rbridges remember upstream node. >>> >>>when the destination terminal replies ARP reply, the rbridges install MAC >>>forwarding state using the information contained in ARP message. >> >>You don't need to peek inside the ARP to figure anything out. The MAC >>addresses at issue (that might have changed) are in the source address >>of the ARP packet. > > I don't use ARP message as it is. I manipulate some values in ARP message. > it requires ARP snooping by intermediate nodes. I don't think anyone else has proposed manipulating ARP; that might or might not be 'on the table'. >>>the rbridge passes the ARP reply to upstream node, as a result, MAC forwarding >>>path is established between source and destination terminal. >> >>OK - how does that work for the first ARP? The routing tables are empty. >>So you distribute the arp via SPF - SPF isn't a broadcast tree. You need >>to use broadcast on the first ARP, or it will never reach the dest. > > Good question !!! > In my method, ARP messages carry a routing metric field that records > path length the message has traversed. ARPs are broadcast ;-) That's a lot of work... > When a switch receives ARP request, it increments the metric value > and spreads duplicates of the message blindly to all output links. > Other switches that receive this ARP also repeat the same procedure. > If a switch receives duplicates of ARP more than once, it repeats the copy and > broadcast action ONLY WHEN the metric value (i.e. path length) is *SMALL*. > As a result, only the message that has traversed via *shortest path* > is accepted finally and propagate network. Why are you using ARP for route distribution? Rbridge is intended (IMO) to see how we can use existing routing protocols inside. If there is a new one, it needs to be described in more detail than just an email, and proposed to the group as an alternative to existing routing... > For example in diagram below, switch S4 may receive ARP > messages from S2 and S3. Whichever arrives first, S4 selects > the one with smallest metric in the end. In the diagram, > it is the ARP that S3 has passed to S4 (m=2). > > ARP(m=3) > [S1]-----------[S2] > | | > ARP(m=1) | ARP(m=2) | ARP(m=3) > [Ta]----------[S3]-----------[S4]------------[Tb] > > see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal-00.txt > for detail. > > >>The return ARP goes directly to the source of the original ARP. But you >>didn't add anything to the routing tables yet, because you describe >>doing this only for ARP replies. The return ARP has no way to get back! >> > > > In my method, intermediate switches must record the upstream node > that has passed ARP of the lowest metric value. > ARP reply is returned hop-by-hop. When a switch receives ARP reply, > the switch install MAC forwarding state and passes > the ARP reply only to the upstream node of the lowest metric value. > As a result, MAC forwarding path of shortest-path between source > and destination is established. > This routing method has been proven by simulation and published in > several papers. Citations would help ;-) As would an ID proposing it as a standard, if it is being considered in this context. >>>For your information, the goal of Pbridge is briefly stated in section >>>1.1 Scope of 802.1ad as following; >> >>You are forwarding proprietary specs of the IEEE. Please check copyright >>issues before doing so again (it would be useful for this list not to >>get into trouble with the IEEE)... > > thank you for reminding me. > I'll be more careful when I excerpt other's. > > >>>>>In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of >>>>>systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. >>>>>I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks >>>>>and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. >>>> >>>>I think you have that backwards; I would have rbridges of groups of >>>>10,000 and IP routers between the groups. >>> >>>you misunderstand the nature of market requirement. >>>it's not just a matter of scalability but matter of management and policy. >>>network managers need a tool to group people and control >>>privilege of accessing a group. >> >>Describe how that works on a set of learning bridges. > > ok. it may not be easy in current design of rbridge, > however in my method, > the connectivity between terminals is established using ARP. > therefore switches may control connectivity by filtering > ARP messages according to policy. > of course this filtering action is performed in control plane and > data plane still works in L2. > there are many types of policy implementable using the method. > for example, network managers may group terminals into subnet. > switches inside the subnet do not need to configure any subnet info. > only the border switches of a subnet need this information to > filter ARPs arriving from outside. > It will effectively reduce broadcast storm and help to improve security. Those two assertions don't necessarily relate to each other... ;-) >>>two, IEEE pbridge will scale better. >>>three, processing overhead at that scale will seriously be heavy. >> >>If you think a pbridge is a better solution, why are you here? If we >>change rbridge enough to make it look like a pbridge, we're done - just >>go to the IEEE ;-) >> >>Joe > > to clear my position, I am NEVER a proponent of IEEE pbridge. > I don't think IEEE pbridge will be so scalable. > It also doesn't fit to NGN market requirement exactly. > I'd rather think rbridge may have more potential if it make use of > IP scalability and control well. > Note that IP scalability is mostly achieved from flexible addressing structure > that IETF has developed for many years of experience. > If rbridge doesn't successfully employ this good features of routers, > people will see rbridge just as another pbridge. > Overall, it seems like you have a proposal for an alternative for how routing is done inside an rbridge. You need to document it as a protocol spec, and see what people think of it. It would be useful to consider how legacy systems will be supported (e.g., legacy bridges inside an rbridge campus!), as well as the pros and cons of the approach in your writeup. I look forward to evaluating the draft when it is available. Joe --------------enigFC7464FF9C6C389000372FE1 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 iD8DBQFCOvA3E5f5cImnZrsRAlvOAJwIabq65udDHTtPN0DF1XOu7OtHNQCeI/bZ sdkWlCqyyHQp52/qnzIH/7U= =IISo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigFC7464FF9C6C389000372FE1-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2I8ijq07031 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:45:33 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection thread-index: AcUrltiXtOcaF5s5SFG0KqzcZVfecw== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:45:32 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <1d30c01c52b96$d89a0b30$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2005 08:45:33.0102 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8B904E0:01C52B96] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 18 Mar 2005 08:45:23 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 8808 Dear Joe Touch, Thak you for your prompt response :-) Joe wrote: >> >> oh.I see.. >> so, you argue that rbridge shouldn't prob end-station for liveness test >> or terminals shouldn't report status, but do link-status update >> as frequently as MAC entries appear in rbridge's MAC table, right? > >The last step does not follow from the first. The updates need to happen >relatively quickly when changes appear, but there may be delays to >aggregate changes and avoid routing storms that would be triggered by a >series of MAC changes. > ok.. now we came back to the point that begins this mail thread. on Thu Mar 3 15:36:48 PST 2005, Alex Zinin started this discussion with following question. "..MAC address info would account for the largest portion of information distributed in the link-state routing protocol running in rbridges. Hence, it's important to understand the change dynamics for it, as this will affect how much information will be flooded around, and as a result affect scalability of the technology. Without trying to pin it down here and now, I'd like to understand what we can and can't get here." so, my question is same. what are the characteristics of your "delayed update" approach? I think your proposal of "delay for aggregate changes" or other's "probing/reporting" are in-effect different optimization technique of simple dynamic link-state update. they both have pros and cons. I think it needs to be cleared before you guys move to next step. (% oh, by the way, Alex's text is not copywrited, isn't it? ;-) >> Reading past discussion on this mail thread, it seems other >> people have little bit different idea. > >Yes, but they have not considered (IMO) the full impact of the >optimization on the L2 devices attached to an rbridge. Probing is fine >when L2 devices are directly attached, but when two rbridge campuses are >connected, or when L2 devices connect to conventional bridged subnets >then to an rbridge campus, such probing can cause broadcast storms on >the attached subnets. > >It seems dangerous and inappropriate for an rbridge to try to avoid >internal broadcasts by periodically issuing external broadcasts, but I >haven't see anyone who has proposed this optimization address the >situation I raised as a counterexample. > that point will be noted as a weakness of probing technique, together with my point of unnecessary buildup of MAC info. to clear my position, I don't think both probing and delayed update are so good solution for scalability. rbridge needs a third approach. >> ok... anyway, let's suppose in your way that link-status update >> will happen in that frequency, and see what problem you will face. >> I am wondering if you know how often terminals broadcast ARP >> and how frequently MAC entries are changing. > >I don't know, but also don't care. ;-) IMO, an rbridge could work if it >does as well as a bridge, and bridges do not do periodic liveness tests. > MAC learning in bridge is performed in wire speed using CAM memory. However, link-status update and route calculation are complex procedure that have to be executed in control plane. the overhead can not be compared. >> >> suppose that rbridges are spreading ARP in a systematic way that >> duplicates of ARPs are forwarded via SPF tree rooted at source rbridge. >> intermediate rbridges remember upstream node. >> >> when the destination terminal replies ARP reply, the rbridges install MAC >> forwarding state using the information contained in ARP message. > >You don't need to peek inside the ARP to figure anything out. The MAC >addresses at issue (that might have changed) are in the source address >of the ARP packet. > I don't use ARP message as it is. I manipulate some values in ARP message. it requires ARP snooping by intermediate nodes. >> the rbridge passes the ARP reply to upstream node, as a result, MAC forwarding >> path is established between source and destination terminal. > >OK - how does that work for the first ARP? The routing tables are empty. >So you distribute the arp via SPF - SPF isn't a broadcast tree. You need >to use broadcast on the first ARP, or it will never reach the dest. > Good question !!! In my method, ARP messages carry a routing metric field that records path length the message has traversed. When a switch receives ARP request, it increments the metric value and spreads duplicates of the message blindly to all output links. Other switches that receive this ARP also repeat the same procedure. If a switch receives duplicates of ARP more than once, it repeats the copy and broadcast action ONLY WHEN the metric value (i.e. path length) is *SMALL*. As a result, only the message that has traversed via *shortest path* is accepted finally and propagate network. For example in diagram below, switch S4 may receive ARP messages from S2 and S3. Whichever arrives first, S4 selects the one with smallest metric in the end. In the diagram, it is the ARP that S3 has passed to S4 (m=2). ARP(m=3) [S1]-----------[S2] | | ARP(m=1) | ARP(m=2) | ARP(m=3) [Ta]----------[S3]-----------[S4]------------[Tb] see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal-00.txt for detail. >The return ARP goes directly to the source of the original ARP. But you >didn't add anything to the routing tables yet, because you describe >doing this only for ARP replies. The return ARP has no way to get back! > In my method, intermediate switches must record the upstream node that has passed ARP of the lowest metric value. ARP reply is returned hop-by-hop. When a switch receives ARP reply, the switch install MAC forwarding state and passes the ARP reply only to the upstream node of the lowest metric value. As a result, MAC forwarding path of shortest-path between source and destination is established. This routing method has been proven by simulation and published in several papers. >> For your information, the goal of Pbridge is briefly stated in section >> 1.1 Scope of 802.1ad as following; > >You are forwarding proprietary specs of the IEEE. Please check copyright >issues before doing so again (it would be useful for this list not to >get into trouble with the IEEE)... > thank you for reminding me. I'll be more careful when I excerpt other's. >>>>In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of >>>>systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. >>>>I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks >>>>and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. >>> >>>I think you have that backwards; I would have rbridges of groups of >>>10,000 and IP routers between the groups. >> >> you misunderstand the nature of market requirement. >> it's not just a matter of scalability but matter of management and policy. >> network managers need a tool to group people and control >> privilege of accessing a group. > >Describe how that works on a set of learning bridges. ok. it may not be easy in current design of rbridge, however in my method, the connectivity between terminals is established using ARP. therefore switches may control connectivity by filtering ARP messages according to policy. of course this filtering action is performed in control plane and data plane still works in L2. there are many types of policy implementable using the method. for example, network managers may group terminals into subnet. switches inside the subnet do not need to configure any subnet info. only the border switches of a subnet need this information to filter ARPs arriving from outside. It will effectively reduce broadcast storm and help to improve security. >> two, IEEE pbridge will scale better. >> three, processing overhead at that scale will seriously be heavy. > >If you think a pbridge is a better solution, why are you here? If we >change rbridge enough to make it look like a pbridge, we're done - just >go to the IEEE ;-) > >Joe > to clear my position, I am NEVER a proponent of IEEE pbridge. I don't think IEEE pbridge will be so scalable. It also doesn't fit to NGN market requirement exactly. I'd rather think rbridge may have more potential if it make use of IP scalability and control well. Note that IP scalability is mostly achieved from flexible addressing structure that IETF has developed for many years of experience. If rbridge doesn't successfully employ this good features of routers, people will see rbridge just as another pbridge. Thank you Regards Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from [70.212.14.185] (185.sub-70-212-14.myvzw.com [70.212.14.185]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2HGQAq28073; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:26:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4239AF98.8010109@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:26:00 -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: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <11f1701c52ac8$3db67280$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <11f1701c52ac8$3db67280$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enigC303B6F71839B74E484DD819" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:27:18 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 17214 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC303B6F71839B74E484DD819 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > > Dear Joe Touch, > > >>>>>1) ARP is sent actively to probe an inactive terminal and obtain MAC info, >>>>>right? >>>> >>>>No. Not in general, and I haven't heard that proposed as a way to make >>>>the rbridge work. > > oh, didn't you? > In chapter 4 section C of Radia's Infocom paper, it is clearly > stated that: > > ". the DR (rbridge) can periodically issue ARP queries for D (destination), > to reassure itself that D still resides on its LAN" > > maybe you wrote the rbridge draft without reading Radia's paper. > > Also, if you read past thread of this discussion, you'll see Radia, Alex, > Russ are all discussing about some probing method. So far I have heard it as a way to optimize rbridge's routing info, but not required to make it work. I should have been more specific with my statement, agreed. Even so, I disagree that it is useful for optimization. Not all authors agree on every word of a doc sometimes ;-) >>>>New MAC addresses are noticed by seeing packets enter the rbridge with >>>>new (MAC) source addresses, the same as with a learning bridge. >>> >>>see following case; >>> >>>+----------+ >>>| rbridge |---[Hub1]----[Hub2]----[ 100s of terminals ] >>>+----------+ >>> >>>suppose the rbridge once learned MAC info of 100s of terminals. >>>rbidge will periodically advertise location of 100s of terminals >>>using link-status protocol. after a while, some are switched off, >>>some are hibernated and some are just busy on local work. >>>the rbridge must advertise aliveness of active terminals. >>>how does rbridge know which terminal is active and which is dead? >> >>It knows because it hears traffic FROM those terminals. It times-out >>idle entries, just like a learning bridge. > > oh.I see.. > so, you argue that rbridge shouldn't prob end-station for liveness test > or terminals shouldn't report status, but do link-status update > as frequently as MAC entries appear in rbridge's MAC table, right? The last step does not follow from the first. The updates need to happen relatively quickly when changes appear, but there may be delays to aggregate changes and avoid routing storms that would be triggered by a series of MAC changes. > Is it your own opinion, or a conclusion reached by consensus? We haven't started the work of the WG. It is my opinion, but based on work we did in PILC where we did examine this issue in detail, and conclusion was reached by consensus. It may or may not apply here, but that is for the WG to decide. > Reading past discussion on this mail thread, it seems other > people have little bit different idea. Yes, but they have not considered (IMO) the full impact of the optimization on the L2 devices attached to an rbridge. Probing is fine when L2 devices are directly attached, but when two rbridge campuses are connected, or when L2 devices connect to conventional bridged subnets then to an rbridge campus, such probing can cause broadcast storms on the attached subnets. It seems dangerous and inappropriate for an rbridge to try to avoid internal broadcasts by periodically issuing external broadcasts, but I haven't see anyone who has proposed this optimization address the situation I raised as a counterexample. > ok... anyway, let's suppose in your way that link-status update > will happen in that frequency, and see what problem you will face. > I am wondering if you know how often terminals broadcast ARP > and how frequently MAC entries are changing. I don't know, but also don't care. ;-) IMO, an rbridge could work if it does as well as a bridge, and bridges do not do periodic liveness tests. > In my company, my terminal is attached in a VLAN that includes > about 100 terminals. When I capture Ethernet frames, I see nearly > 2 ~ 3 ARP broadcasts at every second. > > If 100 terminals produce 2~3 ARPs per second, a rbridged network > of 50,000 terminals will cause 1000 ~ 1500 link-status update > and route calculation at every second. As (far) above, that amount of update isn't required; the routing tables can be updated quickly, but not triggered per se by every single MAC change. Further, just because some party loses or times-out an ARP cache and does an ARP broadcast does _not_ mean that the related MAC addresses (source or dest) have moved. The routing table needs to be updated only if something moves. > Of course all rbridges > must perform the calculation simultaneously. In fact, the overhead > is doubled if the link-status info is fed from destination rbridge > by ARP reply, and from source rbridge by L2 frame. > > I am wondering what system can handle this processing overhead. > This is the scalability issue that Alex has pointed out at the beginning > of this mail thread, and people suggested methods to reduce this > overhead, such as end-station probing or reporting. > I think dynamic state update without optimization is no better idea. See above - I don't think the situtation you describe causes problems. >>>>>Why does rbridge try to >>>>>build up MAC table although it is possible that the MAC info can be >>>>>installed on bridges on-demand when ARP is actually exchanged between source >>>> >>>>and >>>> >>>>>destination ? Of course if we use ARP for this purpose instead of link-status >>>> >>>>protocol. >>>> >>>>I think of it the way you do - on-demand, the way learning bridges work. >>> >>>and then what happen? why did you stop thinking of this method. >>>what problem did you face? I have a solution. I want to share my idea. >> >>My understanding is that an rbridge will learn the ingress of a MAC >>address when it sees packets enter that ingress with that MAC address as >>an L2 packet source address. >> >>The arrival of the address means we learn it and propagate its routing >>info. End stations need not use ARP to learn an address (it may be >>loaded out-of-band, e.g.), so once we know where to send a MAC address >>we should expect to handle it at -any- ingress, not just the one that >>sent (or did not send) an ARP. > > suppose that rbridges are spreading ARP in a systematic way that > duplicates of ARPs are forwarded via SPF tree rooted at source rbridge. > intermediate rbridges remember upstream node. > > when the destination terminal replies ARP reply, the rbridges install MAC > forwarding state using the information contained in ARP message. You don't need to peek inside the ARP to figure anything out. The MAC addresses at issue (that might have changed) are in the source address of the ARP packet. > the rbridge passes the ARP reply to upstream node, as a result, MAC forwarding > path is established between source and destination terminal. OK - how does that work for the first ARP? The routing tables are empty. So you distribute the arp via SPF - SPF isn't a broadcast tree. You need to use broadcast on the first ARP, or it will never reach the dest. The return ARP goes directly to the source of the original ARP. But you didn't add anything to the routing tables yet, because you describe doing this only for ARP replies. The return ARP has no way to get back! --- Alternately if you install the source MAC along the broadcast tree when the first ARP goes through (leaving breadcrumbs to get home), then the return ARP will go back same broadcast tree. So all routes will be installed on the same broadcast tree. That's basically how a learning bridge works, and what we're trying to avoid - use of only a single broadcast tree for all traffic. > there's no need for MAC learning, no need for propagation of MAC info. > in summary, ARP is used for distribution of MAC info as well as for > shortest path establishment in a integrated, lightweight method. > isn't it simple than broadcasting link-status update separately? > > you may read http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal- > 00.txt > for detail of my idea, although the draft wasn't written for rbridge in mind. > I'm thinking to submit edited version for rbridge, if people are not so negative > on my idea. It doesn't appear to help, because it appears to behave like existing learning bridges... (or please correct the above conclusions). >>>>>"Divide local network by IP subnets. Pass ARP between rbridges in a way >>>>>that prevent looping and reduce unnecessary flooding and via shortest path. >>>>>The shortest -path, I mean, is according to subnets and other information. >>>> >>>>That's not an rbridge; that's a set of routers. >>> >>>what's your criteria of distinguishing hybrid switch and router? >>>for me, a router requires IP processing function in data forwarder, whereas, >>>hybrid switch is a machine providing IP equivalent service using L2 hardware. >> >>L2 - forwards based on L2 information >>L3 - forwards based on L3 information >> >>There are hybrids, but an rbridge from the _outside_ looks like (IMO) an >>L2 device, not a hybrid. Internally it makes use of L3-derived routing >>protocols for distributing encapsulation information and forwarding entries. > > I see no difference of your definition and my concept of hybrid switch > except the *encapsulation* part that you still insist. Agreed. > my proposal makes use of L3 information (i.e. IP subnet) internally configured > in control plane. the subnet info is used for controlling range of ARP > broadcast and for imposing policy between group of terminals. > it is in effect a L2 forwarding machine because MAC forwarding state > is stored on data plane using ARP. Agreed, and I disagree that this is either what an rbridge is or what would be useful. > this is just a different way of using ARP than your design of rbridge. > you have no reason to call your rbridge is the only pure hybrid and others are > kind of router solution. The encapsulation part _is_ the reason. >>>the concept of employing IP aware protocol over L2 hardware is same >>>as rbridge and my proposal. read the above text carefully. I just talked ARP, >>>shortest-path and subnet. Isn't that a bit different way of using ARP >>>compared to rbridge that you drafted? and you spell it router.... >> >>It is different, and not what I think we're talking about. > > yes, it is not the way you are thinking. > however the objective and scope of work are exactly matching to > what is described in drafted charter, except the *encapsulation* part. Definitely agreed. >>>what defined in RFC2644 is service termination of L2 at routers. >>>I am sure some objective of rbridge is to replace the role of >>>routers, >> >>It is to replace the role of existing bridges. It is not to provide L3 >>services. > > do you mean that rbridge will never replace in-campus routers? I think it will replace them only where they are used relucantly because a bridge system didn't scale. I don't think they will replace all uses of routers. > note that routers are heavily used in campus network. > typical configuration of campus network are mesh or ring of > local backbone routers and there are only one or two levels of bridged > trees under the backbone cloud. there's not much room for routing at the > bridged trees, because most traffic go through local backbone. > this typical configuration is basically same in metro-Ethernet. > hence, not much practical benefit is expected from > replacing the low-cost bridges to rbridges. > furthermore, unless you remove the local routers, you'll not > achieve the advantage of no-renumbering in migration. Agreed. In that case, we want to replace the routers. But it is because we could have tried to use bridges but they would have had spanning trees that slowly converted. > I think right target of rbridge is local backbone routers > and metro-backbone L3 switches. OK - I agree with that too, but I don't agree that we will expect L3 services at rbridges. >>>I am wondering, somehow, you think one whole rbridge domain >>>should be one IP subnet. >> >>It might have overlapping non-interacting IP subnets (vlans), but yes, >>IMO IP subnets map to L2 nets. > > ....... > > >>>IEEE recently works on Provider Bridge >>>standard (802.1ad) of which the main objective is to replace L3 switches >>>to bridges. Main idea of pbridge is providing VLAN interconnectivity >>>between customer network using bridged provider network. >>> >>>I think IETF rbridge will eventually compete with IEEE pbridge in market. >>>In that case, I am wondering what grouping >>>method you will propose to be distinguished from IEEE pbridge. >> >>I am unable to access that spec; what little information indicates that >>pbridge is more like auto-managed vlans, and does not address the need >>for a replacement for spanning tree inside a set of bridges (esp. in >>being backward compatible with such). > > For your information, the goal of Pbridge is briefly stated in section > 1.1 Scope of 802.1ad as following; You are forwarding proprietary specs of the IEEE. Please check copyright issues before doing so again (it would be useful for this list not to get into trouble with the IEEE)... > "...... this standard specifies the operation of *MAC Bridges* > that support VLANs. To this end it .... to enable a Service Provider > to use a Virtual Bridged Local Area Network to provide separate > instances of the 802 MAC Service, ...., to multiple independent customers, > in a manner that does not require cooperation among the users and that > requires a minimum of cooperation between the users and the provider > of MAC service, this standard further specifies the operation of > Provider Bridges. ..." > > IEEE does not replace spanning tree, but uses it more structured, > systematic and efficient way. multiple-spanning trees inside the provider > network provides near-shortest paths between customer networks. > furthermore, the scale of pbridged network can be up to metro-Etherent size. > I think it is necessary for TRILL people keep in mind of 802.1ad closely. So using separate spanning trees for different VLANs is what makes 802.1ad scale? But you need to use L3 routers to get between VLANs. This doesn't help a single L2 scale, it just means you can share hardware. This doesn't help what an rbridge is trying to do. >>>In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of >>>systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. >>>I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks >>>and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. >> >>I think you have that backwards; I would have rbridges of groups of >>10,000 and IP routers between the groups. > > you misunderstand the nature of market requirement. > it's not just a matter of scalability but matter of management and policy. > network managers need a tool to group people and control > privilege of accessing a group. Describe how that works on a set of learning bridges. > if you rely on routers for this function, rbridge will never make > any bit of market share. because network managers will still be using routers. If that is what they are using routers for, I agree. I don't agree that is the case of router use rbridges are trying to address. > you may think you can do it using VLAN, however, you'll see > lots of enemy once you start touching VLAN because > VLAN function and space is seriously limited, but many people > want to do lots of different things using VLAN. > > on the contrary, IETF has developed far scalable and flexible > concept of IP hierarchy. I don't understand why you don't > make use of this superior tool of IP subnetting for rbridge. Because it's not an rbridge anymore; it's a router. > IP subnet is friendly to router. it can be used for controlling > range of broadcast. it is a convenient tool for imposing internal policy and security. And it doesn't support mobility nearly as well as a single L2 subnet. > BTW, you may think 10,000 terminals is a good scale limit of rbridge, > however, it is no good figure at all. > one, single broadcast network of 10,000 terminal is unacceptable thing > to network managers. I disagree. > two, IEEE pbridge will scale better. > three, processing overhead at that scale will seriously be heavy. If you think a pbridge is a better solution, why are you here? If we change rbridge enough to make it look like a pbridge, we're done - just go to the IEEE ;-) Joe --------------enigC303B6F71839B74E484DD819 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 iD8DBQFCOa+YE5f5cImnZrsRAueCAKD067zF4trEm0ZeZfQa1ddRTktSWgCfZYMn aJkG5gmkWL5ZEZoc7LCbguU= =W5Tr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC303B6F71839B74E484DD819-- Received: from [70.212.14.185] (185.sub-70-212-14.myvzw.com [70.212.14.185]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2HFttq20558; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:55:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4239A886.1070605@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:55:50 -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: =?EUC-KR?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <11fb501c52ac8$a7e75a70$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <11fb501c52ac8$a7e75a70$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enig7718E711C259045F2679FCB2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:56:24 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 9417 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7718E711C259045F2679FCB2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ?????? wrote: > > Dear Joe Touch, > > > > >>>With this regard, I would like to ask what are the service objectives > >>>of rbridge given to end-users? It seems rbridge lacks commercially > >>>meaningful benefits to end-users, such as QoS, authentication, > >>>metering & charging, etc. > >>>How will rbridge protect guaranteed flows from abusive user or > >>>masquerading of service class? > >> > >>Please begin by explaining how any of these are currently provided by > >>arbitrary link layers. > > > >> QoS service is the prime requisite in any of upcoming network. > >> RFC2814, 2815, 2816 proposes a RSVP application over 802 networks > >> (i.e. bridged local network) for resource control. > >> Although not widely deployed, some company > >> supports use of RSVP in local network. If you are interested, you > may read > >> > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-lseframework-00.txt > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal-00.txt > >> > >> What rbridge lacks is the QoS service. > > > >These are _proposed_ applications of RSVP over 802, as well as _draft_ > >documents, so IMO bridges lack this service right now. > > The RFCs are proposed standard for resource control over bridged network. > RFC2816 has QoS mechanism on bridge, IEEE pbridge also has class of service, > but rbridge doesn't have such concept of service differentiation. > simple item to add when people compare related works on bridge QoS??. RFC2816 is an informational document, not a proposed standard. Further, by using L3-type routing protocols, it may be possible to support QoS inside an rbridge system as easily ;-) as it can be supported in the rest of the Internet. What would be needed would be a way to translate L2 QoS signalling at the rbridge edge to L3 QoS signalling inside, and that should be in scope for this WG, though perhaps not an initial target. > >> If rbridge is aiming the place of > >> next-generation bridge to replace legacy bridges, rbridge must > >> include such industry requirement whether this group likes it or not. > > > >I don't see a screaming industry requirement for this at the 802 level, > >where overprovisioning is the norm. Note that rbridges would have much > >higher internal bandwidth, because they can use multiple internal paths > >rather than just a single spanning tree, so amplify the overprovisioning > >that is already in use. > > have you ever talked with actual industry? > how much over-provisioning do you think you can *guarantee* reliable > commercial service via campus network. You need to review the rbridge document. We use the term 'campus' to describe a cluster of rbridges. The term has nothing to do with university deployment. And as to what industry is doing, where can I _buy_ QoS-based service? I can buy provisioned service, but not on-the-fly bandwidth reservation. > the correct answer is NOT AT ALL, because you have NO such mechanism. > in future network, people will receive TV, voice and data service via > single integrated network. This is a future I have been promised since 1983, when it was promised by ISDN. Then in 1988, it was promised by BISDN/ATM. Then in 1994 it was promised by RSVP. When I _see_ it, I will believe it. Until then, it will remain a promise. > ISPs will charge by usage per service. > it is obvious that network builders will choose equipment that has > at least a QoS solution. you can't sell anything without QoS in future > market. > over-provisioning is simply not an answer to market. It has been so far, and it is where telecom markets evolve - towards flat-rate, because it's easier to overprovision than to reserve, enforce, account, and charge. But that debate has been going on for 20 years (or more), and we don't need to have that here. Rbridges support QoS as easily (or not) as any L3 system. > >> Otherwise, IEEE pbridge or other alternatives will be favored by market. > >> Contrast to original scope of work on campus network, I think rbridge > >> is more meaningful to metro-Ethernet. There's clear need for L2 > solution. > >> rbridge may help ISPs reducing CAPEX if it is cheaper than L3 switches. > >> rbridge may also help to reduce OPEX if management is simple. > > > >The primary reason to use an rbridge vs. an L3 device is to avoid > >renumbering while moving. If that isn't a goal, IMO, an L3 device is > >more useful because routing tables can be more easily partitioned and > >broadcasts avoided. > > do you think network builders will replace L3 switch to rbridge > because in-campus mobility in rbridged network is better than > any mobility solution implemented in L3 product? Yes. > you haven't proposed any mobility mechanism that can convince > people rbridge mobility is superior to mobile IP. Moving ports on a single L2 subnet doesn't require L3 'mobility', because as far as L3 is concerned the device hasn't moved. Using a mobility mechanism that requires _no_ L3 support is preferred to using (not widely-supported) L3 mobility mechanisms. This is why large L2 subnets are being used, esp. for groups of mobile users (wireless within a city, or on a university or corporate campus). > The last factor determining market is always money. > If it is not cheaper, it can't replace something. > but if it doesn't have a function, it may still replace if it is cheaper. Agreed, but it is not clear that issue applies here. The additional capabilities needed for an rbridge vs conventional learning bridge are similar to the difference between learning bridges and hubs, where a cost differential still exists, but is both small and insufficient affect user's choice for the additional capability a learning bridge provides. I think we hope the same for rbridges vs. learning bridges. > >> It will > >> give great profit to ISP if rbridge has a capability to provide QoS > >> service and charge per usage. > > > >Because they're currently providing that service and they want it to > >scale? What I see is ISPs not offering QoS - but not because bridges > >don't support it. > > you keep thinking rbridge can only be bridge, but I keep saying > rbridge must be campus backbone machine. > you keep saying rbridge doesn't need QoS because bridges don't have. > however I keep saying rbridge need QoS because backbone routers > have QoS. > and I say that if rbridge can't replace backbone routers, no market at all. And I disagree. I think rbridges replace sets of bridges, with better capability as a result. When they replace routers, it is because routers were required to interconnect sets of bridges, not because routers were desired to support QoS. > >> The requirements in provider network > >> are a lot different than campus network. It needs to be defined in this > >> group prior to work. > > > >I don't agree that L2 systems run as a service need fundamentally > >different capabilites than L2 systems run by their user organization. > > read any list of functional requirements written by private organization > and commercial providers. they are a lot different. > it is unfortunate I can't show you evidence because most of documents > are confidential. I hope someone in this mailing list may show some > example. > > >>>Further, I haven't seen anyone else mention circuits here. Circuits are > >>>not used for switching packets to the endsystem (maybe that was their > >>>intent, but they're used more in the core for provisioning). Rbridges > >>>work more at the endsystem, where bridges work. As such, I doubt > >>>circuits will be either appropriate or useful anyway. > >> > >> I believe by now, you will notice what *virtual circuit* technology > >> I am trying to say. The circuit I referred is a dynamic (on-demand) > >> frame transmission path established across bridged network > >> using an interactive signaling between two communicating party. > >> In bridged networks, > > > >Yes - that was what ATM was supposed to be, and ATM is basically (IMO) > >dead. I don't believe it makes sense to consider MPLS for on-demand E2E > >circuits, but rather for aggregate provisioning. > > > >Again, I haven't seen anyone else mention the use of circuits in an > >rbridge system. Even _if_ there were interest, at best an rbridge system > >would need to support circuits AND conventional L3 routing in its > interior. > > > >Joe > > because no-one in rbridge has talked about QoS. QoS does not require circuits. If it does, then there would be no L3 support for QoS over non-circuit technologies - such as 802. If we want to talk about QoS, let's do that. But I still don't see a reason to talk about circuits. Joe --------------enig7718E711C259045F2679FCB2 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 iD8DBQFCOaiGE5f5cImnZrsRAhwfAJ4x4gnfrCf5+qnmcUwMM7PtbAtxXwCg6O84 fjAf4AQDUN1YHXY/kmvsPLo= =B8JM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7718E711C259045F2679FCB2-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2H88jq08611 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:08:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:09:35 +0900 Priority: normal X-ReadCheckName: rbridge%40postel.org Thread-Topic: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-ReadCheckMessageID: <1b450ac1-deb0-4a66-862f-f8f6c0cf3020@etri.re.kr> thread-index: AcUqyKflTldNMxW7SsiFSWqJbPVz2Q== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:09:34 +0900 Comment: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?x9GxucD8wNrF673Fv6yxuL/4LCBCY06x4rz6utC8rsbALCC047Tn?= Message-ID: <11fb501c52ac8$a7e75a70$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_11FB6_01C52B14.17CF0270" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2005 08:09:35.0074 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8065420:01C52AC8] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 17 Mar 2005 08:09:47 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 10891 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_11FB6_01C52B14.17CF0270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ------=_NextPart_000_11FB6_01C52B14.17CF0270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PERJViBpZD1tc2dib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQt RkFNSUxZOiCxvLiyIj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPkRlYXIg Sm9lIFRvdWNoLDwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0 OzxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDtXaXRoIHRoaXMgcmVnYXJkLCBJIHdvdWxkIGxp a2UgdG8gYXNrIHdoYXQgYXJlIHRoZSBzZXJ2aWNlIG9iamVjdGl2ZXM8QlI+ Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7b2YgcmJyaWRnZSBnaXZlbiB0byBlbmQtdXNlcnM/IEl0 IHNlZW1zIHJicmlkZ2UgbGFja3MgY29tbWVyY2lhbGx5PEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0O21lYW5pbmdmdWwgYmVuZWZpdHMgdG8gZW5kLXVzZXJzLCBzdWNoIGFz IFFvUywgYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24sPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0O21ldGVyaW5n ICZhbXA7IGNoYXJnaW5nLCBldGMuPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0O0hvdyB3aWxs IHJicmlkZ2UgcHJvdGVjdCBndWFyYW50ZWVkIGZsb3dzIGZyb20gYWJ1c2l2 ZSB1c2VyIG9yPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0O21hc3F1ZXJhZGluZyBvZiBzZXJ2 aWNlIGNsYXNzPzxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OzxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0O1BsZWFzZSBiZWdp biBieSBleHBsYWluaW5nIGhvdyBhbnkgb2YgdGhlc2UgYXJlIGN1cnJlbnRs eSBwcm92aWRlZCBieTxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0O2FyYml0cmFyeSBsaW5rIGxheWVy cy48QlI+Jmd0OzxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBRb1Mgc2VydmljZSBpcyB0aGUgcHJp bWUgcmVxdWlzaXRlIGluIGFueSBvZiB1cGNvbWluZyBuZXR3b3JrLjxCUj4m Z3Q7Jmd0OyBSRkMyODE0LCAyODE1LCAyODE2IHByb3Bvc2VzIGEgUlNWUCBh cHBsaWNhdGlvbiBvdmVyIDgwMiBuZXR3b3JrczxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyAoaS5l LiBicmlkZ2VkIGxvY2FsIG5ldHdvcmspIGZvciByZXNvdXJjZSBjb250cm9s LjxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBBbHRob3VnaCBub3Qgd2lkZWx5IGRlcGxveWVkLCBz b21lIGNvbXBhbnk8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgc3VwcG9ydHMgdXNlIG9mIFJTVlAg aW4gbG9jYWwgbmV0d29yay4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBpbnRlcmVzdGVkLCB5b3Ug bWF5IHJlYWQ8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IDxBIGhyZWY9Imh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWphaWh5 dW5nLWNjYW1wLWxzZWZyYW1ld29yay0wMC50eHQiPmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWphaWh5dW5nLWNjYW1wLWxz ZWZyYW1ld29yay0wMC50eHQ8L0E+PEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IDxBIGhyZWY9Imh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWphaWh5 dW5nLWNjYW1wLWFycHNpZ25hbC0wMC50eHQiPmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWphaWh5dW5nLWNjYW1wLWFycHNp Z25hbC0wMC50eHQ8L0E+PEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7PEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IFdoYXQg cmJyaWRnZSBsYWNrcyBpcyB0aGUgUW9TIHNlcnZpY2UuPEJSPiZndDs8QlI+ Jmd0O1RoZXNlIGFyZSBfcHJvcG9zZWRfIGFwcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBvZiBSU1ZQ IG92ZXIgODAyLCBhcyB3ZWxsIGFzIF9kcmFmdF88QlI+Jmd0O2RvY3VtZW50 cywgc28gSU1PIGJyaWRnZXMgbGFjayB0aGlzIHNlcnZpY2UgcmlnaHQgbm93 LjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEJSPlRoZSBSRkNz IGFyZSBwcm9wb3NlZCBzdGFuZGFyZCBmb3IgcmVzb3VyY2UgY29udHJvbCBv dmVyIGJyaWRnZWQgbmV0d29yay48QlI+UkZDMjgxNiBoYXMgUW9TIG1lY2hh bmlzbSBvbiBicmlkZ2UsIElFRUUgcGJyaWRnZSBhbHNvIGhhcyBjbGFzcyBv ZiBzZXJ2aWNlLDxCUj5idXQgcmJyaWRnZSBkb2Vzbid0IGhhdmUgc3VjaCBj b25jZXB0IG9mIHNlcnZpY2UgZGlmZmVyZW50aWF0aW9uLjxCUj5zaW1wbGUg aXRlbSB0byBhZGQgd2hlbiBwZW9wbGUgY29tcGFyZSByZWxhdGVkIHdvcmtz IG9uIGJyaWRnZSBRb1Ohpi48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8 RElWPjxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBJZiByYnJpZGdlIGlzIGFpbWluZyB0aGUgcGxh Y2Ugb2Y8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgbmV4dC1nZW5lcmF0aW9uIGJyaWRnZSB0byBy ZXBsYWNlIGxlZ2FjeSBicmlkZ2VzLCByYnJpZGdlIG11c3Q8QlI+Jmd0OyZn dDsgaW5jbHVkZSBzdWNoIGluZHVzdHJ5IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IHdoZXRoZXIg dGhpcyBncm91cCBsaWtlcyBpdCBvciBub3QuPEJSPiZndDs8QlI+Jmd0O0kg ZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIGEgc2NyZWFtaW5nIGluZHVzdHJ5IHJlcXVpcmVtZW50IGZv ciB0aGlzIGF0IHRoZSA4MDIgbGV2ZWwsPEJSPiZndDt3aGVyZSBvdmVycHJv dmlzaW9uaW5nIGlzIHRoZSBub3JtLiBOb3RlIHRoYXQgcmJyaWRnZXMgd291 bGQgaGF2ZSBtdWNoPEJSPiZndDtoaWdoZXIgaW50ZXJuYWwgYmFuZHdpZHRo LCBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZXkgY2FuIHVzZSBtdWx0aXBsZSBpbnRlcm5hbCBwYXRo czxCUj4mZ3Q7cmF0aGVyIHRoYW4ganVzdCBhIHNpbmdsZSBzcGFubmluZyB0 cmVlLCBzbyBhbXBsaWZ5IHRoZSBvdmVycHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nPEJSPiZndDt0 aGF0IGlzIGFscmVhZHkgaW4gdXNlLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48QlI+aGF2ZSB5 b3UgZXZlciB0YWxrZWQgd2l0aCBhY3R1YWwgaW5kdXN0cnk/PEJSPmhvdyBt dWNoIG92ZXItcHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIGRvIHlvdSB0aGluayB5b3UgY2FuICpn dWFyYW50ZWUqIHJlbGlhYmxlPEJSPmNvbW1lcmNpYWwgc2VydmljZSB2aWEg Y2FtcHVzIG5ldHdvcmsuIDxCUj50aGUgY29ycmVjdCBhbnN3ZXIgaXMgTk9U IEFUIEFMTCwgYmVjYXVzZSB5b3UgaGF2ZSBOTyBzdWNoIG1lY2hhbmlzbS48 QlI+aW4gZnV0dXJlIG5ldHdvcmssIHBlb3BsZSB3aWxsIHJlY2VpdmUgVFYs IHZvaWNlIGFuZCBkYXRhIHNlcnZpY2UgdmlhPEJSPnNpbmdsZSBpbnRlZ3Jh dGVkIG5ldHdvcmsuIElTUHMgd2lsbCBjaGFyZ2UgYnkgdXNhZ2UgcGVyIHNl cnZpY2UuPEJSPml0IGlzIG9idmlvdXMgdGhhdCBuZXR3b3JrIGJ1aWxkZXJz IHdpbGwgY2hvb3NlIGVxdWlwbWVudCB0aGF0IGhhczxCUj5hdCBsZWFzdCBh IFFvUyBzb2x1dGlvbi4geW91IGNhbid0IHNlbGwgYW55dGhpbmcgd2l0aG91 dCBRb1MgaW4gZnV0dXJlIG1hcmtldC48QlI+b3Zlci1wcm92aXNpb25pbmcg aXMgc2ltcGx5IG5vdCBhbiBhbnN3ZXIgdG8gbWFya2V0LjwvRElWPg0KPERJ Vj48QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgT3RoZXJ3aXNlLCBJRUVFIHBicmlkZ2Ugb3Igb3Ro ZXIgYWx0ZXJuYXRpdmVzIHdpbGwgYmUgZmF2b3JlZCBieSBtYXJrZXQuPEJS PiZndDsmZ3Q7IENvbnRyYXN0IHRvIG9yaWdpbmFsIHNjb3BlIG9mIHdvcmsg b24gY2FtcHVzIG5ldHdvcmssIEkgdGhpbmsgcmJyaWRnZTxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0 OyBpcyBtb3JlIG1lYW5pbmdmdWwgdG8gbWV0cm8tRXRoZXJuZXQuIFRoZXJl J3MgY2xlYXIgbmVlZCBmb3IgTDIgc29sdXRpb24uPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IHJi cmlkZ2UgbWF5IGhlbHAgSVNQcyByZWR1Y2luZyBDQVBFWCBpZiBpdCBpcyBj aGVhcGVyIHRoYW4gTDMgc3dpdGNoZXMuPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IHJicmlkZ2Ug bWF5IGFsc28gaGVscCB0byByZWR1Y2UgT1BFWCBpZiBtYW5hZ2VtZW50IGlz IHNpbXBsZS48QlI+Jmd0OzxCUj4mZ3Q7VGhlIHByaW1hcnkgcmVhc29uIHRv IHVzZSBhbiByYnJpZGdlIHZzLiBhbiBMMyBkZXZpY2UgaXMgdG8gYXZvaWQ8 QlI+Jmd0O3JlbnVtYmVyaW5nIHdoaWxlIG1vdmluZy4gSWYgdGhhdCBpc24n dCBhIGdvYWwsIElNTywgYW4gTDMgZGV2aWNlIGlzPEJSPiZndDttb3JlIHVz ZWZ1bCBiZWNhdXNlIHJvdXRpbmcgdGFibGVzIGNhbiBiZSBtb3JlIGVhc2ls eSBwYXJ0aXRpb25lZCBhbmQ8QlI+Jmd0O2Jyb2FkY2FzdHMgYXZvaWRlZC48 QlI+Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48QlI+ZG8geW91IHRoaW5rIG5ldHdvcmsg YnVpbGRlcnMgd2lsbCByZXBsYWNlIEwzIHN3aXRjaCB0byByYnJpZGdlPEJS PmJlY2F1c2UgaW4tY2FtcHVzIG1vYmlsaXR5IGluIHJicmlkZ2VkIG5ldHdv cmsgaXMgYmV0dGVyIHRoYW4gPEJSPmFueSBtb2JpbGl0eSBzb2x1dGlvbiBp bXBsZW1lbnRlZCBpbiBMMyBwcm9kdWN0PzxCUj55b3UgaGF2ZW4ndCBwcm9w b3NlZCBhbnkgbW9iaWxpdHkgbWVjaGFuaXNtIHRoYXQgY2FuIGNvbnZpbmNl PEJSPnBlb3BsZSByYnJpZGdlIG1vYmlsaXR5IGlzIHN1cGVyaW9yIHRvIG1v YmlsZSBJUC48QlI+VGhlIGxhc3QgZmFjdG9yIGRldGVybWluaW5nIG1hcmtl dCBpcyBhbHdheXMgbW9uZXkuIDxCUj5JZiBpdCBpcyBub3QgY2hlYXBlciwg aXQgY2FuJ3QgcmVwbGFjZSBzb21ldGhpbmcuPEJSPmJ1dCBpZiBpdCBkb2Vz bid0IGhhdmUgYSBmdW5jdGlvbiwgaXQgbWF5IHN0aWxsIHJlcGxhY2UgaWYg aXQgaXMgY2hlYXBlci48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IEl0IHdp bGw8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgZ2l2ZSBncmVhdCBwcm9maXQgdG8gSVNQIGlmIHJi cmlkZ2UgaGFzIGEgY2FwYWJpbGl0eSB0byBwcm92aWRlIFFvUzxCUj4mZ3Q7 Jmd0OyBzZXJ2aWNlIGFuZCBjaGFyZ2UgcGVyIHVzYWdlLjxCUj4mZ3Q7PEJS PiZndDtCZWNhdXNlIHRoZXkncmUgY3VycmVudGx5IHByb3ZpZGluZyB0aGF0 IHNlcnZpY2UgYW5kIHRoZXkgd2FudCBpdCB0bzxCUj4mZ3Q7c2NhbGU/IFdo YXQgSSBzZWUgaXMgSVNQcyBub3Qgb2ZmZXJpbmcgUW9TIC0gYnV0IG5vdCBi ZWNhdXNlIGJyaWRnZXM8QlI+Jmd0O2Rvbid0IHN1cHBvcnQgaXQuPEJSPiZn dDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEJSPnlvdSBrZWVwIHRoaW5raW5nIHJicmlkZ2Ug Y2FuIG9ubHkgYmUgYnJpZGdlLCBidXQgSSBrZWVwIHNheWluZzxCUj5yYnJp ZGdlIG11c3QgYmUgY2FtcHVzIGJhY2tib25lIG1hY2hpbmUuPEJSPnlvdSBr ZWVwIHNheWluZyByYnJpZGdlIGRvZXNuJ3QgbmVlZCBRb1MgYmVjYXVzZSBi cmlkZ2VzIGRvbid0IGhhdmUuPEJSPmhvd2V2ZXIgSSBrZWVwIHNheWluZyBy YnJpZGdlIG5lZWQgUW9TIGJlY2F1c2UgYmFja2JvbmUgcm91dGVyczxCUj5o YXZlIFFvUy48QlI+YW5kIEkgc2F5IHRoYXQgaWYgcmJyaWRnZSBjYW4ndCBy ZXBsYWNlIGJhY2tib25lIHJvdXRlcnMsIG5vIG1hcmtldCBhdCBhbGwuPC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPjxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBUaGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGluIHBy b3ZpZGVyIG5ldHdvcms8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgYXJlIGEgbG90IGRpZmZlcmVu dCB0aGFuIGNhbXB1cyBuZXR3b3JrLiBJdCBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBkZWZpbmVk IGluIHRoaXM8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgZ3JvdXAgcHJpb3IgdG8gd29yay48QlI+ Jmd0OzxCUj4mZ3Q7SSBkb24ndCBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IEwyIHN5c3RlbXMgcnVu IGFzIGEgc2VydmljZSBuZWVkIGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsbHk8QlI+Jmd0O2RpZmZl cmVudCBjYXBhYmlsaXRlcyB0aGFuIEwyIHN5c3RlbXMgcnVuIGJ5IHRoZWly IHVzZXIgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48QlI+cmVhZCBhbnkg bGlzdCBvZiBmdW5jdGlvbmFsIHJlcXVpcmVtZW50cyB3cml0dGVuIGJ5IHBy aXZhdGUgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uPEJSPmFuZCBjb21tZXJjaWFsIHByb3ZpZGVy cy4gdGhleSBhcmUgYSBsb3QgZGlmZmVyZW50LjxCUj5pdCBpcyB1bmZvcnR1 bmF0ZSBJIGNhbid0IHNob3cgeW91IGV2aWRlbmNlIGJlY2F1c2UgbW9zdCBv ZiBkb2N1bWVudHM8QlI+YXJlIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbC4gSSBob3BlIHNvbWVv bmUgaW4gdGhpcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QgbWF5IHNob3cgc29tZTxCUj5leGFt cGxlLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7RnVydGhlciwgSSBo YXZlbid0IHNlZW4gYW55b25lIGVsc2UgbWVudGlvbiBjaXJjdWl0cyBoZXJl LiBDaXJjdWl0cyBhcmU8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7bm90IHVzZWQgZm9yIHN3 aXRjaGluZyBwYWNrZXRzIHRvIHRoZSBlbmRzeXN0ZW0gKG1heWJlIHRoYXQg d2FzIHRoZWlyPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0O2ludGVudCwgYnV0IHRoZXkncmUg dXNlZCBtb3JlIGluIHRoZSBjb3JlIGZvciBwcm92aXNpb25pbmcpLiBSYnJp ZGdlczxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDt3b3JrIG1vcmUgYXQgdGhlIGVuZHN5c3Rl bSwgd2hlcmUgYnJpZGdlcyB3b3JrLiBBcyBzdWNoLCBJIGRvdWJ0PEJSPiZn dDsmZ3Q7Jmd0O2NpcmN1aXRzIHdpbGwgYmUgZWl0aGVyIGFwcHJvcHJpYXRl IG9yIHVzZWZ1bCBhbnl3YXkuPEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IDxCUj4mZ3Q7Jmd0OyBJ IGJlbGlldmUgYnkgbm93LCB5b3Ugd2lsbCBub3RpY2Ugd2hhdCAqdmlydHVh bCBjaXJjdWl0KiB0ZWNobm9sb2d5PEJSPiZndDsmZ3Q7IEkgYW0gdHJ5aW5n IHRvIHNheS4gVGhlIGNpcmN1aXQgSSByZWZlcnJlZCBpcyBhIGR5bmFtaWMg KG9uLWRlbWFuZCk8QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgZnJhbWUgdHJhbnNtaXNzaW9uIHBh dGggZXN0YWJsaXNoZWQgYWNyb3NzIGJyaWRnZWQgbmV0d29yazxCUj4mZ3Q7 Jmd0OyB1c2luZyBhbiBpbnRlcmFjdGl2ZSBzaWduYWxpbmcgYmV0d2VlbiB0 d28gY29tbXVuaWNhdGluZyBwYXJ0eS48QlI+Jmd0OyZndDsgSW4gYnJpZGdl ZCBuZXR3b3Jrcyw8QlI+Jmd0OzxCUj4mZ3Q7WWVzIC0gdGhhdCB3YXMgd2hh dCBBVE0gd2FzIHN1cHBvc2VkIHRvIGJlLCBhbmQgQVRNIGlzIGJhc2ljYWxs eSAoSU1PKTxCUj4mZ3Q7ZGVhZC4gSSBkb24ndCBiZWxpZXZlIGl0IG1ha2Vz IHNlbnNlIHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyIE1QTFMgZm9yIG9uLWRlbWFuZCBFMkU8QlI+ Jmd0O2NpcmN1aXRzLCBidXQgcmF0aGVyIGZvciBhZ2dyZWdhdGUgcHJvdmlz aW9uaW5nLjxCUj4mZ3Q7PEJSPiZndDtBZ2FpbiwgSSBoYXZlbid0IHNlZW4g YW55b25lIGVsc2UgbWVudGlvbiB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIGNpcmN1aXRzIGluIGFu PEJSPiZndDtyYnJpZGdlIHN5c3RlbS4gRXZlbiBfaWZfIHRoZXJlIHdlcmUg aW50ZXJlc3QsIGF0IGJlc3QgYW4gcmJyaWRnZSBzeXN0ZW08QlI+Jmd0O3dv dWxkIG5lZWQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBjaXJjdWl0cyBBTkQgY29udmVudGlvbmFs IEwzIHJvdXRpbmcgaW4gaXRzIGludGVyaW9yLjxCUj4mZ3Q7PEJSPiZndDtK b2U8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElW Pg0KPERJVj5iZWNhdXNlIG5vLW9uZSBpbiByYnJpZGdlIGhhcyB0YWxrZWQg YWJvdXQgUW9TLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48QlI+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElW PiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48QlI+DQo8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJ WkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiCxvLiyIj4NCjxESVY+DQo8RElWIHN0 eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiCxvLiyIj4NCjxE SVY+RHIuIEphaWh5dW5nIENobzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5FVFJJLCBLb3JlYTwv RElWPg0KPERJVj5waG9uZSA6Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7IDA0MikgODYwLTU1MTQ8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+b3ZlcnNlYTog KzgyLTQyLTg2MC01NTE0PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPmZheDombmJzcDsmbmJzcDsm bmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsrODIt NDItODYxLTU1NTAmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj48L0RJVj48L0RJVj48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+DQo8UD4mbmJzcDs8L1A+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PGltZyBzcmM9 Ik1haWxTY2FubmVyV2ViQnVnIiB3aWR0aD0iMCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIwIiBhbHQ9 IldlYiBCdWcgZnJvbSBodHRwOi8vdW1haWwuZXRyaS5yZS5rci9FeHRlcm5h bF9SZWFkQ2hlY2suYXNweD9lbWFpbD1yYnJpZGdlQHBvc3RlbC5vcmcmbmFt ZT1yYnJpZGdlJTQwcG9zdGVsLm9yZyZmcm9tZW1haWw9amFpaHl1bmdAZXRy aS5yZS5rciZtZXNzYWdlaWQ9JTNDMWI0NTBhYzEtZGViMC00YTY2LTg2MmYt ZjhmNmMwY2YzMDIwQGV0cmkucmUua3IlM0UiIC8+ ------=_NextPart_000_11FB6_01C52B14.17CF0270-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2H85nq08099 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:05:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:06:37 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection thread-index: AcUqyD2VTiY9GftlSBiyrd3SiC4mSQ== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:06:36 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <11f1701c52ac8$3db67280$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2005 08:06:37.0806 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E5D60E0:01C52AC8] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 17 Mar 2005 08:06:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 11642 Dear Joe Touch, >>>>1) ARP is sent actively to probe an inactive terminal and obtain MAC info, >>>>right? >>> >>>No. Not in general, and I haven't heard that proposed as a way to make >>>the rbridge work. oh, didn't you? In chapter 4 section C of Radia's Infocom paper, it is clearly stated that: ". the DR (rbridge) can periodically issue ARP queries for D (destination), to reassure itself that D still resides on its LAN" maybe you wrote the rbridge draft without reading Radia's paper. Also, if you read past thread of this discussion, you'll see Radia, Alex, Russ are all discussing about some probing method. >>>New MAC addresses are noticed by seeing packets enter the rbridge with >>>new (MAC) source addresses, the same as with a learning bridge. >> >> see following case; >> >> +----------+ >> | rbridge |---[Hub1]----[Hub2]----[ 100s of terminals ] >> +----------+ >> >> suppose the rbridge once learned MAC info of 100s of terminals. >> rbidge will periodically advertise location of 100s of terminals >> using link-status protocol. after a while, some are switched off, >> some are hibernated and some are just busy on local work. >> the rbridge must advertise aliveness of active terminals. >> how does rbridge know which terminal is active and which is dead? > >It knows because it hears traffic FROM those terminals. It times-out >idle entries, just like a learning bridge. oh.I see.. so, you argue that rbridge shouldn't prob end-station for liveness test or terminals shouldn't report status, but do link-status update as frequently as MAC entries appear in rbridge's MAC table, right? Is it your own opinion, or a conclusion reached by consensus? Reading past discussion on this mail thread, it seems other people have little bit different idea. ok... anyway, let's suppose in your way that link-status update will happen in that frequency, and see what problem you will face. I am wondering if you know how often terminals broadcast ARP and how frequently MAC entries are changing. In my company, my terminal is attached in a VLAN that includes about 100 terminals. When I capture Ethernet frames, I see nearly 2 ~ 3 ARP broadcasts at every second. If 100 terminals produce 2~3 ARPs per second, a rbridged network of 50,000 terminals will cause 1000 ~ 1500 link-status update and route calculation at every second. Of course all rbridges must perform the calculation simultaneously. In fact, the overhead is doubled if the link-status info is fed from destination rbridge by ARP reply, and from source rbridge by L2 frame. I am wondering what system can handle this processing overhead. This is the scalability issue that Alex has pointed out at the beginning of this mail thread, and people suggested methods to reduce this overhead, such as end-station probing or reporting. I think dynamic state update without optimization is no better idea. >>>>Why does rbridge try to >>>>build up MAC table although it is possible that the MAC info can be >>>>installed on bridges on-demand when ARP is actually exchanged between source >>>and >>>>destination ? Of course if we use ARP for this purpose instead of link-status >>>protocol. >>> >>>I think of it the way you do - on-demand, the way learning bridges work. >> >> and then what happen? why did you stop thinking of this method. >> what problem did you face? I have a solution. I want to share my idea. > >My understanding is that an rbridge will learn the ingress of a MAC >address when it sees packets enter that ingress with that MAC address as >an L2 packet source address. > >The arrival of the address means we learn it and propagate its routing >info. End stations need not use ARP to learn an address (it may be >loaded out-of-band, e.g.), so once we know where to send a MAC address >we should expect to handle it at -any- ingress, not just the one that >sent (or did not send) an ARP. suppose that rbridges are spreading ARP in a systematic way that duplicates of ARPs are forwarded via SPF tree rooted at source rbridge. intermediate rbridges remember upstream node. when the destination terminal replies ARP reply, the rbridges install MAC forwarding state using the information contained in ARP message. the rbridge passes the ARP reply to upstream node, as a result, MAC forwarding path is established between source and destination terminal. there's no need for MAC learning, no need for propagation of MAC info. in summary, ARP is used for distribution of MAC info as well as for shortest path establishment in a integrated, lightweight method. isn't it simple than broadcasting link-status update separately? you may read http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal- 00.txt for detail of my idea, although the draft wasn't written for rbridge in mind. I'm thinking to submit edited version for rbridge, if people are not so negative on my idea. >>>>"Divide local network by IP subnets. Pass ARP between rbridges in a way >>>>that prevent looping and reduce unnecessary flooding and via shortest path. >>>>The shortest -path, I mean, is according to subnets and other information. >>> >>>That's not an rbridge; that's a set of routers. >> >> what's your criteria of distinguishing hybrid switch and router? >> for me, a router requires IP processing function in data forwarder, whereas, >> hybrid switch is a machine providing IP equivalent service using L2 hardware. > >L2 - forwards based on L2 information >L3 - forwards based on L3 information > >There are hybrids, but an rbridge from the _outside_ looks like (IMO) an >L2 device, not a hybrid. Internally it makes use of L3-derived routing >protocols for distributing encapsulation information and forwarding entries. > I see no difference of your definition and my concept of hybrid switch except the *encapsulation* part that you still insist. my proposal makes use of L3 information (i.e. IP subnet) internally configured in control plane. the subnet info is used for controlling range of ARP broadcast and for imposing policy between group of terminals. it is in effect a L2 forwarding machine because MAC forwarding state is stored on data plane using ARP. this is just a different way of using ARP than your design of rbridge. you have no reason to call your rbridge is the only pure hybrid and others are kind of router solution. >> the concept of employing IP aware protocol over L2 hardware is same >> as rbridge and my proposal. read the above text carefully. I just talked ARP, >> shortest-path and subnet. Isn't that a bit different way of using ARP >> compared to rbridge that you drafted? and you spell it router.... > >It is different, and not what I think we're talking about. > yes, it is not the way you are thinking. however the objective and scope of work are exactly matching to what is described in drafted charter, except the *encapsulation* part. > >> what defined in RFC2644 is service termination of L2 at routers. >> I am sure some objective of rbridge is to replace the role of >> routers, > >It is to replace the role of existing bridges. It is not to provide L3 >services. > do you mean that rbridge will never replace in-campus routers? note that routers are heavily used in campus network. typical configuration of campus network are mesh or ring of local backbone routers and there are only one or two levels of bridged trees under the backbone cloud. there's not much room for routing at the bridged trees, because most traffic go through local backbone. this typical configuration is basically same in metro-Ethernet. hence, not much practical benefit is expected from replacing the low-cost bridges to rbridges. furthermore, unless you remove the local routers, you'll not achieve the advantage of no-renumbering in migration. I think right target of rbridge is local backbone routers and metro-backbone L3 switches. >> I am wondering, somehow, you think one whole rbridge domain >> should be one IP subnet. > >It might have overlapping non-interacting IP subnets (vlans), but yes, >IMO IP subnets map to L2 nets. ....... >> IEEE recently works on Provider Bridge >> standard (802.1ad) of which the main objective is to replace L3 switches >> to bridges. Main idea of pbridge is providing VLAN interconnectivity >> between customer network using bridged provider network. >> >> I think IETF rbridge will eventually compete with IEEE pbridge in market. >> In that case, I am wondering what grouping >> method you will propose to be distinguished from IEEE pbridge. > >I am unable to access that spec; what little information indicates that >pbridge is more like auto-managed vlans, and does not address the need >for a replacement for spanning tree inside a set of bridges (esp. in >being backward compatible with such). > For your information, the goal of Pbridge is briefly stated in section 1.1 Scope of 802.1ad as following; "...... this standard specifies the operation of *MAC Bridges* that support VLANs. To this end it .... to enable a Service Provider to use a Virtual Bridged Local Area Network to provide separate instances of the 802 MAC Service, ...., to multiple independent customers, in a manner that does not require cooperation among the users and that requires a minimum of cooperation between the users and the provider of MAC service, this standard further specifies the operation of Provider Bridges. ..." IEEE does not replace spanning tree, but uses it more structured, systematic and efficient way. multiple-spanning trees inside the provider network provides near-shortest paths between customer networks. furthermore, the scale of pbridged network can be up to metro-Etherent size. I think it is necessary for TRILL people keep in mind of 802.1ad closely. >> In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of >> systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. >> I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks >> and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. > >I think you have that backwards; I would have rbridges of groups of >10,000 and IP routers between the groups. > you misunderstand the nature of market requirement. it's not just a matter of scalability but matter of management and policy. network managers need a tool to group people and control privilege of accessing a group. if you rely on routers for this function, rbridge will never make any bit of market share. because network managers will still be using routers. you may think you can do it using VLAN, however, you'll see lots of enemy once you start touching VLAN because VLAN function and space is seriously limited, but many people want to do lots of different things using VLAN. on the contrary, IETF has developed far scalable and flexible concept of IP hierarchy. I don't understand why you don't make use of this superior tool of IP subnetting for rbridge. IP subnet is friendly to router. it can be used for controlling range of broadcast. it is a convenient tool for imposing internal policy and security. BTW, you may think 10,000 terminals is a good scale limit of rbridge, however, it is no good figure at all. one, single broadcast network of 10,000 terminal is unacceptable thing to network managers. two, IEEE pbridge will scale better. three, processing overhead at that scale will seriously be heavy. Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from [70.213.95.219] (219.sub-70-213-95.myvzw.com [70.213.95.219]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2FEdo610232; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:39:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4236F3AD.6000103@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:39:41 -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: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <2add801c52931$6267bff0$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <2add801c52931$6267bff0$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enigC40DC071B2E2A5D77FBD94C9" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:40:45 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 9388 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC40DC071B2E2A5D77FBD94C9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > Dear Joe, > > > >>CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > >>>1) ARP is sent actively to probe an inactive terminal and obtain MAC info, >>>right? >> >>No. Not in general, and I haven't heard that proposed as a way to make >>the rbridge work. >>New MAC addresses are noticed by seeing packets enter the rbridge with >>new (MAC) source addresses, the same as with a learning bridge. > > > see following case; > > +----------+ > |rbridge|---[Hub1]----[Hub2]----[ 100s of terminals ] > +----------+ > > suppose the rbridge once learned MAC info of 100s of terminals. > rbidge will periodically advertise location of 100s of terminals > using link-status protocol. after a while, some are switched off, > some are hibernated and some are just busy on local work. > the rbridge must advertise aliveness of active terminals. > how does rbridge know which terminal is active and which is dead? It knows because it hears traffic FROM those terminals. It times-out idle entries, just like a learning bridge. > in this case, monitoring data frame or sensing local link doesn't help. See above - that's what makes time-outs work. > you may not use active probing using ARP, however > you will need substitute method for rbridge's probing or > periodical reporting of active terminals, other than just MAC learning. I agree that active probing doesn't work, but neither does your assumption of hard state. You need soft state - state which times out. >>>3) The distributed MAC information is used for passing datagram to actual >>>destination. By the way, in most IP terminals, the first datagram sent to destination >>>terminal is, again...., ARP !!!! >> >>ARP is not sent to the destination; it is sent to broadcast. > > In the context above, "sent" means being transferred to > destination by any means, including broadcasting or multicasting or > any guided transfer method. > Arguing on syntax hardly helps on technical discussion. If my terminal sends a broadcast that includes your terminal's IP address inside, there is NO information about your MAC address to learn. All the system can learn is my MAC address - which it learns because it is the source address of a packet. When you send the ARP reply, it will contain your MAC address as the source of that packet, which is where (and when) it will be learned. It is sufficient to learn MAC addresses when seeing them as source addresses of L2 packets that enter the rbrige system. >>>- in other words, rbridges must keep up MAC address of all terminals in lookup table >>>although the actual number of MAC addresses other terminals need to know is only a >>>few of servers. >> >>No, again as above. > > as above of what reference? specific point please. > note that even in 802 bridges keep up all MAC addresses in all bridges > belong to same broadcast domain. MAC address is not aggregatable. > unless some VLAN grouping or IP subnetting is used, rbridges will > have the overhead of learning all MAC infos. The rbridge is going to keep the MAC addresses only of all actively speaking terminals. Others will timeout. (i.e., as to the first assertion that ARPs are used to probe for a complete list of all terminals, your item #1). >>>- the link-status protocol distributes MAC info which will be anyway known by >>>ARP when it is actually necessary by terminal. In other words, rbridge >>>uses ARP and link-status protocol to know the information that will be known >>>by ARP? >> >>No, again as above. > > also, please be specific. As I mentioned above in the description of how learning works (even in an rbridge), rbridge doesn't care about ARP per se; all it cares about is the source MAC address of packets. There is no need to peek at ARP. >>>Why does rbridge try to >>>build up MAC table although it is possible that the MAC info can be >>>installed on bridges on-demand when ARP is actually exchanged between source >>and >>>destination ? Of course if we use ARP for this purpose instead of link-status >>protocol. >> >>I think of it the way you do - on-demand, the way learning bridges work. > > and then what happen? why did you stop thinking of this method. > what problem did you face? I have a solution. I want to share my idea. My understanding is that an rbridge will learn the ingress of a MAC address when it sees packets enter that ingress with that MAC address as an L2 packet source address. The arrival of the address means we learn it and propagate its routing info. End stations need not use ARP to learn an address (it may be loaded out-of-band, e.g.), so once we know where to send a MAC address we should expect to handle it at -any- ingress, not just the one that sent (or did not send) an ARP. >>>"Divide local network by IP subnets. Pass ARP between rbridges in a way >>>that prevent looping and reduce unnecessary flooding and via shortest path. >>>The shortest -path, I mean, is according to subnets and other information. >> >>That's not an rbridge; that's a set of routers. > > what's your criteria of distinguishing hybrid switch and router? > for me, a router requires IP processing function in data forwarder, whereas, > hybrid switch is a machine providing IP equivalent service using L2 hardware. L2 - forwards based on L2 information L3 - forwards based on L3 information There are hybrids, but an rbridge from the _outside_ looks like (IMO) an L2 device, not a hybrid. Internally it makes use of L3-derived routing protocols for distributing encapsulation information and forwarding entries. > the concept of employing IP aware protocol over L2 hardware is same > as rbridge and my proposal. read the above text carefully. I just talked ARP, > shortest-path and subnet. Isn't that a bit different way of using ARP > compared to rbridge that you drafted? and you spell it router.... It is different, and not what I think we're talking about. >>>ARP will be flooded in destination subnet anyway. >> >>ARP will not flood beyond the first IP subnet; see RFCs 1812 (don't >>forward all 1's broadcast, which is ARP) and RFC 2644 (don't even >>forward subnet-directed broadcasts). > > what defined in RFC2644 is service termination of L2 at routers. > I am sure some objective of rbridge is to replace the role of > routers, It is to replace the role of existing bridges. It is not to provide L3 services. > and extend the range of L2 service (including ARP) across > rbridged LANs. Yes, all L2 services should be handled across a group of rbridges, just as they would be over a group of bridges. > In that case, RFC2644 is not exactly relevant to > new concept of hybrid switch. Perhaps - that may be an interesting new WG. This WG, IMO, is not focused on a device which provides a hybrid external service, however, so this is out of scope. > I am wondering, somehow, you think one whole rbridge domain > should be one IP subnet. It might have overlapping non-interacting IP subnets (vlans), but yes, IMO IP subnets map to L2 nets. > If so. (though not sure of your opinion) > as Alex noted, I must point out that the size of one rbridge cloud > can be more than 50,000 terminals if rbridge is used in metro-Ethernet. > Currently metro-Ethernet ISPs use L3 switches > to tackle scaling problem. Yes - partly because spanning tree doesn't scale. > IEEE recently works on Provider Bridge > standard (802.1ad) of which the main objective is to replace L3 switches > to bridges. Main idea of pbridge is providing VLAN interconnectivity > between customer network using bridged provider network. > > I think IETF rbridge will eventually compete with IEEE pbridge in market. > In that case, I am wondering what grouping > method you will propose to be distinguished from IEEE pbridge. I am unable to access that spec; what little information indicates that pbridge is more like auto-managed vlans, and does not address the need for a replacement for spanning tree inside a set of bridges (esp. in being backward compatible with such). > In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of > systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. > I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks > and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. I think you have that backwards; I would have rbridges of groups of 10,000 and IP routers between the groups. FWIW, IMO rbridges might scale better than bridges, but they will never scale as well as routers. That's OK, though - routers require renumbering when migrating, and rbridges/bridges do not. There's the tradeoff... Joe --------------enigC40DC071B2E2A5D77FBD94C9 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 iD8DBQFCNvOtE5f5cImnZrsRAu4EAKDmCH8Bs4ADMoqjnJGg8MYUdKoAvwCgt5uV HtTO8pnLDWxFbx30PoPFc2Q= =9hc2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC40DC071B2E2A5D77FBD94C9-- Received: from [70.213.95.219] (219.sub-70-213-95.myvzw.com [70.213.95.219]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2FE20626723; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:02:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4236EAD1.7010004@isi.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:01:53 -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: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <2c88f01c5293e$36a177f0$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <2c88f01c5293e$36a177f0$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enig83FF6321D5DF7EDFB43BC344" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:02:14 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5140 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig83FF6321D5DF7EDFB43BC344 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > Dear Joe Touch, > > > >>>With this regard, I would like to ask what are the service objectives >>>of rbridge given to end-users? It seems rbridge lacks commercially >>>meaningful benefits to end-users, such as QoS, authentication, >>>metering & charging, etc. >>>How will rbridge protect guaranteed flows from abusive user or >>>masquerading of service class? >> >>Please begin by explaining how any of these are currently provided by >>arbitrary link layers. > > QoS service is the prime requisite in any of upcoming network. > RFC2814, 2815, 2816 proposes a RSVP application over 802 networks > (i.e. bridged local network) for resource control. > Although not widely deployed, some company > supports use of RSVP in local network. If you are interested, you may read > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-lseframework-00.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal-00.txt > > What rbridge lacks is the QoS service. These are _proposed_ applications of RSVP over 802, as well as _draft_ documents, so IMO bridges lack this service right now. > If rbridge is aiming the place of > next-generation bridge to replace legacy bridges, rbridge must > include such industry requirement whether this group likes it or not. I don't see a screaming industry requirement for this at the 802 level, where overprovisioning is the norm. Note that rbridges would have much higher internal bandwidth, because they can use multiple internal paths rather than just a single spanning tree, so amplify the overprovisioning that is already in use. > Otherwise, IEEE pbridge or other alternatives will be favored by market. > Contrast to original scope of work on campus network, I think rbridge > is more meaningful to metro-Ethernet. There's clear need for L2 solution. > rbridge may help ISPs reducing CAPEX if it is cheaper than L3 switches. > rbridge may also help to reduce OPEX if management is simple. The primary reason to use an rbridge vs. an L3 device is to avoid renumbering while moving. If that isn't a goal, IMO, an L3 device is more useful because routing tables can be more easily partitioned and broadcasts avoided. > It will > give great profit to ISP if rbridge has a capability to provide QoS > service and charge per usage. Because they're currently providing that service and they want it to scale? What I see is ISPs not offering QoS - but not because bridges don't support it. > The requirements in provider network > are a lot different than campus network. It needs to be defined in this > group prior to work. I don't agree that L2 systems run as a service need fundamentally different capabilites than L2 systems run by their user organization. >>Further, I haven't seen anyone else mention circuits here. Circuits are >>not used for switching packets to the endsystem (maybe that was their >>intent, but they're used more in the core for provisioning). Rbridges >>work more at the endsystem, where bridges work. As such, I doubt >>circuits will be either appropriate or useful anyway. > > I believe by now, you will notice what *virtual circuit* technology > I am trying to say. The circuit I referred is a dynamic (on-demand) > frame transmission path established across bridged network > using an interactive signaling between two communicating party. > In bridged networks, Yes - that was what ATM was supposed to be, and ATM is basically (IMO) dead. I don't believe it makes sense to consider MPLS for on-demand E2E circuits, but rather for aggregate provisioning. Again, I haven't seen anyone else mention the use of circuits in an rbridge system. Even _if_ there were interest, at best an rbridge system would need to support circuits AND conventional L3 routing in its interior. Joe > I believe ARP/ND will be best candidates to > use for this purpose. It only differs in the way of using ARP > compared to current rbridge design, however, it is a lot > versatile because it can be used for QoS, authentication, > fast-rerouting, load-sharing and traffic engineering, etc. > > > Dr. Jaihyung Cho > ETRI, Korea > phone : 042) 860-5514 > oversea: +82-42-860-5514 > fax: +82-42-861-5550 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enig83FF6321D5DF7EDFB43BC344 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 iD8DBQFCNurSE5f5cImnZrsRAkL9AKCqPkK4auGodULeRFtDQ5/5RXMyCQCfWWza 6xu/LGpG9XfQ+JCLwFYpyi8= =mMdQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig83FF6321D5DF7EDFB43BC344-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2F95E604487 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:06:03 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter thread-index: AcUpPjafxvdikXTJTiy4TN999DSgow== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:06:03 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <2c88f01c5293e$36a177f0$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2005 09:06:03.0322 (UTC) FILETIME=[36C071A0:01C5293E] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 15 Mar 2005 09:06:14 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2758 Dear Joe Touch, >> With this regard, I would like to ask what are the service objectives >> of rbridge given to end-users? It seems rbridge lacks commercially >> meaningful benefits to end-users, such as QoS, authentication, >> metering & charging, etc. >> How will rbridge protect guaranteed flows from abusive user or >> masquerading of service class? > >Please begin by explaining how any of these are currently provided by >arbitrary link layers. QoS service is the prime requisite in any of upcoming network. RFC2814, 2815, 2816 proposes a RSVP application over 802 networks (i.e. bridged local network) for resource control. Although not widely deployed, some company supports use of RSVP in local network. If you are interested, you may read http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-lseframework-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jaihyung-ccamp-arpsignal-00.txt What rbridge lacks is the QoS service. If rbridge is aiming the place of next-generation bridge to replace legacy bridges, rbridge must include such industry requirement whether this group likes it or not. Otherwise, IEEE pbridge or other alternatives will be favored by market. Contrast to original scope of work on campus network, I think rbridge is more meaningful to metro-Ethernet. There's clear need for L2 solution. rbridge may help ISPs reducing CAPEX if it is cheaper than L3 switches. rbridge may also help to reduce OPEX if management is simple. It will give great profit to ISP if rbridge has a capability to provide QoS service and charge per usage. The requirements in provider network are a lot different than campus network. It needs to be defined in this group prior to work. >Further, I haven't seen anyone else mention circuits here. Circuits are >not used for switching packets to the endsystem (maybe that was their >intent, but they're used more in the core for provisioning). Rbridges >work more at the endsystem, where bridges work. As such, I doubt >circuits will be either appropriate or useful anyway. I believe by now, you will notice what *virtual circuit* technology I am trying to say. The circuit I referred is a dynamic (on-demand) frame transmission path established across bridged network using an interactive signaling between two communicating party. In bridged networks, I believe ARP/ND will be best candidates to use for this purpose. It only differs in the way of using ARP compared to current rbridge design, however, it is a lot versatile because it can be used for QoS, authentication, fast-rerouting, load-sharing and traffic engineering, etc. Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2F7XN608781 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:33:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:34:13 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection thread-index: AcUpMWJl3Jkd2Z2ARbaYpt+RyL9CeQ== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:34:13 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <2add801c52931$6267bff0$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Mar 2005 07:34:13.0212 (UTC) FILETIME=[627861C0:01C52931] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 15 Mar 2005 07:34:07 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5399 Dear Joe, >CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: >> 1) ARP is sent actively to probe an inactive terminal and obtain MAC info, >> right? > >No. Not in general, and I haven't heard that proposed as a way to make >the rbridge work. >New MAC addresses are noticed by seeing packets enter the rbridge with >new (MAC) source addresses, the same as with a learning bridge. see following case; +----------+ |rbridge|---[Hub1]----[Hub2]----[ 100s of terminals ] +----------+ suppose the rbridge once learned MAC info of 100s of terminals. rbidge will periodically advertise location of 100s of terminals using link-status protocol. after a while, some are switched off, some are hibernated and some are just busy on local work. the rbridge must advertise aliveness of active terminals. how does rbridge know which terminal is active and which is dead? in this case, monitoring data frame or sensing local link doesn't help. you may not use active probing using ARP, however you will need substitute method for rbridge's probing or periodical reporting of active terminals, other than just MAC learning. >> 3) The distributed MAC information is used for passing datagram to actual >> destination. By the way, in most IP terminals, the first datagram sent to destination >> terminal is, again...., ARP !!!! > >ARP is not sent to the destination; it is sent to broadcast. In the context above, "sent" means being transferred to destination by any means, including broadcasting or multicasting or any guided transfer method. Arguing on syntax hardly helps on technical discussion. >> - in other words, rbridges must keep up MAC address of all terminals in lookup table >> although the actual number of MAC addresses other terminals need to know is only a >> few of servers. > >No, again as above. as above of what reference? specific point please. note that even in 802 bridges keep up all MAC addresses in all bridges belong to same broadcast domain. MAC address is not aggregatable. unless some VLAN grouping or IP subnetting is used, rbridges will have the overhead of learning all MAC infos. >> - the link-status protocol distributes MAC info which will be anyway known by >> ARP when it is actually necessary by terminal. In other words, rbridge >> uses ARP and link-status protocol to know the information that will be known >> by ARP? > >No, again as above. also, please be specific. >> Why does rbridge try to >> build up MAC table although it is possible that the MAC info can be >> installed on bridges on-demand when ARP is actually exchanged between source >and >> destination ? Of course if we use ARP for this purpose instead of link-status >protocol. > >I think of it the way you do - on-demand, the way learning bridges work. and then what happen? why did you stop thinking of this method. what problem did you face? I have a solution. I want to share my idea. >> "Divide local network by IP subnets. Pass ARP between rbridges in a way >> that prevent looping and reduce unnecessary flooding and via shortest path. >> The shortest -path, I mean, is according to subnets and other information. > >That's not an rbridge; that's a set of routers. what's your criteria of distinguishing hybrid switch and router? for me, a router requires IP processing function in data forwarder, whereas, hybrid switch is a machine providing IP equivalent service using L2 hardware. the concept of employing IP aware protocol over L2 hardware is same as rbridge and my proposal. read the above text carefully. I just talked ARP, shortest-path and subnet. Isn't that a bit different way of using ARP compared to rbridge that you drafted? and you spell it router.... >> ARP will be flooded in destination subnet anyway. > >ARP will not flood beyond the first IP subnet; see RFCs 1812 (don't >forward all 1's broadcast, which is ARP) and RFC 2644 (don't even >forward subnet-directed broadcasts). > what defined in RFC2644 is service termination of L2 at routers. I am sure some objective of rbridge is to replace the role of routers, and extend the range of L2 service (including ARP) across rbridged LANs. In that case, RFC2644 is not exactly relevant to new concept of hybrid switch. I am wondering, somehow, you think one whole rbridge domain should be one IP subnet. If so. (though not sure of your opinion) as Alex noted, I must point out that the size of one rbridge cloud can be more than 50,000 terminals if rbridge is used in metro-Ethernet. Currently metro-Ethernet ISPs use L3 switches to tackle scaling problem. IEEE recently works on Provider Bridge standard (802.1ad) of which the main objective is to replace L3 switches to bridges. Main idea of pbridge is providing VLAN interconnectivity between customer network using bridged provider network. I think IETF rbridge will eventually compete with IEEE pbridge in market. In that case, I am wondering what grouping method you will propose to be distinguished from IEEE pbridge. In order to get favorable support from customer, you need a method of systematically organizing rbridged network consists of 100,000 of terminals. I can't think better method than IP subnetting of customer networks and interconnecting subnets by rbridge. Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from [166.153.56.144] (144.sub-166-153-56.myvzw.com [166.153.56.144]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2EETm613748; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:29:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42359FD7.20905@isi.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:29:43 -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: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <23aad01c528a0$efc83140$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <23aad01c528a0$efc83140$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enig5A2C41D06BB8A8BF7459CA84" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:30:29 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4532 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5A2C41D06BB8A8BF7459CA84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > Dear All > > Pardon me if I ask some question regarding this discussion. > > 1) ARP is sent actively to probe an inactive terminal and obtain MAC info, > right? No. Not in general, and I haven't heard that proposed as a way to make the rbridge work. New MAC addresses are noticed by seeing packets enter the rbridge with new (MAC) source addresses, the same as with a learning bridge. > 2) And the MAC information is distributed using something like link-status > protocol. Yes - within each rbridge campus. > 3) The distributed MAC information is used for passing datagram to actual > destination. By the way, in most IP terminals, the first datagram sent to destination > terminal is, again...., ARP !!!! ARP is not sent to the destination; it is sent to broadcast. > - Therefore, in summary, the rbridge does ARP probing constantly although > my terminal never get called by others. No, as above. > - in other words, rbridges must keep up MAC address of all terminals in lookup table > although the actual number of MAC addresses other terminals need to know is only a > few of servers. No, again as above. > - the link-status protocol distributes MAC info which will be anyway known by > ARP when it is actually necessary by terminal. In other words, rbridge > uses ARP and link-status protocol to know the information that will be known > by ARP? No, again as above. > For me, it sounds strange. > > Why does rbridge try to > build up MAC table although it is possible that the MAC info can be > installed on bridges on-demand when ARP is actually exchanged between source and > destination ? Of course if we use ARP for this purpose instead of link-status protocol. I think of it the way you do - on-demand, the way learning bridges work. > Here is my suggestion; > > "Divide local network by IP subnets. Pass ARP between rbridges in a way > that prevent looping and reduce unnecessary flooding and via shortest path. > The shortest -path, I mean, is according to subnets and other information. That's not an rbridge; that's a set of routers. > ARP will be flooded in destination subnet anyway. ARP will not flood beyond the first IP subnet; see RFCs 1812 (don't forward all 1's broadcast, which is ARP) and RFC 2644 (don't even forward subnet-directed broadcasts). > When a destination terminal replies, just install the MAC entry on > lookup table of rbridges. Thus a MAC forwarding path, i.e. a L2 connection, > is established via sub-optimal path across IP subnets. > > This is not ATM, nor MPLS, but something L2 LSP. > > Using this method, rbridges do not need to probe terminals constantly, > do not need to build entire MAC table, also do not need to > worry about terminals that are indirectly connected, removed or inactive. > am I wrong? See above. ;-) Joe > > Jaihyung Cho > > > >>Alex Zinin wrote: >> >>>Yes, this would work, and would most probably represent the largest part of >>>station attachments in today deployments. There are corner cases, like a >>>mini-hub in a cubicle with a single station attached to it, but we don't >>>optimize for those and a probing-based safe-fail should take care of them. >> >>That sort of probing can cause large amounts of broadcasts outside the >>rbridge campus, notably which may cascade into a subsequent rbridge >>(imagine two campuses that get connected by a hub). >> >>What about this case (the direct attached one) is so significantly worth >>optimizing? >> >>Joe > > > > Dr. Jaihyung Cho > ETRI, Korea > phone : 042) 860-5514 > oversea: +82-42-860-5514 > fax: +82-42-861-5550 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enig5A2C41D06BB8A8BF7459CA84 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 iD8DBQFCNZ/XE5f5cImnZrsRAlj7AKCzFK2MXdy6ajbTdyM+bojRGc609gCg8avt eVBVB0Otiui1C+/4OVJclic= =ibqu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5A2C41D06BB8A8BF7459CA84-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2EEJO610700 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:19:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:20:13 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection thread-index: AcUooO/FjsKo+B/zS8mPCQq21fk7IA== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:20:13 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <23aad01c528a0$efc83140$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 14:20:13.0455 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFE4B9F0:01C528A0] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 14 Mar 2005 14:20:00 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2820 Dear All Pardon me if I ask some question regarding this discussion. 1) ARP is sent actively to probe an inactive terminal and obtain MAC info, right? 2) And the MAC information is distributed using something like link-status protocol. 3) The distributed MAC information is used for passing datagram to actual destination. By the way, in most IP terminals, the first datagram sent to destination terminal is, again...., ARP !!!! - Therefore, in summary, the rbridge does ARP probing constantly although my terminal never get called by others. - in other words, rbridges must keep up MAC address of all terminals in lookup table although the actual number of MAC addresses other terminals need to know is only a few of servers. - the link-status protocol distributes MAC info which will be anyway known by ARP when it is actually necessary by terminal. In other words, rbridge uses ARP and link-status protocol to know the information that will be known by ARP? For me, it sounds strange. Why does rbridge try to build up MAC table although it is possible that the MAC info can be installed on bridges on-demand when ARP is actually exchanged between source and destination ? Of course if we use ARP for this purpose instead of link-status protocol. Here is my suggestion; "Divide local network by IP subnets. Pass ARP between rbridges in a way that prevent looping and reduce unnecessary flooding and via shortest path. The shortest -path, I mean, is according to subnets and other information. ARP will be flooded in destination subnet anyway. When a destination terminal replies, just install the MAC entry on lookup table of rbridges. Thus a MAC forwarding path, i.e. a L2 connection, is established via sub-optimal path across IP subnets. This is not ATM, nor MPLS, but something L2 LSP. Using this method, rbridges do not need to probe terminals constantly, do not need to build entire MAC table, also do not need to worry about terminals that are indirectly connected, removed or inactive. am I wrong? Jaihyung Cho >Alex Zinin wrote: >> Yes, this would work, and would most probably represent the largest part of >> station attachments in today deployments. There are corner cases, like a >> mini-hub in a cubicle with a single station attached to it, but we don't >> optimize for those and a probing-based safe-fail should take care of them. > >That sort of probing can cause large amounts of broadcasts outside the >rbridge campus, notably which may cascade into a subsequent rbridge >(imagine two campuses that get connected by a hub). > >What about this case (the direct attached one) is so significantly worth >optimizing? > >Joe Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from [70.212.15.174] (174.sub-70-212-15.myvzw.com [70.212.15.174]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2EDDj618508; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:13:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42358E04.3060108@isi.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:13:40 -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: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <22a4b01c5287c$b1164690$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <22a4b01c5287c$b1164690$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enig56BDD6D0842FC760E227EB18" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:14:05 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 6859 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig56BDD6D0842FC760E227EB18 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CHO, JAI HYUNG wrote: > > I apologize for previous mal-formatted mail. > my company mail system has recently been updated and it seems > not working well with rbridge mailing system. > please ignore previous mail of same title. > > Jaihyung Cho > > ====================================== > > Dear Joe Touch > I just get back to work after long-flying. > Please read following in-line. > > > >>>I believe you are confining applicable routing technology just in >>>link-status protocols. >> >>No; I am assuming that TRILL will not _force_ a single specific interior >>routing protocol, but would still like to have a common encapsulation > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >>header. >> > > By saying a "common encapsulating header", you are already > selective to certain technology. That is the point of standards. ;-) > I am wondering what are the actual goals of R-bridge. > Is it improving bridges or creating your own link protocol? It is a protocol or shim header that is local to the rbridge, and yes, it is created for the rbridge. > It seems your effort is more focused on justifying new header > rather than seeking a solution. > Unless you open discussion, you wouldn't know what > other solutions there will be. However, if anything referring the > "encapsulation header" part is fixed in charter, I think it is > in effect, excluding other *non-encapsulation* technology from > consideration. The need for the header is to be INCLUSIVE, not exclusive. Here's why: - we want to support internal links that lack loop checks (notably Ethernet) - we want to support routing protocols that may have transient routing loops, and not limit ourselves to just circuit-based solutions As others have observed, there are other ways to avoid loops than TTLs, but TTLs are the common, simple solution. Adding TTLs requires a header (shim or otherwise) inside the rbridge. Thus the need for common support a variety of solutions means the need for TTLs in a common rbridge (shim) header. >>>| ATM-MPLS is a circuit-oriented technology (on both counts). The current >>>| charter doesn't want to assume only circuits inside an rbridge campus, >>> >>>which part of charter specifically exclude circuit technology inside the >>>rbridge? >> >>"does not want to assume only circuits" does not exclude their use; it >>excludes their EXCLUSIVE use. I.e., it assumes we may want to support >>others, which is already true (IS-IS, as you mention). >> > > Partly agreed.. > It is good to consider several dissimilar technologies together. > However, I do not think rbridge should have a *generic* > architecture that can do everything. If one solution, ether connectionless > or connection-oriented, is sufficient to provide service to both type > of applications, I think one light-weight solution is better than > multi-function solution. One byte of TTL is very lightweight. And the Internet teaches us that multifunction solutions are fine. Optimizing for a single solution is where we have typically had more problem. > With this regard, I would like to ask what are the service objectives > of rbridge given to end-users? It seems rbridge lacks commercially > meaningful benefits to end-users, such as QoS, authentication, > metering & charging, etc. > How will rbridge protect guaranteed flows from abusive user or > masquerading of service class? Please begin by explaining how any of these are currently provided by arbitrary link layers. If you want to advertize either ATM or MPLS, that's fine - but that's not what the rbridge is solving. > How will rbridge provide flexible and secure platform for commercial > service flows. Traffic attributes of some applications are really dynamic. > How will rbridge know such variation of user request? > I think these are important requirements of NGN. > Rbridge is surely an attractive, however, if rbridge does not give any solution > to such market requirements, I think impact to industry will be marginal. Industry ubiquitously uses bridges. It does not ubiquitously use ATM (does it even use it anymore?). And it does not use MPLS to the end user. It isn't clear this discussion is relevant to what this WG is trying to achieve. > Note that some technology is good for flexibility but hard to > guarantee anything, however, others are rigid but good for commercial > service. For example, think about the way rbridge forward frames in > connectionless mode or connection-oriented way... > If commercial factors are equally considered, I think the way > people think about rbridge can be a lot different. > >>>If some *virtual circuit* technology can be considered, there are >>>several loop prevention/detection techique we can discuss. >> >>See above; I don't think this is relevant to whether TTLs need to be >>supported. > > Why not? If frame forwarding in rbridge is based on pre-establishment > of virtual circuit, rather than pre-establishment of routing database, > looping can be thoroughly examined at circuit establishment time, > thus removes TTL at datagrams. You have already made the point that IF circuits are used inside rbridges we might not need TTLs. But we definitely want to support other routing protocols (whether or not we support circuits), so TTLs are already needed. > Again, it must be an open question what forwarding technology > the rbridge must adopt, whether header is necessary, whether TTL > needs to be introduced, etc.. > I'm not asking to remove TTL. I just say to discuss if we really can't > do without TTL. I am presuming that the rbridge will not fix a single interior routing protocol, but might support a variety (not in a single instance, but in different campuses, e.g.). Further, I haven't seen anyone else mention circuits here. Circuits are not used for switching packets to the endsystem (maybe that was their intent, but they're used more in the core for provisioning). Rbridges work more at the endsystem, where bridges work. As such, I doubt circuits will be either appropriate or useful anyway. Joe --------------enig56BDD6D0842FC760E227EB18 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 iD8DBQFCNY4FE5f5cImnZrsRAhAfAJ9NpcQTJnX8NvA8eSv5gbvpSGUucgCdE/cF aBpGz2KqjIAki2+KuHBaUx0= =1Z8f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig56BDD6D0842FC760E227EB18-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2E9xv617513 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:59:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:00:46 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter thread-index: AcUofLETWKzjavOASgCAa8arKasP3g== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:00:46 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <22a4b01c5287c$b1164690$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 10:00:46.0404 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1354040:01C5287C] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 14 Mar 2005 10:01:25 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4005 I apologize for previous mal-formatted mail. my company mail system has recently been updated and it seems not working well with rbridge mailing system. please ignore previous mail of same title. Jaihyung Cho ====================================== Dear Joe Touch I just get back to work after long-flying. Please read following in-line. >> I believe you are confining applicable routing technology just in >> link-status protocols. > >No; I am assuming that TRILL will not _force_ a single specific interior >routing protocol, but would still like to have a common encapsulation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >header. > By saying a "common encapsulating header", you are already selective to certain technology. I am wondering what are the actual goals of R-bridge. Is it improving bridges or creating your own link protocol? It seems your effort is more focused on justifying new header rather than seeking a solution. Unless you open discussion, you wouldn't know what other solutions there will be. However, if anything referring the "encapsulation header" part is fixed in charter, I think it is in effect, excluding other *non-encapsulation* technology from consideration. >> | ATM-MPLS is a circuit-oriented technology (on both counts). The current >> | charter doesn't want to assume only circuits inside an rbridge campus, >> >> which part of charter specifically exclude circuit technology inside the >> rbridge? > >"does not want to assume only circuits" does not exclude their use; it >excludes their EXCLUSIVE use. I.e., it assumes we may want to support >others, which is already true (IS-IS, as you mention). > Partly agreed.. It is good to consider several dissimilar technologies together. However, I do not think rbridge should have a *generic* architecture that can do everything. If one solution, ether connectionless or connection-oriented, is sufficient to provide service to both type of applications, I think one light-weight solution is better than multi-function solution. With this regard, I would like to ask what are the service objectives of rbridge given to end-users? It seems rbridge lacks commercially meaningful benefits to end-users, such as QoS, authentication, metering & charging, etc. How will rbridge protect guaranteed flows from abusive user or masquerading of service class? How will rbridge provide flexible and secure platform for commercial service flows. Traffic attributes of some applications are really dynamic. How will rbridge know such variation of user request? I think these are important requirements of NGN. Rbridge is surely an attractive, however, if rbridge does not give any solution to such market requirements, I think impact to industry will be marginal. Note that some technology is good for flexibility but hard to guarantee anything, however, others are rigid but good for commercial service. For example, think about the way rbridge forward frames in connectionless mode or connection-oriented way... If commercial factors are equally considered, I think the way people think about rbridge can be a lot different. >> If some *virtual circuit* technology can be considered, there are >> several loop prevention/detection techique we can discuss. > >See above; I don't think this is relevant to whether TTLs need to be >supported. Why not? If frame forwarding in rbridge is based on pre-establishment of virtual circuit, rather than pre-establishment of routing database, looping can be thoroughly examined at circuit establishment time, thus removes TTL at datagrams. Again, it must be an open question what forwarding technology the rbridge must adopt, whether header is necessary, whether TTL needs to be introduced, etc.. I'm not asking to remove TTL. I just say to discuss if we really can't do without TTL. Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2E89G612355 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:09:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:10:04 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter thread-index: AcUobTpQArU/KwLzRKeC6Hp+Bf2qiQ== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:10:04 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <20d1e01c5286d$3a52ac10$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 08:10:04.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A71A5C0:01C5286D] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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, 14 Mar 2005 08:10:33 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3656 Dear Joe Touch I just get back to work after long-flying.Please read following in-line. >> I believe you are confining applicable routing technology just in>> link-status protocols.>>No; I am assuming that TRILL will not _force_ a single specific interior>routing protocol, but would still like to have a common encapsulation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>header.> By saying a "common encapsulating header", you are alreadyselective to certain technology. I am wondering what are the actual goals of R-bridge.Is it improving bridges or creating your own link protocol? It seems your effort is more focused on justifying new header rather than seeking a solution. Unless you open discussion, you wouldn't know whatother solutions there will be. However, if anything referring the "encapsulation header" part is fixed in charter, I think it is in effect, excluding other *non-encapsulation* technology from consideration. >> | ATM-MPLS is a circuit-oriented technology (on both counts). The current>> | charter doesn't want to assume only circuits inside an rbridge campus,>>>> which part of charter specifically exclude circuit technology inside the>> rbridge?>>"does not want to assume only circuits" does not exclude their use; it>excludes their EXCLUSIVE use. I.e., it assumes we may want to support>others, which is already true (IS-IS, as you mention).> Partly agreed..It is good to consider several dissimilar technologies together.However, I do not think rbridge should have a *generic*architecture that can do everything. If one solution, ether connectionlessor connection-oriented, is sufficient to provide service to both typeof applications, I think one light-weight solution is better thanmulti-function solution. With this regard, I would like to ask what are the service objectivesof rbridge given to end-users? It seems rbridge lacks commercially meaningful benefits to end-users, such as QoS, authentication, metering & charging, etc. How will rbridge protect guaranteed flows from abusive us er ormasquerading of service class?How will rbridge provide flexible and secure platform for commercialservice flows. Traffic attributes of some applications are really dynamic.How will rbridge know such variation of user request? I think these are important requirements of NGN. Rbridge is surely an attractive, however, if rbridge does not give any solutionto such market requirements, I think impact to industry will be marginal. Note that some technology is good for flexibility but hard to guarantee anything, however, others are rigid but good for commercial service. For example, think about the way rbridge forward frames in connectionless mode or connection-oriented way... If commercial factors are equally considered, I think the waypeople think about rbridge can be a lot different. >> If some *virtual circuit* technology can be considered, there are>> several loop prevention/detection techique we can discuss.>>See above; I don't think this is relevant to whether TTLs need to be>supported. Why not? If frame forwarding in rbridge is based on pre-establishmentof virtual circuit, rather than pre-establishment of routing database,looping can be thoroughly examined at circuit establishment time, thus removes TTL at datagrams. Again, it must be an open question what forwarding technologythe rbridge must adopt, whether header is necessary, whether TTLneeds to be introduced, etc..I'm not claiming to remove TTL. I just say to discuss if we really can'tdo without TTL. Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 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 j2C3it611576 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:44:55 -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 j2C3isRr022091 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:44:54 -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 <0ID700M01YZJ0A@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:44:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-25-20.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.25.20]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ID7001O9ZQT3P@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 22:44:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:44:54 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <42310C1C.5030804@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <423265B6.1080304@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <ccf734ccd56f.ccd56fccf734@monash.edu.au> <42310C1C.5030804@sun.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Yes, each VLAN must be a different IP subnet X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:45:47 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 657 Margaret asked me a question at the BOF which I did not think about carefully enough before answering and probably gave the wrong answer. She theorized that each VLAN must be a separate IP subnet, and she was right. Since the point of VLANs is to separate traffic, each VLAN would have to have its own prefix (so that an endnode in VLAN A won't mistakenly thing that an endnode in VLAN B was actually a neighbor). Traffic from one VLAN can only get to another VLAN if forwarded through a router. And if an endnode moves from one VLAN to another it must change its IP address. This is true today with bridges, and wouldn't change with RBridges. Radia Received: from ALPHA1.ITS.MONASH.EDU.AU (alpha1.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.1.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2BJsb629453 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:54:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([130.194.13.87]) by vaxc.its.monash.edu.au (PMDF V6.1 #39306) with ESMTP id <01LLSM74LBMM8YCEEF@vaxc.its.monash.edu.au> for rbridge@postel.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:54:30 +1100 Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B93AB542 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:54:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from monash.edu.au (dollet.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.11.236]) by curly.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014704FB07 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:54:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [130.129.131.162] by mail-store-2.its.monash.edu.au (mshttpd) ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:54:29 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:54:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <d19696d13b53.d13b53d19696@monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: [rbridge] Possible new attacks to add for security considerations document X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:54:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1090 ----- Original Message ----- From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> Date: Friday, March 11, 2005 3:10 am Subject: Re: [rbridge] Possible new attacks to add for security considerations document > Greg Daley wrote: > > > Also I don't think that any keying mechanisms > > for IEEE are generally applicable, since I > > guess that the unmanaged network case needs consideration and > support> from rbridge as well. > > > > We shouldn't assume that new to be developed > > techniques are deployed or even applicable in this > > case. > > I suspect things are a bit more nuanced. I'm not really tactful though... > While we want to provide a plug&play way to do things (which means > that > no meaningful key/secret/passwd based security can be required), it > is > still useful to allow for added security, at the cost of needing to > configure things. Yes, I agree. Being able to use or reuse security mechanisms is a worthwhile thing. I think there are a lot of opportunities for networks as unmanaged as existing 802 networks though. This is an important case. Greg Received: from [70.212.252.211] (211.sub-70-212-252.myvzw.com [70.212.252.211]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2BF7e626820; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:07:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <423112DB.9000502@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:39:07 -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: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> <p06200708be4df8abad1a@[10.0.0.171]> <4228AAB1.7030705@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4228AAB1.7030705@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="------------enigD8DB4EB2C096012CD4139F55" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:08:43 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1667 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD8DB4EB2C096012CD4139F55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The only thing not mentioned, IMO, is a VERSION field ;-) As Radia (and others) point out, all the data that is duplicate can be ignored. I'd hate to have to back-calculate that for half a byte. Joe Radia Perlman wrote: > The ethertype for the original frame is still in the original frame. The > outer ethernet > header is *additional* information. Unlike something like IPsec's ESP or > AH header, > which displaces the "protocol type"/"next header" field in > the IP header. Here we aren't displacing > anything. > > Radia > > > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > >>One thing that I am not sure about, though, is that we can get away >>with such a short rbridge header. At minimum, I would expect it to >>also include an ethertype for the original packet (IPv4, ARP, IPv6...). >> >>Margaret > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enigD8DB4EB2C096012CD4139F55 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 iD8DBQFCMRLcE5f5cImnZrsRAigLAKCc8WtrW6jQR3+7/TWNFuuANUPRwACgs+Xo +7NynGCB71/aTn7IWXgVcWs= =Gx02 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD8DB4EB2C096012CD4139F55-- Received: from [70.212.252.211] (211.sub-70-212-252.myvzw.com [70.212.252.211]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2BF7O626798; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:07:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4231116A.6010808@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:32:58 -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: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> In-Reply-To: <504772038.20050304123157@psg.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="------------enig5112C205B7DF9DF4A90D42B3" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Cc: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM>, Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:08:15 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1319 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5112C205B7DF9DF4A90D42B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alex Zinin wrote: > Yes, this would work, and would most probably represent the largest part of > station attachments in today deployments. There are corner cases, like a > mini-hub in a cubicle with a single station attached to it, but we don't > optimize for those and a probing-based safe-fail should take care of them. That sort of probing can cause large amounts of broadcasts outside the rbridge campus, notably which may cascade into a subsequent rbridge (imagine two campuses that get connected by a hub). What about this case (the direct attached one) is so significantly worth optimizing? Joe --------------enig5112C205B7DF9DF4A90D42B3 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 iD8DBQFCMRFqE5f5cImnZrsRAhcWAKCFVUMzn3Zl79I21+tC8P9OtsYXxQCgjfIB 7QAWBF0CdlJE59bM7GFMOR8= =IBbH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5112C205B7DF9DF4A90D42B3-- 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 j2B3BL614990 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:11:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.82.37]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j2B3AuX8004484 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:10:57 -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 j2B3AhJI450778; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42310C1C.5030804@sun.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:10:20 -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> References: <ccf734ccd56f.ccd56fccf734@monash.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <ccf734ccd56f.ccd56fccf734@monash.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Possible new attacks to add for security considerations document X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:11:37 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 604 Greg Daley wrote: > Also I don't think that any keying mechanisms > for IEEE are generally applicable, since I > guess that the unmanaged network case needs consideration and support > from rbridge as well. > > We shouldn't assume that new to be developed > techniques are deployed or even applicable in this > case. I suspect things are a bit more nuanced. While we want to provide a plug&play way to do things (which means that no meaningful key/secret/passwd based security can be required), it is still useful to allow for added security, at the cost of needing to configure things. Erik Received: from [70.212.234.234] (234.sub-70-212-234.myvzw.com [70.212.234.234]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2B0QA619436; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4230E59B.6000809@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:26:03 -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: =?EUC-KR?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <b2ee01c525c9$9bf92da0$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <b2ee01c525c9$9bf92da0$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enig80612167F173F9F25861097A" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:26:41 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4297 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig80612167F173F9F25861097A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ?????? wrote: > > > Dear Joe Touch > > > > please read followings > > > > | Hopcounts are required where routing is locally updated; in those cases, > | the global routing state may temporarily pass through configurations > | that have transient routing loops. > > > > > I believe you are confining applicable routing technology just in > link-status protocols. No; I am assuming that TRILL will not _force_ a single specific interior routing protocol, but would still like to have a common encapsulation header. > I thought TRILL is still open to *the third way* of > distributing routing information. If the charter doesn't limit the choice of > routing algorithm, there are some different routing algorithms we can > consider. > > I am wondering..., if TRILL may give up link-status algorithm and > willing to experiment yet unknown routing algorithm, .. if there is a > clear benefit from new solution. That seems unlikely, IMO. The point of TRILL, at least last I checked (things seem to be in flux, though) was to enable the use of well-understood routing protocols as an alternative to just spanning-tree. While new protocols may also be used, it isn't clear that a single one needs to be fixed a-priori; that could be negotiated. > ... or is there a reason people stick to IS-IS?> > if it is not...., I think (routing update = looping) is not always > correct assumption to all routing method. > > | ATM-MPLS is a circuit-oriented technology (on both counts). The current > | charter doesn't want to assume only circuits inside an rbridge campus, > > which part of charter specifically exclude circuit technology inside the > rbridge? "does not want to assume only circuits" does not exclude their use; it excludes their EXCLUSIVE use. I.e., it assumes we may want to support others, which is already true (IS-IS, as you mention). That means either the encapsulation protocol is routing-protocol specific (which seems unnecessarily complex) or it has a TTL (which seems a small overhead to pay for flexibility, as well as providing a safety check if circuits get misconfigured). > MPLS is also a circuit-oriented technology. > > Is MPLS style bridge control being excluded ? > > I believe employing MPLS forwarding technique within rbridge might be > useful for layer-2 traffic engineering, although it may possibly > conflict with CCAMP. > > If some *virtual circuit* technology can be considered, there are > several loop prevention/detection techique we can discuss. See above; I don't think this is relevant to whether TTLs need to be supported. > |and we expect that the rbridge header will not depend on the routing > |protocol used. As a result, since packet forwarding may be used (in > |fact, IMO is more likely to be used), hopcounts are necessary. > > I think this is irrelevant issue. No one proved dependancy of > routing algorithm and hopcount. This is well-known for some routing protocols, notably any hop-by-hop protocols that do not require global synchronization for routing updates. > |(unless you know of a better or different way to enforce loop detection > |that does not depend on the routing protocol used). > > perhapse, we may..... > > > Dr. Jaihyung Cho > ETRI, Korea > phone : 042) 860-5514 > oversea: +82-42-860-5514 > fax: +82-42-861-5550 > > > > > > Web Bug from MailScannerWebBug > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enig80612167F173F9F25861097A 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 iD8DBQFCMOWbE5f5cImnZrsRAmRRAKCxQYO9EJkYs7/9ptPHzSAU6xR5twCfZg/h 2/HMNSyuTJ9eUTVIQuHzAmo= =MFKJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig80612167F173F9F25861097A-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2ANX0627850 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:33:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:33:48 +0900 X-ReadCheckName: rbridge%40postel.org X-ReadCheckMessageID: <a87dfb68-1dc2-4156-b391-fb845b7b3746@etri.re.kr> From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:33:48 +0900 Message-ID: <b2ee01c525c9$9bf92da0$8310fe81@etri.info> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Priority: normal Thread-Index: AcUlpJNKhimblSh3Q6G6Kq5qsqhOqwAGt5sIAAKKkL4= Thread-Topic: [rbridge]text on hop-count in updated charter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_B161_01C5260A.E1B08E60" Comment: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?x9GxucD8wNrF673Fv6yxuL/4LCBCY06x4rz6utC8rsbALCC047Tn?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2005 23:33:48.0741 (UTC) FILETIME=[9C182750:01C525C9] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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 Mar 2005 23:33:36 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4662 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_B161_01C5260A.E1B08E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ------=_NextPart_000_B161_01C5260A.E1B08E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PERJViBpZD1tc2dib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQt RkFNSUxZOiCxvLiyIj4NCjxESVY+DQo8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6 IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiCxvLiyIj4NCjxESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05U IHNpemU9Mj48L0ZPTlQ+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+PEZPTlQgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9O VD48L0RJVj48Rk9OVCBzaXplPTI+PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJViBzdHls ZT0iRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMHB0OyBGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogsby4siI+PEZPTlQg c2l6ZT0yPg0KPFA+RGVhciBKb2UgVG91Y2g8L1A+DQo8UD4mbmJzcDs8L1A+ DQo8UD5wbGVhc2UgcmVhZCBmb2xsb3dpbmdzIDwvUD4NCjxQPjxCUj48QlI+ fCBIb3Bjb3VudHMgYXJlIHJlcXVpcmVkIHdoZXJlIHJvdXRpbmcgaXMgbG9j YWxseSB1cGRhdGVkOyBpbiB0aG9zZSBjYXNlcyw8QlI+fCB0aGUgZ2xvYmFs IHJvdXRpbmcgc3RhdGUgbWF5IHRlbXBvcmFyaWx5IHBhc3MgdGhyb3VnaCBj b25maWd1cmF0aW9uczxCUj58IHRoYXQgaGF2ZSB0cmFuc2llbnQgcm91dGlu ZyBsb29wcy48QlI+PC9QPg0KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPg0KPFA+PEJSPkkgYmVs aWV2ZSB5b3UgYXJlIGNvbmZpbmluZyBhcHBsaWNhYmxlIHJvdXRpbmcgdGVj aG5vbG9neSZuYnNwO2p1c3QgaW48L1A+DQo8UD5saW5rLXN0YXR1cyBwcm90 b2NvbHMuIEkgdGhvdWdodCBUUklMTCBpcyBzdGlsbCBvcGVuIHRvICp0aGUg dGhpcmQgd2F5KiBvZjwvUD4NCjxQPmRpc3RyaWJ1dGluZyByb3V0aW5nIGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uLiBJZiB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciBkb2Vzbid0IGxpbWl0IHRoZSBj aG9pY2Ugb2Y8L1A+DQo8UD5yb3V0aW5nIGFsZ29yaXRobSwgdGhlcmUgYXJl IHNvbWUgZGlmZmVyZW50IHJvdXRpbmcgYWxnb3JpdGhtcyB3ZSBjYW48L1A+ DQo8UD5jb25zaWRlci48L1A+DQo8UD5JIGFtIHdvbmRlcmluZy4uLiwgaWYm bmJzcDtUUklMTCZuYnNwO21heSBnaXZlIHVwIGxpbmstc3RhdHVzIGFsZ29y aXRobSBhbmQgPC9QPg0KPFA+d2lsbGluZyB0byBleHBlcmltZW50IHlldCB1 bmtub3duIHJvdXRpbmcgYWxnb3JpdGhtLCAuLiBpZiB0aGVyZSBpcyBhPC9Q Pg0KPFA+Y2xlYXIgYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9tIG5ldyBzb2x1dGlvbi48L1A+DQo8 UD4uLi4gb3IgaXMgdGhlcmUgYSByZWFzb24mbmJzcDtwZW9wbGUgc3RpY2sm bmJzcDt0byBJUy1JUz88L1A+DQo8UD4mbmJzcDs8L1A+DQo8UD5pZiBpdCBp cyBub3QuLi4uLCBJIHRoaW5rJm5ic3A7IChyb3V0aW5nIHVwZGF0ZSZuYnNw Oz0gbG9vcGluZykmbmJzcDsgaXMgbm90IGFsd2F5cyA8L1A+DQo8UD5jb3Jy ZWN0IGFzc3VtcHRpb24gdG8gYWxsIHJvdXRpbmcgbWV0aG9kLjwvUD4NCjxQ PiZuYnNwOzwvUD4NCjxQPjxCUj58IEFUTS1NUExTIGlzIGEgY2lyY3VpdC1v cmllbnRlZCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IChvbiBib3RoIGNvdW50cykuIFRoZSBjdXJy ZW50PEJSPnwgY2hhcnRlciBkb2Vzbid0IHdhbnQgdG8gYXNzdW1lIG9ubHkg Y2lyY3VpdHMgaW5zaWRlIGFuIHJicmlkZ2UgY2FtcHVzLDxCUj48L1A+DQo8 UD4mbmJzcDs8L1A+DQo8UD48QlI+d2hpY2ggcGFydCBvZiBjaGFydGVyIHNw ZWNpZmljYWxseSBleGNsdWRlJm5ic3A7Y2lyY3VpdCB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IGlu c2lkZSB0aGUgcmJyaWRnZT88L1A+DQo8UD5NUExTIGlzIGFsc28gYSBjaXJj dWl0LW9yaWVudGVkIHRlY2hub2xvZ3kuIDwvUD4NCjxQPklzJm5ic3A7TVBM UyBzdHlsZSBicmlkZ2UgY29udHJvbCZuYnNwO2JlaW5nIGV4Y2x1ZGVkID88 L1A+DQo8UD5JIGJlbGlldmUgZW1wbG95aW5nIE1QTFMgZm9yd2FyZGluZyB0 ZWNobmlxdWUgd2l0aGluIHJicmlkZ2UgbWlnaHQgYmU8L1A+DQo8UD51c2Vm dWwgZm9yJm5ic3A7bGF5ZXItMiB0cmFmZmljIGVuZ2luZWVyaW5nLCBhbHRo b3VnaCBpdCBtYXkgcG9zc2libHk8L1A+DQo8UD5jb25mbGljdCB3aXRoIEND QU1QLjwvUD4NCjxQPklmIHNvbWUgKnZpcnR1YWwgY2lyY3VpdCogdGVjaG5v bG9neSBjYW4gYmUgY29uc2lkZXJlZCwgdGhlcmUgYXJlPC9QPg0KPFA+c2V2 ZXJhbCZuYnNwO2xvb3AgcHJldmVudGlvbi9kZXRlY3Rpb24gdGVjaGlxdWUg d2UgY2FuIGRpc2N1c3MuPC9QPg0KPFA+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPg0KPFA+Jm5ic3A7 PC9QPg0KPFA+fGFuZCB3ZSBleHBlY3QgdGhhdCB0aGUgcmJyaWRnZSBoZWFk ZXIgd2lsbCBub3QgZGVwZW5kIG9uIHRoZSByb3V0aW5nPEJSPnxwcm90b2Nv bCB1c2VkLiBBcyBhIHJlc3VsdCwgc2luY2UgcGFja2V0IGZvcndhcmRpbmcg bWF5IGJlIHVzZWQgKGluPEJSPnxmYWN0LCBJTU8gaXMgbW9yZSBsaWtlbHkg dG8gYmUgdXNlZCksIGhvcGNvdW50cyBhcmUgbmVjZXNzYXJ5LjxCUj48L1A+ DQo8UD5JIHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgaXMgaXJyZWxldmFudCBpc3N1ZS4mbmJzcDtO byBvbmUgcHJvdmVkIGRlcGVuZGFuY3kgb2Y8L1A+DQo8UD5yb3V0aW5nIGFs Z29yaXRobSBhbmQgaG9wY291bnQuPC9QPg0KPFA+PEJSPnwodW5sZXNzIHlv dSBrbm93IG9mIGEgYmV0dGVyIG9yIGRpZmZlcmVudCB3YXkgdG8gZW5mb3Jj ZSBsb29wIGRldGVjdGlvbjxCUj58dGhhdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBkZXBlbmQgb24g dGhlIHJvdXRpbmcgcHJvdG9jb2wgdXNlZCkuPEJSPjwvUD4NCjxQPiZuYnNw OzwvUD4NCjxQPiZuYnNwOzwvUD4NCjxQPnBlcmhhcHNlLCB3ZSBtYXkuLi4u LjxCUj48QlI+PEJSPkRyLiBKYWloeXVuZyBDaG88QlI+RVRSSSwgS29yZWE8 QlI+cGhvbmUgOiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyAwNDIpIDg2MC01NTE0PEJSPm92ZXJzZWE6ICs4Mi00Mi04NjAtNTUxNDxC Uj5mYXg6Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7ICs4Mi00Mi04NjEtNTU1MDxCUj48QlI+PEJSPjxCUj48QlI+ PEJSPjwvUD48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PGltZyBzcmM9Ik1h aWxTY2FubmVyV2ViQnVnIiB3aWR0aD0iMCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIwIiBhbHQ9Ildl YiBCdWcgZnJvbSBodHRwOi8vdW1haWwuZXRyaS5yZS5rci9FeHRlcm5hbF9S ZWFkQ2hlY2suYXNweD9lbWFpbD1yYnJpZGdlQHBvc3RlbC5vcmcmbmFtZT1y YnJpZGdlJTQwcG9zdGVsLm9yZyZmcm9tZW1haWw9amFpaHl1bmdAZXRyaS5y ZS5rciZtZXNzYWdlaWQ9JTNDYTg3ZGZiNjgtMWRjMi00MTU2LWIzOTEtZmI4 NDViN2IzNzQ2QGV0cmkucmUua3IlM0UiIC8+ ------=_NextPart_000_B161_01C5260A.E1B08E60-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2ANQO624250 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:26:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:27:12 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] cheer up!! thread-index: AcUlyK/pjqGVBsQ8QEuYdyhI6PHAwA== From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:27:12 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <b28101c525c8$afee8ae0$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2005 23:27:12.0730 (UTC) FILETIME=[B00DABA0:01C525C8] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: [rbridge] cheer up!! X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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 Mar 2005 23:26:36 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1830 Dear TRILL people I think what you guys have done today was great job.The number of people attended in the room manifests big interest on rbridge.The only reason people wasn't fully convinced is because (I think) there wasn't enough explanation on necessity and uniqueness of the work. Part of the reason I am interested in rbridge is because it may provideversatile tool for controlling L2 flows using IP protocols. Such functionis much required in access network where many low-end L2 switchesneeds to be controlled by remote BRAS routers. BRAS is the point that has to distinguish and authenticate user flows, protect premium flows and charge by usage. However, current designof low-end L2 switches doesn't interact with remote routers and giveenough information of user flows. I am wondering TRILL people have discussed potential application of rbridge in this respect. Bringing IP routing capability on L2 bridges is a fancy idea, howeverit seems not much practical benefit is expected just from routing service.However, if it is for L2 switches to pass user information to routersand get traffic control of routers, situation might have been differentbecause it means commercial profit of providers. Application of such service to enterprise network and campus network also has significant meaning because ISPs may have tangible controlon commercial flows across private network. I think it is necessary at this stage to discuss more on potential area ofservice and application rather than focusing on technical solution.If people are open to discuss this matter, I'll submit some requirement and service scenario of such hybrid switch. Hope to have good discussion on this matter. Thank you Regards.... Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from ALPHA1.ITS.MONASH.EDU.AU (alpha1.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.1.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AK5Z611541 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:05:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([130.194.13.87]) by vaxc.its.monash.edu.au (PMDF V6.1 #39306) with ESMTP id <01LLR8AE0G9A9366JG@vaxc.its.monash.edu.au> for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:28 +1100 Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDD8AB545 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from monash.edu.au (dollet.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.11.236]) by curly.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457ED4FB0A for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [130.129.131.162] by mail-store-2.its.monash.edu.au (mshttpd) ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:05:28 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:05:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Greg Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au> To: rbridge@postel.org Message-id: <ccf734ccd56f.ccd56fccf734@monash.edu.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au Subject: [rbridge] Possible new attacks to add for security considerations document X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:06:37 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1120 Hi, I think there are two possible attacks which need adding or clarifying. 1) That a device with multiple ports on the VLAN can advertise in order to become a root bridge, in a way which makes it on the path for connecting two parts of a network. It can then not forward packets passing between those network fractions. 2) A possible denial of service attack is to cycle destination addresses for unicast packets. This will cause flooding on all ports continually (consuming bandwidth, hitting back planes), until frame dropping occurs. *troll warning* Also I don't think that any keying mechanisms for IEEE are generally applicable, since I guess that the unmanaged network case needs consideration and support from rbridge as well. We shouldn't assume that new to be developed techniques are deployed or even applicable in this case. I'd certainly welcome statements about the applicability and use of these techniques in the document. The security issues stand today in exsiting networks, and will continue in many environments. Comments on this issue are welcome. Greg Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AJmh605060 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:48:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2005 11:49:05 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,154,1107763200"; d="scan'208"; a="166535374:sNHT5007536136" Received: from cisco.com (dino-lnx.cisco.com [171.71.54.55]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j2AJmLTM029654; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:48:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dino-lnx.cisco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2AJmL3W015486; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:48:21 -0800 Received: (from dino@localhost) by dino-lnx.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j2AJmLTg015482; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:48:21 -0800 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:48:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200503101948.j2AJmLTg015482@dino-lnx.cisco.com> From: Dino Farinacci <dino@cisco.com> To: Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM In-reply-to: <422F1D6F.8070207@sun.com> (message from Radia Perlman on Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:59:43 -0800) References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <1509658726.20050304210311@psg.com> <422F1D6F.8070207@sun.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: dino@dino-lnx.cisco.com Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] VLANs X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:49:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1704 >> a packet to all the nodes within the VLAN. These are the same choices as >> for multicast, >> which I summarized in an earlier message, but basically it's >> a) send through a spanning tree to all RBridges, and DRs only flood onto >> their LAN >> to endnodes if the packet is for the right VLAN (if we did this we >> wouldn't even >> need to announce in link state packets which VLANs RBridge supported) >> b) send through the same single spanning tree to all RBridges, but an >> RBridge looks >> downstream, and stops forwarding if there are no RBridges supporting >> that VLAN further down >> c) compute per-source-RBridge trees, and when RBridge R floods a packet >> for VLAN A, >> the flooding will be done based on the tree rooted at R, and pruning >> will also be done, >> as per point b. d) Use IGMP-snooping to further constrain the forwarding to only where there are group members. Can be added to schemes a) through c) above. e) Put group membership in LSPs ala MOSPF and use per-source-Rbridge trees. I think in this environment (where there are less protocols than in IP), that e) might be the best way to go. Typically in layer-2 networks, there is less diameter but more fanout, so you can get the benefits of source aggregation per attached switch. Flooding of LSPs are pretty fast, incremental Dijkstra's have been optimized so good join and prune latency can be acheived. In the case of e), IGMP-snooping is not used as the traditional way but the IGMP protocol is used as a link-local protocol as in layer-3. That is, received IGMP reports would dictate what groups are put in an LSP by an attached DR. Dino 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 j2AJT7628091 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:29:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from tobermory.localdomain ([66.119.143.202]) by mail.rfburst.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2AJSpFE001050 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:28:52 -0700 Received: from tobermory.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tobermory.localdomain (8.12.10/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j2AJUZe4021560 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:30:35 -0700 Received: (from ho@localhost) by tobermory.localdomain (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j2AJUZ22021556; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:30:35 -0700 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:30:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200503101930.j2AJUZ22021556@tobermory.localdomain> From: "The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu> To: rbridge@postel.org In-reply-to: Yourmessage <4230920D.90909@isi.edu> X-esmartscan-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-esmartscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ho@alum.mit.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:30:04 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 668 Joe Touch, on Thu, 10 Mar 2005 at 10:29:33 -0800: > (unless you know of a better or different way to enforce loop detection > that does not depend on the routing protocol used). In the literal sense, hopcounts don't detect loops. There are many ways to detect loops, the easiest being to collect the destination addresses onto the packet itself. So, in a technical sense, the answer is, sure there's a better way. But if the goal is to mitigate the deleterious effects of loops, then a hopcount has a big advantage in its simplicity. That simplicity may be obviated by the effect of (unlikely) persistent errors in handling the hop count field, though. Hilarie Received: from pollux.ietf62.ietf.org (smtp.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.16.13]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AJIR624712 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wireless-130-129-135-59.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.135.59]) by pollux.ietf62.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D4642 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:18:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <42309D81.4030304@pi.se> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:18:25 +0100 From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rbridge@postel.org References: <a98501c52574$46b99a50$8310fe81@etri.info> <42307833.6030205@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <42307833.6030205@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: loa@pi.se Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:18:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3695 Radia, I guess that there are several questions that has to be clarified: - MPLS header, is this the MPLS label, and if so is it limited to one single label or is it possible to stack several - "onto the frame" exactly where? - "removed by the egress" would we like to PHP? - is this the L3 label as specified in the RFC3032, or a "Ethernet label" as it will potentially be specified by the CCAMP working group /Loa Radia Perlman wrote: > Well, the encapsulation is really link dependent. So on MPLS, indeed, as > you point > out, you don't need a hop count. We haven't written down exactly how RBridge > would work over MPLS, but I think no extra information is needed...an MPLS > header is stuck onto the frame by the ingress RBridge, and removed by the > egress RBridge. (Does anyone see any problem with that?) > > For links which are shared media though, it's safer to ensure that temporary > loops won't cause a problem, rather than try to ensure there never will be > a temporary loop. Temporary loops can form no matter what if, for instance, > someone brings up a repeater. > > Radia > > ?????? wrote: > > >>Dear All, >> >>I am new to this BOF and I found from Radia??s paper, the approach >> >>and goal of rbridge is somewhat related to what I have researched for >> >>several years. >> >>I am very eager to share my idea with TRILL people. >> >>By the way, I briefly read initial draft of TRILL charter and felt >>obliged to >> >>express some worry on ??encapsulation?? and ??TTL?? part. >> >>I found following text in the charter draft : >> >>??.. the packet header *should* have a hop count for robustness >> >>in the presence of temporary routing loops?? >> >>I know TTL has been constantly an issue in TRILL. However, >> >>I do not understand why people think TTL as an indispensable part >> >>of routing from the first place. >> >>Although TTL is a simple, and proven method, >> >>TTL is not the only technology tackling looping problem. >> >>ATM-MPLS has done well without TTL. There are plenty of >> >>proposals preventing or examining loops. I am wondering if >> >>there has been enough discussion on other options before >> >>people reach the conclusion on TTL. >> >>By fixing the hop-count part in charter item, I think this may prevent >> >>any future anti-looping technology from consideration and justifying >> >>encapsulation overhead from the first. I think the motivation of >> >>rbridge is very attractive, however, if it is possible, people must find >> >>a way to achieve the goal without modifying current format. >> >>For the charter text, I think it is just enough to mention that >> >>??Rbridge must have sufficient measure to prevent/detect >> >>possible looping ....?? without mentioning new header. >> >>Hopefully, this may provide a good consideration. >> >>Thank you. >> >>Regards >> >>Dr. Jaihyung Cho >>ETRI, Korea >>phone : 042) 860-5514 >>oversea: +82-42-860-5514 >>fax: +82-42-861-5550 >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AIqj613250 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:52:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D9Sm4-000Ih3-Rg; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:52:45 +0000 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:52:39 -0600 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <743203394.20050310125239@psg.com> To: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> In-Reply-To: <423092D4.40805@isi.edu> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <1509658726.20050304210311@psg.com> <422F1D6F.8070207@sun.com> <423092D4.40805@isi.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] VLANs X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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, 10 Mar 2005 18:53:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5193 Joe, I explained issues with multi-instance routing in one of the previous threads. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Thursday, March 10, 2005, 12:32:52 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > IMO, VLAN support requires a few things: > a) a way to assign an rbridge port to a VLAN > b) separate forwarding tables and routing protocol instances > for each VLAN, inside the rbridge campus > which thus contains the MAC addresses on each VLAN > sufficiently > Other than that, what is hard? and wouldn't these take care of the stuff > below? > Joe > Radia Perlman wrote: >> There are various ways that we can optimize for VLANs, and as usual, the >> choices are >> a continuum of tradeoffs between optimality of memory, bandwidth, >> complexity, etc. >> >> One thing we should do is have RBridges announce which VLANs they are >> supporting >> for endnodes. This would have to be configured, which I believe it is >> done for bridges. >> >> So each RBridge knows, for each of its links, which VLANs are allowed on >> that link. >> It announces this information in its link state information. >> >> Now all RBridges know which RBridges are attached to which VLANs. >> >> This now allows confining the broadcast domains. Unknown destinations or >> ARP/ND >> queries only need to be sent to Designated RBridges attached to the VLAN >> in which >> the packet originated. Depending on the amount of traffic which is >> unicast vs >> needing to be flooded (within the VLAN), there is a range of choices of >> how to get >> a packet to all the nodes within the VLAN. These are the same choices as >> for multicast, >> which I summarized in an earlier message, but basically it's >> a) send through a spanning tree to all RBridges, and DRs only flood onto >> their LAN >> to endnodes if the packet is for the right VLAN (if we did this we >> wouldn't even >> need to announce in link state packets which VLANs RBridge supported) >> b) send through the same single spanning tree to all RBridges, but an >> RBridge looks >> downstream, and stops forwarding if there are no RBridges supporting >> that VLAN further down >> c) compute per-source-RBridge trees, and when RBridge R floods a packet >> for VLAN A, >> the flooding will be done based on the tree rooted at R, and pruning >> will also be done, >> as per point b. >> >> Now for known endnodes: >> Especially since someone told me that people want the capability to have >> overlapping >> MAC address spaces among VLANs (the node with MAC address "m" in VLAN A >> might be totally different from the node "m" in VLAN B), RBridges, in >> their link >> state information, should tag what VLAN "m" belongs to. >> >> Given that R knows what VLANs MAC addresses belong to, if R does not support >> VLAN B, then there is no reason for R to put MAC addresses for B in its >> forwarding table. But if the endnode information is in the regular link >> state information >> (assume that for now), then R will need to store it so R can participate >> in link state >> flooding. >> >> Now another optimization: Suppose you want to avoid making R know about any >> endnodes except in VLANs that R supports. >> >> Then we could do the distribution of endnode information separately from the >> rest of the link state information (the "regular stuff" is the connectivity >> of the network consisting of RBridges, and tagging which RBridges are in >> which >> VLANs). >> >> If R is in VLAN A, then R must inform all the other RBridges attached to >> VLAN A >> of all of R's VLAN A attached endnodes. If there were enough VLAN A peers in >> the campus, it would probably be simplest to just use the regular link state >> flooding to distribute the information. However, if that isn't the case, >> then >> the VLAN A RBridge peers could talk to each other across the cloud to >> separately >> distribute their endnode information. For instance, it could be sent as >> a VLAN A flood, which the core would know how to do (as per the beginning of >> this note). >> >> Now, if non-VLAN-A RBridges do not know about the MAC addresses in A, >> that can't be what they base their forwarding decision on. >> >> If RBridge is working over MPLS, this isn't a problem, since the MPLS >> path leads to the egress RBridge. >> >> If there were only pt-to-pt links (no shared media) we could have the >> encapsulation header point to the egress RBridge. >> >> But on shared media, what we can do, at a cost of only 6 additional >> bytes, is to also put "egress RBridge ID" into the encapsulation header. >> >> So before on Ethernets a packet being forwarded by RBridges looked like: >> >> outer header: source=transmitting RBridge, dest=nexthop RBridge, protocol >> type=to be defined >> encapsulation header: TTL >> original frame >> >> But by making the encapsulation header include "destination RBridge", >> and having the RBridges along the path forward based on that, then >> they wouldn't need to be forwarding based on endnode MACs, only >> RBridge MACs. >> >> Radia >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rbridge mailing list >> rbridge@postel.org >> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from [130.129.132.40] (wireless-130-129-132-40.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.132.40]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AIWv606970; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:32:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <423092D4.40805@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:32:52 -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: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <1509658726.20050304210311@psg.com> <422F1D6F.8070207@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <422F1D6F.8070207@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="------------enigC34EFFA477E55C66E8B3CCC5" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] VLANs X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:34:05 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5588 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC34EFFA477E55C66E8B3CCC5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit IMO, VLAN support requires a few things: a) a way to assign an rbridge port to a VLAN b) separate forwarding tables and routing protocol instances for each VLAN, inside the rbridge campus which thus contains the MAC addresses on each VLAN sufficiently Other than that, what is hard? and wouldn't these take care of the stuff below? Joe Radia Perlman wrote: > There are various ways that we can optimize for VLANs, and as usual, the > choices are > a continuum of tradeoffs between optimality of memory, bandwidth, > complexity, etc. > > One thing we should do is have RBridges announce which VLANs they are > supporting > for endnodes. This would have to be configured, which I believe it is > done for bridges. > > So each RBridge knows, for each of its links, which VLANs are allowed on > that link. > It announces this information in its link state information. > > Now all RBridges know which RBridges are attached to which VLANs. > > This now allows confining the broadcast domains. Unknown destinations or > ARP/ND > queries only need to be sent to Designated RBridges attached to the VLAN > in which > the packet originated. Depending on the amount of traffic which is > unicast vs > needing to be flooded (within the VLAN), there is a range of choices of > how to get > a packet to all the nodes within the VLAN. These are the same choices as > for multicast, > which I summarized in an earlier message, but basically it's > a) send through a spanning tree to all RBridges, and DRs only flood onto > their LAN > to endnodes if the packet is for the right VLAN (if we did this we > wouldn't even > need to announce in link state packets which VLANs RBridge supported) > b) send through the same single spanning tree to all RBridges, but an > RBridge looks > downstream, and stops forwarding if there are no RBridges supporting > that VLAN further down > c) compute per-source-RBridge trees, and when RBridge R floods a packet > for VLAN A, > the flooding will be done based on the tree rooted at R, and pruning > will also be done, > as per point b. > > Now for known endnodes: > Especially since someone told me that people want the capability to have > overlapping > MAC address spaces among VLANs (the node with MAC address "m" in VLAN A > might be totally different from the node "m" in VLAN B), RBridges, in > their link > state information, should tag what VLAN "m" belongs to. > > Given that R knows what VLANs MAC addresses belong to, if R does not support > VLAN B, then there is no reason for R to put MAC addresses for B in its > forwarding table. But if the endnode information is in the regular link > state information > (assume that for now), then R will need to store it so R can participate > in link state > flooding. > > Now another optimization: Suppose you want to avoid making R know about any > endnodes except in VLANs that R supports. > > Then we could do the distribution of endnode information separately from the > rest of the link state information (the "regular stuff" is the connectivity > of the network consisting of RBridges, and tagging which RBridges are in > which > VLANs). > > If R is in VLAN A, then R must inform all the other RBridges attached to > VLAN A > of all of R's VLAN A attached endnodes. If there were enough VLAN A peers in > the campus, it would probably be simplest to just use the regular link state > flooding to distribute the information. However, if that isn't the case, > then > the VLAN A RBridge peers could talk to each other across the cloud to > separately > distribute their endnode information. For instance, it could be sent as > a VLAN A flood, which the core would know how to do (as per the beginning of > this note). > > Now, if non-VLAN-A RBridges do not know about the MAC addresses in A, > that can't be what they base their forwarding decision on. > > If RBridge is working over MPLS, this isn't a problem, since the MPLS > path leads to the egress RBridge. > > If there were only pt-to-pt links (no shared media) we could have the > encapsulation header point to the egress RBridge. > > But on shared media, what we can do, at a cost of only 6 additional > bytes, is to also put "egress RBridge ID" into the encapsulation header. > > So before on Ethernets a packet being forwarded by RBridges looked like: > > outer header: source=transmitting RBridge, dest=nexthop RBridge, protocol > type=to be defined > encapsulation header: TTL > original frame > > But by making the encapsulation header include "destination RBridge", > and having the RBridges along the path forward based on that, then > they wouldn't need to be forwarding based on endnode MACs, only > RBridge MACs. > > Radia > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge --------------enigC34EFFA477E55C66E8B3CCC5 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 iD8DBQFCMJLUE5f5cImnZrsRAjlZAJ419Kj4eoqmpMM5BvkMK47CQZLrlgCeK5Fc qe7FcHgshNEDkLGAFsbzb5o= =p0zl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC34EFFA477E55C66E8B3CCC5-- Received: from [130.129.132.40] (wireless-130-129-132-40.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.132.40]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AITf605819; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:29:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4230920D.90909@isi.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:29:33 -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: =?EUC-KR?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <a98501c52574$46b99a50$8310fe81@etri.info> In-Reply-To: <a98501c52574$46b99a50$8310fe81@etri.info> 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="------------enig7CBC213427F8F560E43EF433" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:30:47 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2020 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7CBC213427F8F560E43EF433 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ?????? wrote: ... > I found following text in the charter draft : > > ??.. the packet header *should* have a hop count for robustness > in the presence of temporary routing loops?? > > I know TTL has been constantly an issue in TRILL. However, > > I do not understand why people think TTL as an indispensable part > of routing from the first place. > Although TTL is a simple, and proven method, > TTL is not the only technology tackling looping problem. > > ATM-MPLS has done well without TTL. There are plenty of > proposals preventing or examining loops. I am wondering if > there has been enough discussion on other options before > people reach the conclusion on TTL. Hopcounts are required where routing is locally updated; in those cases, the global routing state may temporarily pass through configurations that have transient routing loops. ATM-MPLS is a circuit-oriented technology (on both counts). The current charter doesn't want to assume only circuits inside an rbridge campus, and we expect that the rbridge header will not depend on the routing protocol used. As a result, since packet forwarding may be used (in fact, IMO is more likely to be used), hopcounts are necessary. (unless you know of a better or different way to enforce loop detection that does not depend on the routing protocol used). Joe --------------enig7CBC213427F8F560E43EF433 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 iD8DBQFCMJIRE5f5cImnZrsRAmmUAJ91lnwD4xg0a5nHboEJ/n8zei3f+gCdF6ho UBZDdRXzJMjgqnSbNKUFRYg= =Rhs4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7CBC213427F8F560E43EF433-- Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AI4Y627308 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:05:22 +0900 priority: normal Thread-Topic: [rbridge] test... please ignore and delete it.... sorry thread-index: AcUlm7o2vopMF9qVQbima9DKYYZNyg== From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Cc: Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:05:22 +0900 Comment: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?x9GxucD8wNrF673Fv6yxuL/4LCBCY06x4rz6utC8rsbALCC047Tn?= Message-ID: <b04501c5259b$ba450050$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2005 18:05:22.0720 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA63FA00:01C5259B] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: [rbridge] test... please ignore and delete it.... sorry X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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 Mar 2005 18:05:35 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 220 text encoding test.... sorry for messing mailing list.. please delete this mail from archive. Dr. Jaihyung Cho ETRI, Korea phone : 042) 860-5514 oversea: +82-42-860-5514 fax: +82-42-861-5550 Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2AGf4624556 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:41:52 +0900 Priority: normal X-ReadCheckName: rbridge%40postel.org Thread-Topic: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-ReadCheckMessageID: <a2676c6e-ef09-43b6-ac24-0e67aa9dd7a9@etri.re.kr> thread-index: AcUlkA/lqkIA9c52Qgul09p2wy0VwA== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:41:52 +0900 Comment: GQ19@|@ZEk=E?,18?x, BcN1b<z:P<.F@, 4c4g Message-ID: <afb401c52590$0fe7b950$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_AFB5_01C525DB.7FCF6150" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2005 16:41:52.0432 (UTC) FILETIME=[1006B300:01C52590] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "CHO, JAI HYUNG" <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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 Mar 2005 16:41:35 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 12214 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_AFB5_01C525DB.7FCF6150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ------=_NextPart_000_AFB5_01C525DB.7FCF6150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PERJViBpZD1tc2dib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQt RkFNSUxZOiBTeXN0ZW0iPg0KPERJVj4NCjxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0la RTogMTBwdDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ID8/Ij4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1F Ti1VUz48P3htbDpuYW1lc3BhY2UgcHJlZml4ID0gbyBucyA9ICJ1cm46c2No ZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpvZmZpY2UiIC8+PG86cD48Rk9O VCBmYWNlPT8/PjwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8 RElWPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD5Tb3JyeSB0byBzZW5kIGl0IGFn YWluLjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1V Uz48bzpwPlNvbWUgcGVvcGxlIHNheSBpdCdzIHdyb25nbHkgZW5jb2RlZC4u LjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48 bzpwPkl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSByZWFkIGluIGVuZ2xpc2ggd2luZG93Li4uLjwv bzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1F Ti1VUz48bzpwPkphaWh5dW5nPC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPg0KPERJ Vj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPiZuYnNwOzwv RElWPg0KPERJVj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+ PC9TUEFOPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHls ZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9O VCBmYWNlPT8/PkRlYXIgQWxsLDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BB TiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz4mbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+ PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0i TUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBm YWNlPT8/PkkgYW0gbmV3IHRvIHRoaXMgQk9GIGFuZCBJIGZvdW5kIGZyb20g UmFkaWE8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgc3R5bGU9IkZP TlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgbXNvLWFzY2lpLWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiA/PyI+JzwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9Pz8+cyBwYXBlciwgdGhlIGFwcHJvYWNoIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9Q Pg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20g MHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+YW5kIGdvYWwg b2YgcmJyaWRnZSBpcyBzb21ld2hhdCByZWxhdGVkIHRvIHdoYXQgSSBoYXZl IHJlc2VhcmNoZWQgZm9yIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBs YW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+c2V2ZXJhbCB5ZWFycy48L0ZPTlQ+ PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lO OiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/ PkkmbmJzcDtlYWdlciZuYnNwO3RvIHNoYXJlIG15IGlkZWEgd2l0aCBUUklM TCBwZW9wbGUuPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4t VVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQ QU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBj bSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+Qnkg dGhlIHdheSwgSSBicmllZmx5IHJlYWQgaW5pdGlhbCBkcmFmdCBvZiBUUklM TCBjaGFydGVyIGFuZCBzaG91bGQ8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQ QU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PmV4cHJlc3Mgc29tZSB3b3Jy eSBvbiA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgc3R5bGU9IkZP TlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgbXNvLWFzY2lpLWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiA/PyI+JzwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9Pz8+ZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1F Ti1VUyBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBt c28tYXNjaWktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ID8/Ij4nPC9TUEFOPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9 RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz4gYW5kIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4g bGFuZz1FTi1VUyBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4nOyBtc28tYXNjaWktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ID8/Ij4nPC9TUEFOPjxTUEFO IGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz5UVEw8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjxT UEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3 IFJvbWFuJzsgbXNvLWFzY2lpLWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiA/PyI+JzwvU1BBTj48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+IHBhcnQuPC9GT05UPjwv U1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjog MGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNl PT8/PiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBs YW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+SSBmb3VuZCBmb2xsb3dpbmcgdGV4 dCBpbiB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciBkcmFmdCA6PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8 UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQi PjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PiZuYnNwOzwv Rk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0 eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0 eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogJ1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbic7IG1zby1hc2Np aS1mb250LWZhbWlseTogPz8iPiI8L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/Pi4uIHRoZSBwYWNrZXQgaGVhZGVyICpzaG91bGQqIGhh dmUgYSBob3AgY291bnQgZm9yIHJvYnVzdG5lc3MgPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48 L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBj bSAwcHQ7IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5UOiAxNXB0OyBtc28tY2hhci1pbmRlbnQtY291 bnQ6IDEuNSI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PmluIHRo ZSBwcmVzZW5jZSBvZiB0ZW1wb3Jhcnkgcm91dGluZyBsb29wczwvRk9OVD48 L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICdU aW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBtc28tYXNjaWktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ID8/Ij4i PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lO OiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpwPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9Pz8+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFO IGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz5JIGtub3cgVFRMIGhhcyBiZWVu IGNvbnN0YW50bHkgYW4gaXNzdWUgaW4gVFJJTEwuIEhvd2V2ZXIsPC9GT05U PjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJ TjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/ Pz5JIGRvIG5vdCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoeSBwZW9wbGUgdGhpbmsgVFRMIGFz IGFuIGluZGlzcGVuc2FibGUgcGFydDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+b2Ygcm91dGluZyBmcm9t IHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwbGFjZS4gPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFO IGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz5BbHRob3VnaCBUVEwgaXMgYSBz aW1wbGUsIGFuZCBwcm92ZW4gbWV0aG9kLCA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4N CjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBw dCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PlRUTCBpcyBub3Qg dGhlIG9ubHkgdGVjaG5vbG9neSB0YWNrbGluZyBsb29waW5nIHByb2JsZW0u PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9 Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0K PFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0 Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+QVRNLU1QTFMgaGFz IGRvbmUgd2VsbCB3aXRob3V0IFRUTC4gVGhlcmUgYXJlIHBsZW50eSBvZiA8 L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0i TUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBm YWNlPT8/PnByb3Bvc2FscyBwcmV2ZW50aW5nIG9yIGV4YW1pbmluZyBsb29w cy4gSSBhbSB3b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxT UEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz50aGVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBl bm91Z2ggZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiBvdGhlciBvcHRpb25zIGJlZm9yZSA8L0ZP TlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFS R0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNl PT8/PnBlb3BsZSByZWFjaCB0aGUgY29uY2x1c2lvbiBvbiBUVEwuPC9GT05U PjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJ TjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBm YWNlPT8/PiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BB TiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+QnkgZml4aW5nIHRoZSBob3At Y291bnQgcGFydCBpbiBjaGFydGVyIGl0ZW0sIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBtYXkg cHJldmVudCA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1V Uz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PmFueSBmdXR1cmUgYW50aS1sb29waW5nIHRlY2hu b2xvZ3kgZnJvbSBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9uIGFuZCBqdXN0aWZ5aW5nIDwvRk9O VD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJH SU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9 Pz8+ZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbiBvdmVyaGVhZCBmcm9tIHRoZSBmaXJzdC4gSSB0 aGluayB0aGUgbW90aXZhdGlvbiBvZiA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQ IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+ PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PnJicmlkZ2UgaXMgdmVy eSBhdHRyYWN0aXZlLCBob3dldmVyLCBpZiBpdCBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSwgcGVv cGxlIG11c3QgZmluZCA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFu Zz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PmEgd2F5IHRvIGFjaGlldmUgdGhlIGdv YWwgd2l0aG91dCBtb2RpZnlpbmcgY3VycmVudCBmb3JtYXQuIDwvRk9OVD48 L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46 IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PEZPTlQgZmFj ZT0/Pz4mbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4g bGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PkZvciB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciB0ZXh0 LCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0IGlzIGp1c3QgZW5vdWdoIHRvIG1lbnRpb24gdGhhdDwv Rk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJN QVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9Pz8+PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj4mbmJzcDs8L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9 RU4tVVMgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsg bXNvLWFzY2lpLWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiA/PyI+JzwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5n PUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+UmJyaWRnZSBtdXN0IGhhdmUgc3VmZmlj aWVudCBtZWFzdXJlIHRvIHByZXZlbnQvZGV0ZWN0PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48 L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBj bSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz5wb3NzaWJs ZSBsb29waW5nIC4uLi48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVMg c3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgbXNvLWFz Y2lpLWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiA/PyI+JzwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVT PjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+IHdpdGhvdXQgbWVudGlvbmluZyBuZXcgaGVhZGVy LjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxl PSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+ PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz4mbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4N CjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBw dCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPT8/PkhvcGVmdWxseSwg dGhpcyBtYXkgcHJvdmlkZSBhIGdvb2QgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbi48L0ZPTlQ+ PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lO OiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpwPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9Pz8+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFO IGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz5UaGFuayB5b3UuPG86cD48L286 cD48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHls ZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpw PjxGT05UIGZhY2U9Pz8+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+ DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAw cHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz5SZWdhcmRzPC9G T05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1B UkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9O VCBmYWNlPT8/PiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT0/Pz48L0ZPTlQ+PC9v OnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFS R0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+Jm5ic3A7PC9QPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4NCjxE SVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTBwdDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ID8/Ij4N CjxESVY+DQo8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFN SUxZOiA/PyI+DQo8RElWPkRyLiBKYWloeXVuZyBDaG88L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+ RVRSSSwgS29yZWE8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+cGhvbmUgOiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyAwNDIpIDg2MC01NTE0PC9ESVY+DQo8 RElWPm92ZXJzZWE6ICs4Mi00Mi04NjAtNTUxNDwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5mYXg6 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7Jm5ic3A7KzgyLTQyLTg2MS01NTUwJm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9E SVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PC9ESVY+PGltZyBzcmM9Ik1h aWxTY2FubmVyV2ViQnVnIiB3aWR0aD0iMCIgaGVpZ2h0PSIwIiBhbHQ9Ildl YiBCdWcgZnJvbSBodHRwOi8vdW1haWwuZXRyaS5yZS5rci9FeHRlcm5hbF9S ZWFkQ2hlY2suYXNweD9lbWFpbD1yYnJpZGdlQHBvc3RlbC5vcmcmbmFtZT1y YnJpZGdlJTQwcG9zdGVsLm9yZyZmcm9tZW1haWw9amFpaHl1bmdAZXRyaS5y ZS5rciZtZXNzYWdlaWQ9JTNDYTI2NzZjNmUtZWYwOS00M2I2LWFjMjQtMGU2 N2FhOWRkN2E5QGV0cmkucmUua3IlM0UiIC8+ ------=_NextPart_000_AFB5_01C525DB.7FCF6150-- 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 j2AGdM624015 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:39:22 -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 j2AGdHhp024793 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:39:22 -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 <0ID500201A8GBM@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:39:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-29-175.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.29.175]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ID5001KMA9FKU@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:39:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:39:15 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <a98501c52574$46b99a50$8310fe81@etri.info> To: =?x-windows-949?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <42307833.6030205@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=x-windows-949 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <a98501c52574$46b99a50$8310fe81@etri.info> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:39:38 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2657 Well, the encapsulation is really link dependent. So on MPLS, indeed, as you point out, you don't need a hop count. We haven't written down exactly how RBridge would work over MPLS, but I think no extra information is needed...an MPLS header is stuck onto the frame by the ingress RBridge, and removed by the egress RBridge. (Does anyone see any problem with that?) For links which are shared media though, it's safer to ensure that temporary loops won't cause a problem, rather than try to ensure there never will be a temporary loop. Temporary loops can form no matter what if, for instance, someone brings up a repeater. Radia ?????? wrote: > Dear All, > > I am new to this BOF and I found from Radia??s paper, the approach > > and goal of rbridge is somewhat related to what I have researched for > > several years. > > I am very eager to share my idea with TRILL people. > > By the way, I briefly read initial draft of TRILL charter and felt > obliged to > > express some worry on ??encapsulation?? and ??TTL?? part. > > I found following text in the charter draft : > > ??.. the packet header *should* have a hop count for robustness > > in the presence of temporary routing loops?? > > I know TTL has been constantly an issue in TRILL. However, > > I do not understand why people think TTL as an indispensable part > > of routing from the first place. > > Although TTL is a simple, and proven method, > > TTL is not the only technology tackling looping problem. > > ATM-MPLS has done well without TTL. There are plenty of > > proposals preventing or examining loops. I am wondering if > > there has been enough discussion on other options before > > people reach the conclusion on TTL. > > By fixing the hop-count part in charter item, I think this may prevent > > any future anti-looping technology from consideration and justifying > > encapsulation overhead from the first. I think the motivation of > > rbridge is very attractive, however, if it is possible, people must find > > a way to achieve the goal without modifying current format. > > For the charter text, I think it is just enough to mention that > > ??Rbridge must have sufficient measure to prevent/detect > > possible looping ....?? without mentioning new header. > > Hopefully, this may provide a good consideration. > > Thank you. > > Regards > > Dr. Jaihyung Cho > ETRI, Korea > phone : 042) 860-5514 > oversea: +82-42-860-5514 > fax: +82-42-861-5550 > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >rbridge mailing list >rbridge@postel.org >http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > Received: from email1.etri.info (email1.etri.re.kr [129.254.16.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2ADMB612522 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:22:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail pickup service by email1.etri.info with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:22:58 +0900 Priority: normal X-ReadCheckName: rbridge%40postel.org Thread-Topic: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-ReadCheckMessageID: <b3f44aae-81ea-4991-b609-3d079b9c8e7a@etri.re.kr> thread-index: AcUldEa3Z8sp+DD/QxO8lW1KH1YFXA== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr> To: <rbridge@postel.org> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:22:58 +0900 Comment: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?x9GxucD8wNrF673Fv6yxuL/4LCBCY06x4rz6utC8rsbALCC047Tn?= Message-ID: <a98501c52574$46b99a50$8310fe81@etri.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_A986_01C525BF.B6A14250" X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2005 13:22:58.0496 (UTC) FILETIME=[46D89400:01C52574] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jaihyung@etri.re.kr Cc: avri@acm.org Subject: [rbridge] text on hop-count in updated charter X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?wbbA58f8?= <jaihyung@etri.re.kr>, "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 Mar 2005 13:23:36 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 11571 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_A986_01C525BF.B6A14250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 ------=_NextPart_000_A986_01C525BF.B6A14250 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ks_c_5601-1987" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PERJViBpZD1tc2dib2R5IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQt RkFNSUxZOiCxvLiyIj4NCjxESVY+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48P3htbDpu YW1lc3BhY2UgcHJlZml4ID0gbyBucyA9ICJ1cm46c2NoZW1hcy1taWNyb3Nv ZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpvZmZpY2UiIC8+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+ Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+DQo8UCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxT UEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPkRlYXIgQWxsLDwvRk9O VD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJH SU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PEZPTlQg ZmFjZT252cXBPiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5JIGFtIG5ldyB0byB0 aGlzIEJPRiBhbmQgSSBmb3VuZCBmcm9tIFJhZGlhPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogJ1RpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbic7IG1zby1hc2NpaS1mb250LWZhbWlseTogudnFwSI+oa88L1NQ QU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+cyBwYXBlciwg dGhlIGFwcHJvYWNoIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5n PUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5hbmQgZ29hbCBvZiByYnJpZGdlIGlz IHNvbWV3aGF0IHJlbGF0ZWQgdG8gd2hhdCBJIGhhdmUgcmVzZWFyY2hlZCBm b3IgPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5 bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT252cXBPnNldmVyYWwgeWVhcnMuPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+ DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAw cHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPkkgYW0gdmVy eSBlYWdlciB0byBzaGFyZSBteSBpZGVhIHdpdGggVFJJTEwgcGVvcGxlLjwv Rk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJN QVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxvOnA+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT252cXBPiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0K PFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0 Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5CeSB0aGUgd2F5 LCBJIGJyaWVmbHkgcmVhZCBpbml0aWFsIGRyYWZ0IG9mIFRSSUxMIGNoYXJ0 ZXIgYW5kIGZlbHQgb2JsaWdlZCB0bzwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5leHByZXNzIHNvbWUg d29ycnkgb24gPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxl PSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogJ1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbic7IG1zby1hc2NpaS1m b250LWZhbWlseTogudnFwSI+oa48L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48 Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+ZW5jYXBzdWxhdGlvbjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PFNQ QU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW4nOyBtc28tYXNjaWktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ILnZxcEiPqGvPC9TUEFO PjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPiBhbmQgPC9GT05U PjwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTog J1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbic7IG1zby1hc2NpaS1mb250LWZhbWlseTogudnF wSI+oa48L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+ VFRMPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxlPSJGT05U LUZBTUlMWTogJ1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbic7IG1zby1hc2NpaS1mb250LWZh bWlseTogudnFwSI+oa88L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBm YWNlPbnZxcE+IHBhcnQuPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxh bmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwv bzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1B UkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFj ZT252cXBPkkgZm91bmQgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRleHQgaW4gdGhlIGNoYXJ0ZXIg ZHJhZnQgOjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs IHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVT PjxvOnA+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQ QU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBj bSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlM WTogJ1RpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbic7IG1zby1hc2NpaS1mb250LWZhbWlseTog udnFwSI+obA8L1NQQU4+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZ xcE+Li4gdGhlIHBhY2tldCBoZWFkZXIgKnNob3VsZCogaGF2ZSBhIGhvcCBj b3VudCBmb3Igcm9idXN0bmVzcyA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdDsgVEVY VC1JTkRFTlQ6IDE1cHQ7IG1zby1jaGFyLWluZGVudC1jb3VudDogMS41Ij48 U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5pbiB0aGUgcHJlc2Vu Y2Ugb2YgdGVtcG9yYXJ5IHJvdXRpbmcgbG9vcHM8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjxT UEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3 IFJvbWFuJzsgbXNvLWFzY2lpLWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiC52cXBIj6hsTwvU1BB Tj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNt IDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZ xcE+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxh bmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPkkga25vdyBUVEwgaGFzIGJlZW4g Y29uc3RhbnRseSBhbiBpc3N1ZSBpbiBUUklMTC4gSG93ZXZlciw8L0ZPTlQ+ PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lO OiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZ xcE+SSBkbyBub3QgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB3aHkgcGVvcGxlIHRoaW5rIFRUTCBh cyBhbiBpbmRpc3BlbnNhYmxlIHBhcnQ8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQ IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+ PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+b2Ygcm91dGluZyBm cm9tIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBwbGFjZS4gPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxT UEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPkFsdGhvdWdoIFRUTCBp cyBhIHNpbXBsZSwgYW5kIHByb3ZlbiBtZXRob2QsIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+ PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAw Y20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5UVEwg aXMgbm90IHRoZSBvbmx5IHRlY2hub2xvZ3kgdGFja2xpbmcgbG9vcGluZyBw cm9ibGVtLjwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs IHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVT PjxvOnA+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPiZuYnNwOzwvRk9OVD48L286cD48L1NQ QU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBj bSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5B VE0tTVBMUyBoYXMgZG9uZSB3ZWxsIHdpdGhvdXQgVFRMLiBUaGVyZSBhcmUg cGxlbnR5IG9mIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVO LVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5wcm9wb3NhbHMgcHJldmVudGluZyBvciBl eGFtaW5pbmcgbG9vcHMuIEkgYW0gd29uZGVyaW5nIGlmIDwvRk9OVD48L1NQ QU4+PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBj bSAwY20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT50 aGVyZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBlbm91Z2ggZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiBvdGhlciBvcHRp b25zIGJlZm9yZSA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1F Ti1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+cGVvcGxlIHJlYWNoIHRoZSBjb25jbHVz aW9uIG9uIFRUTC48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1F Ti1VUz48bzpwPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT4mbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+PC9vOnA+ PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lO OiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZ xcE+QnkgZml4aW5nIHRoZSBob3AtY291bnQgcGFydCBpbiBjaGFydGVyIGl0 ZW0sIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBtYXkgcHJldmVudCA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwv UD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNt IDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+YW55IGZ1 dHVyZSBhbnRpLWxvb3BpbmcgdGVjaG5vbG9neSBmcm9tIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRp b24gYW5kIGp1c3RpZnlpbmcgPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFO IGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPmVuY2Fwc3VsYXRpb24gb3Zl cmhlYWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgZmlyc3QuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhlIG1vdGl2YXRpb24g b2YgPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5 bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT252cXBPnJicmlkZ2UgaXMgdmVyeSBhdHRyYWN0aXZlLCBob3dl dmVyLCBpZiBpdCBpcyBwb3NzaWJsZSwgcGVvcGxlIG11c3QgZmluZCA8L0ZP TlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFS R0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNl PbnZxcE+YSB3YXkgdG8gYWNoaWV2ZSB0aGUgZ29hbCB3aXRob3V0IG1vZGlm eWluZyBjdXJyZW50IGZvcm1hdC4gPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxT UEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+Jm5ic3A7PC9G T05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5 bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT252cXBPkZvciB0aGUgY2hhcnRlciB0ZXh0LCBJIHRoaW5rIGl0 IGlzIGp1c3QgZW5vdWdoIHRvIG1lbnRpb24gdGhhdDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+ PC9QPg0KPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAw Y20gMHB0Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT48L0ZP TlQ+PC9TUEFOPiZuYnNwOzwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHls ZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBzdHls ZT0iRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBtc28tYXNjaWkt Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6ILnZxcEiPqGuPC9TUEFOPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+ PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPlJicmlkZ2UgbXVzdCBoYXZlIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQg bWVhc3VyZSB0byBwcmV2ZW50L2RldGVjdDwvRk9OVD48L1NQQU4+PC9QPg0K PFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20gMHB0 Ij48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVTPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT5wb3NzaWJsZSBs b29waW5nIC4uLi48L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgc3R5 bGU9IkZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgbXNvLWFzY2lp LWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiC52cXBIj6hrzwvU1BBTj48U1BBTiBsYW5nPUVOLVVT PjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT4gd2l0aG91dCBtZW50aW9uaW5nIG5ldyBoZWFk ZXIuPC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5 bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PG86 cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpwPjwvU1BBTj48 L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBj bSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT252cXBPkhvcGVm dWxseSwgdGhpcyBtYXkgcHJvdmlkZSBhIGdvb2QgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbi48 L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0i TUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpwPjxG T05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT4mbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4N CjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBw dCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+VGhhbmsgeW91 LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9GT05UPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9 RU4tVVM+PG86cD48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPbnZxcE+Jm5ic3A7PC9GT05UPjwvbzpw PjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQo8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9Ik1BUkdJ TjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQiPjxTUEFOIGxhbmc9RU4tVVM+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT25 2cXBPlJlZ2FyZHM8L0ZPTlQ+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1F Ti1VUz48bzpwPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9udnFwT4mbmJzcDs8L0ZPTlQ+PC9vOnA+ PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lO OiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+PFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUz48bzpwPjxGT05UIGZh Y2U9udnFwT48L0ZPTlQ+PC9vOnA+PC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCjxQIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdCI+Jm5ic3A7PC9Q PjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4NCjxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQtU0laRTogMTBwdDsg Rk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ILG8uLIiPg0KPERJVj4NCjxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQt U0laRTogMTBwdDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ILG8uLIiPg0KPERJVj5Eci4gSmFp aHl1bmcgQ2hvPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPkVUUkksIEtvcmVhPC9ESVY+DQo8RElW PnBob25lIDombmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDsg MDQyKSA4NjAtNTUxNDwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5vdmVyc2VhOiArODItNDItODYw LTU1MTQ8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+ZmF4OiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOys4Mi00Mi04NjEtNTU1 MCZuYnNwOzwvRElWPjwvRElWPjwvRElWPjwvRElWPjwvRElWPjwvRElWPjxp bWcgc3JjPSJNYWlsU2Nhbm5lcldlYkJ1ZyIgd2lkdGg9IjAiIGhlaWdodD0i MCIgYWx0PSJXZWIgQnVnIGZyb20gaHR0cDovL3VtYWlsLmV0cmkucmUua3Iv RXh0ZXJuYWxfUmVhZENoZWNrLmFzcHg/ZW1haWw9cmJyaWRnZUBwb3N0ZWwu b3JnJm5hbWU9cmJyaWRnZSU0MHBvc3RlbC5vcmcmZnJvbWVtYWlsPWphaWh5 dW5nQGV0cmkucmUua3ImbWVzc2FnZWlkPSUzQ2IzZjQ0YWFlLTgxZWEtNDk5 MS1iNjA5LTNkMDc5YjljOGU3YUBldHJpLnJlLmtyJTNFIiAvPg== ------=_NextPart_000_A986_01C525BF.B6A14250-- 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 j2A2nN601776 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:49:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.82.166]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j2A2nMX8026829 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 19:49:22 -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 j2A2nLiX881482; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 18:49:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <422FB596.8080604@sun.com> Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:48:54 -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-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Need scribe and jabber scribe for tomorrows TRILL meeting X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:49:29 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 32 Who will volunteer? Erik Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com (brmea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.98.34]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j29Fxe624734 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 07:59:40 -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 j29FxYhn028810 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2005 08:59:40 -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 <0ID300K01DR2TM@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-28-183.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.28.183]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ID300NHKDR82P@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Wed, 09 Mar 2005 10:59:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 07:59:43 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <1509658726.20050304210311@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Message-id: <422F1D6F.8070207@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <1509658726.20050304210311@psg.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: [rbridge] VLANs X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:00:23 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4150 There are various ways that we can optimize for VLANs, and as usual, the choices are a continuum of tradeoffs between optimality of memory, bandwidth, complexity, etc. One thing we should do is have RBridges announce which VLANs they are supporting for endnodes. This would have to be configured, which I believe it is done for bridges. So each RBridge knows, for each of its links, which VLANs are allowed on that link. It announces this information in its link state information. Now all RBridges know which RBridges are attached to which VLANs. This now allows confining the broadcast domains. Unknown destinations or ARP/ND queries only need to be sent to Designated RBridges attached to the VLAN in which the packet originated. Depending on the amount of traffic which is unicast vs needing to be flooded (within the VLAN), there is a range of choices of how to get a packet to all the nodes within the VLAN. These are the same choices as for multicast, which I summarized in an earlier message, but basically it's a) send through a spanning tree to all RBridges, and DRs only flood onto their LAN to endnodes if the packet is for the right VLAN (if we did this we wouldn't even need to announce in link state packets which VLANs RBridge supported) b) send through the same single spanning tree to all RBridges, but an RBridge looks downstream, and stops forwarding if there are no RBridges supporting that VLAN further down c) compute per-source-RBridge trees, and when RBridge R floods a packet for VLAN A, the flooding will be done based on the tree rooted at R, and pruning will also be done, as per point b. Now for known endnodes: Especially since someone told me that people want the capability to have overlapping MAC address spaces among VLANs (the node with MAC address "m" in VLAN A might be totally different from the node "m" in VLAN B), RBridges, in their link state information, should tag what VLAN "m" belongs to. Given that R knows what VLANs MAC addresses belong to, if R does not support VLAN B, then there is no reason for R to put MAC addresses for B in its forwarding table. But if the endnode information is in the regular link state information (assume that for now), then R will need to store it so R can participate in link state flooding. Now another optimization: Suppose you want to avoid making R know about any endnodes except in VLANs that R supports. Then we could do the distribution of endnode information separately from the rest of the link state information (the "regular stuff" is the connectivity of the network consisting of RBridges, and tagging which RBridges are in which VLANs). If R is in VLAN A, then R must inform all the other RBridges attached to VLAN A of all of R's VLAN A attached endnodes. If there were enough VLAN A peers in the campus, it would probably be simplest to just use the regular link state flooding to distribute the information. However, if that isn't the case, then the VLAN A RBridge peers could talk to each other across the cloud to separately distribute their endnode information. For instance, it could be sent as a VLAN A flood, which the core would know how to do (as per the beginning of this note). Now, if non-VLAN-A RBridges do not know about the MAC addresses in A, that can't be what they base their forwarding decision on. If RBridge is working over MPLS, this isn't a problem, since the MPLS path leads to the egress RBridge. If there were only pt-to-pt links (no shared media) we could have the encapsulation header point to the egress RBridge. But on shared media, what we can do, at a cost of only 6 additional bytes, is to also put "egress RBridge ID" into the encapsulation header. So before on Ethernets a packet being forwarded by RBridges looked like: outer header: source=transmitting RBridge, dest=nexthop RBridge, protocol type=to be defined encapsulation header: TTL original frame But by making the encapsulation header include "destination RBridge", and having the RBridges along the path forward based on that, then they wouldn't need to be forwarding based on endnode MACs, only RBridge MACs. Radia Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2553H629148 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7RRZ-000Jeg-Se; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:03:14 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:03:11 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1509658726.20050304210311@psg.com> To: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:03:53 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1426 Friday, March 4, 2005, 6:01:47 PM, Russ White wrote: >> Yes, this would work, and would most probably represent the largest part >> of station attachments in today deployments. There are corner cases, like >> a mini-hub in a cubicle with a single station attached to it, but we >> don't optimize for those and a probing-based safe-fail should take care >> of them. > I assume all bridges use BPDU's? They start sending/processing BPDUs when STP is enabled, otherwise they're silently flooding/learning/forwarding. > If so, could we listen for those, and if > we don't hear them, simply assume the link is point-to-point? Presence of BPDUs unambiguously identifies a bridge on the port. However, absence of them does not. > Another thing > we could look for would be multiple source mac addresses (?). This will work most of the time, except for the hub case I mentioned: +---+ | Sw|-----[Hub]---[E] +---+ The switch sees one link, one MAC. If the Sw-Hub link is down, it does mean that E is unavailable. However, if that link is up, it is still possible for E to be unavailable because link Hub-E is down. I think the above should be good enough, as long as we assume that we're announcing _reachability of a specific MAC address, rather than momentary connectivity to the station that uses it. This should go well with the "presumption of reachability" I mentioned in a previous message to Radia. Alex Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j2522c624569 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:02:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2005 21:18:02 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,137,1107752400"; d="scan'208"; a="39350873:sNHT21161376" Received: from russpc.Whitehouse.intra (rtp-vpn3-317.cisco.com [10.82.217.63]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j2522T1k023491; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:02:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:01:47 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> In-Reply-To: <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503042059000.2696@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@shako.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ruwhite@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Russ White <riw@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: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 02:02:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2599 > Yes, this would work, and would most probably represent the largest part > of station attachments in today deployments. There are corner cases, like > a mini-hub in a cubicle with a single station attached to it, but we > don't optimize for those and a probing-based safe-fail should take care > of them. I assume all bridges use BPDU's? If so, could we listen for those, and if we don't hear them, simply assume the link is point-to-point? Another thing we could look for would be multiple source mac addresses (?). I think those are the two pieces of "magic" that come to mind without spending a lot of time thinking about it..... :-) Russ > > -- > Alex > http://www.psg.com/~zinin > > Friday, March 4, 2005, 6:51:58 AM, Russ White wrote: > >>> If rbridges use the method currently used in bridges, i.e. install a new MAC >>> entry when a data frame is seen from the station, and remove it if the station >>> hasn't been heard from for about 5-15 minutes, we will be seeing more dynamic >>> state changes than if we used the control traffic-based approach. In other >>> words, we'd be announcing end station activity information rather than end >>> station reachability, and the former is likely to change faster, and thus >>> cause the switch to reoriginate and reflood its link-state information more >>> often. We would need something better than that for rbridges to scale. > >> Hmmm... A simple thought is if there are no "traditional" bridges between >> you and the attached host, you could rely on simple link state, right? In >> other words, assuming the host is directly attached to an rbridge, there's >> really no reason the link would be up with the host down. > >> (There are exceptions for ethernet and other oddities, and we're not going >> to solve those very easily for all cases, so let's consider them an >> exception, for now, and work with the majority of cases). > >> So, what we could do is: > >> -- Use some "magic" to determine if we're directly connected to the >> attached host. > >> -- If we are, then just consider the link state the actual state, just like >> in a real link state protocol. :-) > >> -- If we aren't, either use probing, or just use normal bridge techniques >> (learn etc). > >> Thoughts? It would, at least, reduce the number of cases where we would >> need some technique other than simple link state to a minimal, and possible >> none in many networks. > >> :-) > >> Russ > >> __________________________________ >> riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24NdN618446 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:39:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7MOA-0009X0-TZ; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:39:23 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:39:17 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <797567134.20050304153917@psg.com> To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> In-Reply-To: <p06200714be4e9a4e4b59@[10\.0\.0\.171]> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> <p06200709be4dfb3c4726@[10.0.0.171]> <1227823257.20050304143835@psg.com> <p06200714be4e9a4e4b59@[10.0.0.171]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:39:52 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1260 Margaret, Sounds like an interesting topic :) -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Friday, March 4, 2005, 3:13:33 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Hi Alex, >>> Are you planning to build one massive device that would run all of the >>> bridging and routing for this 50,000 node network? >> >>Margaret, when building switched Ethernet networks today, folks don't build >>different broadcast domains using separate sets of single-VLAN >>devices. Neither >>they use a single massive device to connect all stations 50,000 as you suggest >>above. They build VLANs using multi-VLAN switches connected by VLAN trunks. >>Those VLANs are distributed location-wise, and switches in the core of the >>network have visibility to most (if not all) VLANs through those trunks. > Yes, I am somewhat aware of these deployments, but I don't understand why > this implies that the core switches would be rbridges and/or why they would be > part of most of the rbridge clouds. > Maybe we can talk about this when we have a whiteboard handy? I'm not > trying to score debating points here . I think we're just thinking > about this differently, > and I'd like to understand how you believe the topology will work as opposed > to how I think it will work. > Margaret Received: from thingmagic.com (tm-gw2.cictr.com [204.9.221.21] (may be forged)) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24NDo609044 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.171] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.171]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 300390; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:11:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p06200714be4e9a4e4b59@[10.0.0.171]> In-Reply-To: <1227823257.20050304143835@psg.com> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> <p06200709be4dfb3c4726@[10.0.0.171]> <1227823257.20050304143835@psg.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:13:33 -0500 To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: margaret@thingmagic.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:14:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1082 Hi Alex, >> Are you planning to build one massive device that would run all of the >> bridging and routing for this 50,000 node network? > >Margaret, when building switched Ethernet networks today, folks don't build >different broadcast domains using separate sets of single-VLAN >devices. Neither >they use a single massive device to connect all stations 50,000 as you suggest >above. They build VLANs using multi-VLAN switches connected by VLAN trunks. >Those VLANs are distributed location-wise, and switches in the core of the >network have visibility to most (if not all) VLANs through those trunks. Yes, I am somewhat aware of these deployments, but I don't understand why this implies that the core switches would be rbridges and/or why they would be part of most of the rbridge clouds. Maybe we can talk about this when we have a whiteboard handy? I'm not trying to score debating points here . I think we're just thinking about this differently, and I'd like to understand how you believe the topology will work as opposed to how I think it will work. Margaret Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24N9q608007 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:09:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7Lvc-0004Qy-8f; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:09:52 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:09:50 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1814321331.20050304150950@psg.com> To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <1109966237.18287.29.camel@thunk> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <4228A9C7.4000900@sun.com> <1109966237.18287.29.camel@thunk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:10:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1234 Bill, Unfortunately, node-local knowledge is insufficient. The edge rbridges need to know what dst mac to put in the frame, and the internal nodes need to know whether to install mac entries for all end stations or only other rbridges. So the knowledge and behavior must be consistent throughout the network. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Friday, March 4, 2005, 11:57:18 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 13:32, Radia Perlman wrote: >> If the DB knows a port is not shared media...that it's >> only a pt-to-pt link with no intervening bridges, > I think you mean "the DB's admin knows". > I suspect there are few situations where a bridge could know *for sure* > that that there can be only one mac address on the other end of the link. > There could be a hub.. there could be a bridge told not to talk STP.. > could be a host which uses multiple source mac addresses. > on the other hand, "I've only seen one source mac address so far and I > haven't heard any STP" might be a good enough heuristic in practice. > - Bill > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24MvA603910 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7LjJ-0001hK-Ms; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:57:09 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:57:07 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <65066248.20050304145707@psg.com> To: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503041244110.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503041244110.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:57:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2531 Russ, > I'm actually not entirely certain this is true... While STP is, itself, > rather simple, and concerned with finding loops, isn't layer 2 address > learning also required, along with the requisite timers, etc? If so, then I > would class these as part of the control plane, as well, I think (?). This is an interesting point. MAC table can be classified as forwarding state, similar to the forwarding table in IP routers. MAC table management indeed involves control plane operations (timers, link state changes, STP topology change notification), and should be counted. > And this is where my question comes in, above. No, STP doesn't carry these, > but the actual learning of where layer 2 addresses are attached to the > network is required to make an STP based bridged network actually work, > correct? sure > The only real difference is, then, between learning these > addresses as they are attached, vs when they transmit. I don't know that > there's a lot of difference, computationally, between the two. The difference is what is in computations, data, and BW required to learn/compute the MAC table entries. In the routing-based scheme, the MAC entries are the direct result of operations of a distributed algorithm, while in the bridging case, they are more results of listening to the transit traffic. >> The most promising approach would be to use what link-state protocols don't do >> today yet--multi-topology flooding, where information related to each VLAN >> would be flooded only to the nodes that need it. Note that this would only >> reduce the amount of information maintained by the edge switches, and only if >> they participate in a considerably smaller subset of VLANs. The core switches, >> exposed to most of VLANs would still have to maintain entries for all of them >> in their control-plane databases. > This sound like it might actually scale better than multiple processes, one > per vlan. I certainly think so. Experience with 2547 vs per-VR routing also suggests this. > Note that if you're using MPLS as your "core," you might not even > need this. You might be able to aggregate the address spaces using labels > and sites, so the edges see the full table, or at least the part of the > table they care about, while the core sees just site to site connections > (?).... > Think that might be feasible?? This is approximately what I had in mind when I asked the question in the "Forwarding inside rbridge cloud" threat. It may work even without MPLS. Alex Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24Mcc627539 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:38:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7LRN-000NsK-KK; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:38:38 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:38:35 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1227823257.20050304143835@psg.com> To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> In-Reply-To: <p06200709be4dfb3c4726@[10\.0\.0\.171]> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> <p06200709be4dfb3c4726@[10.0.0.171]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id j24Mcc627539 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 22:38:55 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 10569 Margaret, > Roughly how many nodes are on a "mid-size network"? How many L2 links? >From what I know, switched campus networks today have in the order of 1K VLANs and a few tens of thousands of stations. > You later talk about a 50,000 node, 100 link network. Would you consider that > to be a mid-sized network? Personally, I have never been involved in network > administration at an organization that owned >5,000 nodes, so I consider > 50,000 nodes to be a *large* enterprise network. I think of mid-sized > enterprise networks as consisting of a few hundred to a few thousand nodes. > (Small ones are less than a few hundred.) We're on the same page here. Note that the new Ethernet service providers, that are emerging now, will have thousands of customers, and are already pushing the common limit of 4K VLANs and current CAM table limits with 100s of MACs that will need to be supported. The point being here: looking at a single broadcast domain (VLAN) in this case is not sufficient. We have to push it to the numbers we're about to see to understand how this scales. > What do you mean by "routing at the network layer"? That was a generalization for IP, IPX, AT routing. Think IP routing. > It is my understanding that each VLAN represents an IP subnet, and that IP > routing between VLANs is performed using normal IP routing protocols (OSPF, > etc.). This requires each VLAN to be configured with IP addresses on a > separate IP subnet, and nodes cannot move between different VLANs without > changing IP addresses or running a mobility/tunneling protocol. That's how we scale beyond the limits of the broadcast domain today. I didn't catch if you were trying to say this was a bad thing. >> Control plane functionality in switches is limited to STP operations. > I am not sure what definition of "switches" you are using here. I mean Ethernet switches. > I think that some switches also contain routing functionality (as described > above) for IP routing between VLANs. Of course. Those look logically as routers. >> stations. The protocol also doesn't maintain a complete topology map, but >> rather functions in distance-vector-like behavior. > Some of these same advantages could be ascribed to RIP (as opposed to > OSPF or IS-IS), right? Close, but not exactly. STP is a single-destination (root) protocol. >> 1) size of the topology graph and its denseness >> 2) frequency of topological changes in the graph >> 3) amount of routing information announced >> 4) frequency of routing information changes > These are excellent factors to focus on, I think. Do we know which of these > factors is pushing the limits of existing switching hardware? Those were scaling aspects of the link-state protocols, that don't run on the Ethernet switches today, and the point was to see what in rbridges would be different from IP routing. > Or is the > computational portion of a typical switch under-used, with the cost largely > contained in the switching fabric itself? for pure Ethernet switches (i.e. routing functionality aside), the control plane part is simple. >> The key consideration is the amount of MAC reachability info and its change >> frequency. Clearly, since we're talking about announcing each individual MAC >> address, and they are not summarizeable, we will have much more >>information to >> be distributed than we do in IP routing. E.g., in a multisegment network, if >> IP routing was used with /27 subnets, a 100 IP prefixes would >>represent about >> 3,000 hosts that would have to be announced individually in TRILL. One could >> certainly make a valid argument that the size of an Ethernet segment is >> limited by broadcast, and that a reasonable segment would include a few >> hundred stations maximum, which is nothing for link-state IP >>routing protocol >> implementations today. However, I believe we need to look at the multi-VLAN >> scenario in large scale networks to understand the scaling properties. > Without a way to limit broadcast/multicast traffic to a specific set of nodes, > a single rbridge cloud could not grow beyond the practical size for a > broadcast domain. I would even take it one step further and say that rbridges need a viable way of scaling in an environment with a large number of VLANs. > I think that you may be an order of magnitude low in this estimation and that > broadcast domains of a few thousand nodes may be reasonable (based on my dated > knowledge of pre-VLAN bridged ethernet deployments). This still wouldn't tax > the memory and processing capability of a mid-sized router, though. The above wasn't an attempt to come at the maximum practical size of a broadcast domain. It was to show how a number of IP prefixes in a network would translate to the number of MACs. > It would be interesting to get some real-world data on this. Are there any > enterprise network operators in the room who would like to inject some numbers > about the practical size of a single broadcast domain? I found a publicly-available description of a university campus network. Here's the URL: http://sydnet.usyd.edu.au/doc/sydnet.html Dated 1998 (7 years ago), they had 100 VLANs and 12,000 Ethernet ports. > We should probably do some investigation to determine if the scaling factors > of flat routing will hit before or after the scaling factors of a single > broadcast domain. Within a single VLAN, broadcast limits will kick in first. I'm not concerned about this. Multi-VLAN environment is a different story. > I agree that (as currently defined) an rbridge cloud will be a single > broadcast domain, and I expect that limits the size of an rbridge cloud to > something that can be flat routed using a fairly modest amount of processing. > And, unless folks have some idea of how to create multiple broadcast domains > without creating separate IP subnets (I am not seeing how that would work), it > will be necessary (in rbridge networks, just like STP networks) to configure > different IP subnet prefixes for different broadcast domains and to route > between those domains at the IP layer. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. The points above are obvious... > I don't understand where the VLANs come in as a multiplier. If you have 100 > separate rbridge clouds with 500 nodes each, the internal rbridges for > each cloud will each have 500 entries. Outside of the rbridge clouds, > you will effectively have 100 IP subnets (with separate IP subnet addresses > that will be routed at the IP layer). So, you will have 100 entries in your IP > routing tables and a maximum of 500 entries in the "routing" table for any > given rbridge. > Are you planning to build one massive device that would run all of the > bridging and routing for this 50,000 node network? Margaret, when building switched Ethernet networks today, folks don't build different broadcast domains using separate sets of single-VLAN devices. Neither they use a single massive device to connect all stations 50,000 as you suggest above. They build VLANs using multi-VLAN switches connected by VLAN trunks. Those VLANs are distributed location-wise, and switches in the core of the network have visibility to most (if not all) VLANs through those trunks. > If so, I agree that it > would need to run 100 rbridge instances (each with 500 "routes"), plus > at least one IP routing instance (with 100 routes). I don't really see a > problem with that, though... See my reply to Bill and Jarno. > The alternative device would be running 500 instances of STP and at > least one IP routing instance (with 100 routes). See my note on scaling STP in the original message. > It isn't necessary to run separate IS-IS processes to have separate instances > of the routing table... At least, I have worked on IP and OSPF implementations > that ran multiple routing instances in a single process (with a single copy of > the running code in RAM) by accesses different routing tables based on > per-instance state blocks. But, this all falls into the category of > implementation details, I think... I shouldn't have used the word "process", which is simply a useful abstraction for resource separation that I used in a wider sense to represent a set of data structures and computations associated with a specific instance. There _are implementation-independent scaling issues which I pointed out in my previous message. > Besides, it really isn't possible to talk about whether CPU resources will be > adequate without understanding the time constraints for when the calculation > would need to complete. Do you have a good feel for those constraints? I do have typical numbers, but this is about scalability analysis, which means we're concerned with asymptotical efficiencies of each approach. In other words, which algorithm will allow to support larger N using the same CPU, memory, and BW... or to put it on the other side: which approach will require sooner memory and CPU upgrades. Clearly maintaining N times more adjacencies and calculating N times more SPFs becomes a problem with large Ns. > A lot of this would depend on how the rbridge learning function handles the > caching and timeout of information. Would an entry go away when a node > hibernates? Or only when that node stops responding to <what?> for <how long>>? What happens when the same node shows up elsewhere in the > topology? See the thread with subject "End station discovery/liveness detection" > It is hard, at this point, to distinguish between questions/issues in four > categories: > (1) Inherent properties of the TRILL concept (such as the scaling properties > of flat routing MAC addresses inside rbridge clouds). Modulo very dynamic environments with frequent station relocations, TRILL should be able to handle a single broadcast domain. > (2) Specific properties of the current rbridge proposal (that could change). > (3) Ideas that people have about how we could expand rbridge to solve > additional problems (like adding a broadcast domain concept). I don't consider this an additional problem. If the rbridge approach wants to see the light of deployment, the multi-VLAN case needs to be solved. Alex > (3) Constraints that need to be considered for standards work in this > space (such as the practical limits for the size of broadcast domains). > I think that your post touches on all of these areas, and we need to > figure out how to break them apart and how/when to address each of > them. > Margaret Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24LTk607957 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:29:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7KMi-000Aod-Tq; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:29:45 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:29:42 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <736658454.20050304132942@psg.com> To: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>, jarno.rajahalme@nokia.com In-Reply-To: <1109952455.76147.48.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> <1109952455.76147.48.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:29:53 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2655 Bill, Jarno- Combined answers to two messages. Scaling a routing implementation in general is certainly mostly an implementation issue, though, of course, implementations inherit efficiency of the algorithms used inside the protocol. Scaling routing in virtual topologies takes more than that, however. There are very clear implementation-independent scaling differences between multi-instance and aggregated (multi-topology) approaches, such as: - amount of CPU, BW, and memory spent on neighbor discovery and maintenance; the multi-instance approach takes times more, since it operates on virtual topologies and sees N times more adjacencies, while the aggregated one operates on the physical one. - amount of CPU and BW required to reconverge after a topology change; in the multi-instance case, each physical topology change maps into N virtual topology changes, that result in modification of N neighbor adjacencies, reorigination, and reflooding of N LSPs, recalculation of N SPFs and routing tables; the aggregated approach sees the physical topology, and thus spends less of those. When N is small (e.g. O(10)), the multi-instance approach gives acceptable results. When N grows larger, however (e.g. current campus network deployments already can use 100s to a 1000 VLANs), it becomes a problem. In other words, its scaling properties are limited. This is extremely similar to the question of scaling routing in the L3 VPN case. Ross Callon et al did a great job describing different trade-offs of routing in VPN in the framework document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-framework-00.txt. I would recommend reading it. Alex Thursday, March 3, 2005, 11:10:34 PM, jarno.rajahalme@nokia.com wrote: > Isn't this an implementation/platform issue? E.g. running the different > instances as threads on the same process would not cause any extra CPU > overhead? > So, running separate protocol instances should not be ruled out yet. Friday, March 4, 2005, 8:07:37 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On the other hand, multiple instances of a protocol are probably the easiest > way to exploit thread-level parallelism. > And scheduling algorithms which can cope efficiently with many > threads/processes aren't exactly exotic. > Maybe I'm making a big leap here but somehow I think > multicore/multithreaded/etc. processors will eventually find their way into > the embedded space. > (And I agree with everything Margaret said about the 1:1 linkage you presume > between protocol instance and "process" being an implementation artifact. > Admittedly one that's painful to change...) > - Bill Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24KVx621362 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:31:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7JSp-0000QK-CA; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:31:59 +0000 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:31:57 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <504772038.20050304123157@psg.com> To: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:32:58 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2127 Yes, this would work, and would most probably represent the largest part of station attachments in today deployments. There are corner cases, like a mini-hub in a cubicle with a single station attached to it, but we don't optimize for those and a probing-based safe-fail should take care of them. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Friday, March 4, 2005, 6:51:58 AM, Russ White wrote: >> If rbridges use the method currently used in bridges, i.e. install a new MAC >> entry when a data frame is seen from the station, and remove it if the station >> hasn't been heard from for about 5-15 minutes, we will be seeing more dynamic >> state changes than if we used the control traffic-based approach. In other >> words, we'd be announcing end station activity information rather than end >> station reachability, and the former is likely to change faster, and thus >> cause the switch to reoriginate and reflood its link-state information more >> often. We would need something better than that for rbridges to scale. > Hmmm... A simple thought is if there are no "traditional" bridges between > you and the attached host, you could rely on simple link state, right? In > other words, assuming the host is directly attached to an rbridge, there's > really no reason the link would be up with the host down. > (There are exceptions for ethernet and other oddities, and we're not going > to solve those very easily for all cases, so let's consider them an > exception, for now, and work with the majority of cases). > So, what we could do is: > -- Use some "magic" to determine if we're directly connected to the > attached host. > -- If we are, then just consider the link state the actual state, just like > in a real link state protocol. :-) > -- If we aren't, either use probing, or just use normal bridge techniques > (learn etc). > Thoughts? It would, at least, reduce the number of cases where we would > need some technique other than simple link state to a minimal, and possible > none in many networks. > :-) > Russ > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone 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 j24JvK610563 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:57:20 -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 j24JvJNV025302 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:57:19 -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 j24JvJQp002385; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:57:19 -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 j24JvJWV018378; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from sommerfeld@localhost) by thunk.east.sun.com (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) id j24JvI97018377; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:57:18 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: thunk.east.sun.com: sommerfeld set sender to sommerfeld@sun.com using -f From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> In-Reply-To: <4228A9C7.4000900@sun.com> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> <4228A9C7.4000900@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1109966237.18287.29.camel@thunk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.325 Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:57:18 -0500 X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: sommerfeld@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:57:49 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 654 On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 13:32, Radia Perlman wrote: > If the DB knows a port is not shared media...that it's > only a pt-to-pt link with no intervening bridges, I think you mean "the DB's admin knows". I suspect there are few situations where a bridge could know *for sure* that that there can be only one mac address on the other end of the link. There could be a hub.. there could be a bridge told not to talk STP.. could be a host which uses multiple source mac addresses. on the other hand, "I've only seen one source mac address so far and I haven't heard any STP" might be a good enough heuristic in practice. - Bill Received: from tm3.ca.alcatel.com (kanfw1.ottawa.alcatel.ca [192.75.23.69]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24Jnj607817 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from alcatel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tm3.ca.alcatel.com (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j24Jnhbu002804; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:49:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4228BBD6.23DA8CEE@alcatel.com> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:49:42 -0500 From: Cheng-Yin Lee <Cheng-Yin.Lee@alcatel.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <4227A61D.1010207@sun.com> <1809704725.20050303164256@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: cheng-yin.lee@alcatel.com Cc: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:49:57 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4227 Alex, Radia, Alex Zinin wrote: > Radia, > > Thursday, March 3, 2005, 4:04:45 PM, Radia Perlman wrote: > > Well, endnode reachability information in and of itself is not a problem, > > because as those that remember DECnet (and CLNP) that's what level 1 routers > > passed around. The difference was that DECnet/CLNP had the advantage of having > > endnodes proactively advertise. I think very large flag CLNP networks were > > deployed, and worked better than bridged topologies of the same size. > > How large was "large", if you remember? > > > But Ales, I think you are arguing that instead of reporting endnode up/down > > status we are reporting endnode active/quiet status, which would be more > > volatile. > > Exactly. > > > That argument I think argues for having the DB check up on the endnodes, so > > that the DB is indeed arguing for aliveness rather than "recent activity". > > This can be done for IP nodes, because we know how to make them talk (ARP, > > ND). Not sure what other non-IP protocols are widely deployed, and how it > > would be best to keep tabs on who is still there. > > IPX and NetBEUI are probably the most widely spread in enterprise LANs. > See below. > > > One optimization that come to mind is leaving E in your link state information > > unless you see it pop up elsewhere. If E is dead, then it's not reachable > > anyway. It's no different than assuming E is on link L based on its IP prefix. > > Yes, I was thinking in the direction of "presumption of reachability". I.e., > once you've seen it on the the port, assume it's still there unless you've got > an explicit evidence that it's not, at which time you start actively looking for > truth by probing or aging the entry out in the absence of traffic from it. > > > The obvious thing to worry about is that E has moved, it has spoken, but > > nobody noticed it has moved becausewhat it said when it came up in the new > > location got lost. > > If positive reachability can be identified based on both traffic and control > messages, that shouldn't happen. > > > To handle that case, we could have the DB, R, in the case where R has reported > > E as being attached, but R hasn't verified that information in "a long time", > > then R can continue assuming E is alive and well and still connected, until > > someone attempts to talk to E. If E is dead or not there and nobody wants to > > talk to E, then who cares. But if E might have moved, then at the point of > > delivering data to it, is a good time to check to make sure it's still there, > > so at that point R can do an ARP/ND query to reassure itself that E is > > actually there. > > One case that I worry about is when a station moves and its address is announced > by two rbridges for some time, because the old rbridge hasn't had enough time to > make sure the station is really down. Some of the traffic will be delivered to > the old location. > > > Another optimization is pure data compression. Having link state information > > that reports all the attached endnodes, with locally assigned dense nicknames > > (R reports 1=Alice, 2=George, 3=Debra, ...etc). Then R can report the up/down > > status of all its endnodes as a bitmask. > > That would have a visible advantage only in cases where multiple end stations > changed their state simultaneously. If only one station does (the common case), > it is not a big difference whether one flushes/floods its MAC address or the > updated bitmask--the size of the message is approx the same, and the frequency > is still the same. > One thought (to overcome Alex's concerns with link state dissemination of MAC addresses) is to have the remote RBridge acts as a "Proxy MAC" (analogous to Proxy ARP) for its attached hosts. E.g : X ARP for Y, Y responds but DstR intercepts the ARP Reply and replies with its own MAC address, MAC R. DstR have to cache the attached IP Y address to MAC Y address X sends pkt to Y with DstR's MAC addresss MAC R.. DstR replaces the dest MAC address with Y's real MAC address, MAC Y. => RBridges flood MAC addresses link states of RBridges, but not MAC addresses of hosts. There would be n MAC addresses link states if there are n RBridges in the network. Regards Cheng-Yin 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 j24JMQ629206 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:22:26 -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 j24JMPX8029139 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:22:26 -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 <0ICU00K01DQM85@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:22:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-26-102.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.26.102]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICU008MODTCRY@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:22:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:22:29 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <p0620070bbe4e63215d2b@[10.0.0.171]> To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Message-id: <4228B575.60309@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:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> <p06200708be4df8abad1a@[10.0.0.171]> <4228AAB1.7030705@sun.com> <p0620070bbe4e63215d2b@[10.0.0.171]> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:22:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1396 The inside packet will be whatever the source transmitted. So if the source is on Fiberchannel, or Infiniband, or IEEE, that's what it would look like. An interesting issue is whether we should RBridge across dissimilar links, to fool an Infiniband node into thinking it is neighbors with, say, an Ethernet node. I'm sure it will be possible with some link types, and impossible with others. I don't know enough about the various link types to know which ones would be hard. Radia Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Right. Sorry... > > So, the assumption is that the next header (after the rbridge > 'header") will always be an Ethernet header? Wasn't there a desire to > rbridge across IEEE and non-IEEE media? > > Margaret > > At 10:36 AM -0800 3/4/05, Radia Perlman wrote: > >> The ethertype for the original frame is still in the original frame. >> The outer ethernet >> header is *additional* information. Unlike something like IPsec's ESP >> or AH header, >> which displaces the "protocol type"/"next header" field in >> the IP header. Here we aren't displacing >> anything. >> >> Radia >> >> >> >> Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> >>> >>> One thing that I am not sure about, though, is that we can get away >>> with such a short rbridge header. At minimum, I would expect it to >>> also include an ethertype for the original packet (IPv4, ARP, IPv6...). >>> >>> Margaret >> > Received: from thingmagic.com (tm-gw2.cictr.com [204.9.221.21] (may be forged)) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24JDs626870 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.171] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.171]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 300186; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:11:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p0620070bbe4e63215d2b@[10.0.0.171]> In-Reply-To: <4228AAB1.7030705@sun.com> References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> <p06200708be4df8abad1a@[10.0.0.171]> <4228AAB1.7030705@sun.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:12:03 -0500 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: margaret@thingmagic.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:14:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 828 Right. Sorry... So, the assumption is that the next header (after the rbridge 'header") will always be an Ethernet header? Wasn't there a desire to rbridge across IEEE and non-IEEE media? Margaret At 10:36 AM -0800 3/4/05, Radia Perlman wrote: >The ethertype for the original frame is still in the original frame. >The outer ethernet >header is *additional* information. Unlike something like IPsec's >ESP or AH header, >which displaces the "protocol type"/"next header" field in >the IP header. Here we aren't displacing >anything. > >Radia > > > >Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> >> One thing that I am not sure about, though, is that we can get >>away with such a short rbridge header. At minimum, I would expect >>it to also include an ethertype for the original packet (IPv4, ARP, >>IPv6...). >> >> 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 j24Ib0617271 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:37:00 -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 j24IaUX8023443 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:36:30 -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 <0ICU00101BJEW6@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:36:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-26-102.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.26.102]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICU008XHBOSRY@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:36:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:36:33 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <p06200708be4df8abad1a@[10.0.0.171]> To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Message-id: <4228AAB1.7030705@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:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> <p06200708be4df8abad1a@[10.0.0.171]> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:37:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 554 The ethertype for the original frame is still in the original frame. The outer ethernet header is *additional* information. Unlike something like IPsec's ESP or AH header, which displaces the "protocol type"/"next header" field in the IP header. Here we aren't displacing anything. Radia Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > One thing that I am not sure about, though, is that we can get away > with such a short rbridge header. At minimum, I would expect it to > also include an ethertype for the original packet (IPv4, ARP, IPv6...). > > Margaret 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 j24IWa616162 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 10:32:36 -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 j24IWZhn000671 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:32:36 -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 <0ICU00001BB1AY@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:32:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-26-102.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.26.102]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICU00898BIARY@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:32:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:32:39 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4228A9C7.4000900@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:33:04 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2514 I agree with Russ. Simplifications/optimizations are possible, depending on the type of link. If the DB knows a port is not shared media...that it's only a pt-to-pt link with no intervening bridges, then certainly it seems like a good idea to do what Russ says below. Also, when we know a link isn't shared media, we can do another optimization Alex suggested earlier (routing towards the exit RBridge rather than the next hop RBridge). The hop-by-hop specifics of exactly what the encapsulation header looks like, and various other strategies like how to learn who is attached, are really link type specific. Radia Russ White wrote: >> If rbridges use the method currently used in bridges, i.e. install a new MAC >> entry when a data frame is seen from the station, and remove it if the station >> hasn't been heard from for about 5-15 minutes, we will be seeing more dynamic >> state changes than if we used the control traffic-based approach. In other >> words, we'd be announcing end station activity information rather than end >> station reachability, and the former is likely to change faster, and thus >> cause the switch to reoriginate and reflood its link-state information more >> often. We would need something better than that for rbridges to scale. >> >> > >Hmmm... A simple thought is if there are no "traditional" bridges between >you and the attached host, you could rely on simple link state, right? In >other words, assuming the host is directly attached to an rbridge, there's >really no reason the link would be up with the host down. > >(There are exceptions for ethernet and other oddities, and we're not going >to solve those very easily for all cases, so let's consider them an >exception, for now, and work with the majority of cases). > >So, what we could do is: > >-- Use some "magic" to determine if we're directly connected to the >attached host. > >-- If we are, then just consider the link state the actual state, just like >in a real link state protocol. :-) > >-- If we aren't, either use probing, or just use normal bridge techniques >(learn etc). > >Thoughts? It would, at least, reduce the number of cases where we would >need some technique other than simple link state to a minimal, and possible >none in many networks. > >:-) > >Russ > >__________________________________ >riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone >_______________________________________________ >rbridge mailing list >rbridge@postel.org >http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > 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 j24Hqd602603 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:52:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2005 10:07:05 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,135,1107763200"; d="scan'208"; a="617852811:sNHT31172544" Received: from russpc.Whitehouse.intra (rtp-vpn3-452.cisco.com [10.82.217.198]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j24HqV1k012935; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:52:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:51:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> In-Reply-To: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503041244110.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@shako.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ruwhite@cisco.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Russ White <riw@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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:52:53 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3918 > Control plane functionality in switches is limited to STP operations. STP > is data- and computationally inexpensive. One of its nice properties is > that it has no knowledge of end stations. Its purpose is to prune the > topology to remove possible loops, rather than to find shortest paths to > destinations. STP is not used to populate the MAC table, and its > operation is completely independent from the MAC learning and forwarding > processes. Therefore, STP message and computational complexity doesn't > depend on the number of end stations. The protocol also doesn't maintain > a complete topology map, but rather functions in distance-vector-like > behavior. I'm actually not entirely certain this is true... While STP is, itself, rather simple, and concerned with finding loops, isn't layer 2 address learning also required, along with the requisite timers, etc? If so, then I would class these as part of the control plane, as well, I think (?). > The key consideration is the amount of MAC reachability info and its > change frequency. Clearly, since we're talking about announcing each > individual MAC address, and they are not summarizeable, we will have much > more information to be distributed than we do in IP routing. E.g., in a > multisegment network, if IP routing was used with /27 subnets, a 100 IP > prefixes would represent about 3,000 hosts that would have to be > announced individually in TRILL. One could certainly make a valid > argument that the size of an Ethernet segment is limited by broadcast, > and that a reasonable segment would include a few hundred stations > maximum, which is nothing for link-state IP routing protocol > implementations today. However, I believe we need to look at the > multi-VLAN scenario in large scale networks to understand the scaling > properties. And this is where my question comes in, above. No, STP doesn't carry these, but the actual learning of where layer 2 addresses are attached to the network is required to make an STP based bridged network actually work, correct? The only real difference is, then, between learning these addresses as they are attached, vs when they transmit. I don't know that there's a lot of difference, computationally, between the two. In other words, I don't think a link state vs stp comparison actually captures all the elements of complexity involved in the actual operation of the network (?). > An alternate approach is to run a separate instance of IS-IS for each VLAN. > While this may give acceptable results in moderate-size network with a few > sparsely populated VLANs, it will have scaling issues of a different type in > mid- to large-size deployments, where core switches participate in the > majority of VLANs. More specifically, the number of individual processes > that would run on the control CPU would stretch the CPU resources. > > The most promising approach would be to use what link-state protocols don't do > today yet--multi-topology flooding, where information related to each VLAN > would be flooded only to the nodes that need it. Note that this would only > reduce the amount of information maintained by the edge switches, and only if > they participate in a considerably smaller subset of VLANs. The core switches, > exposed to most of VLANs would still have to maintain entries for all of them > in their control-plane databases. This sound like it might actually scale better than multiple processes, one per vlan. Note that if you're using MPLS as your "core," you might not even need this. You might be able to aggregate the address spaces using labels and sites, so the edges see the full table, or at least the part of the table they care about, while the core sees just site to site connections (?).... Think that might be feasible?? :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone 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 j24G98629992 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:09:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j24G8oNV003408; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from 129.148.19.3 (punchin-sommerfeld.East.Sun.COM [129.148.19.3]) by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j24G8nOp012819; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:08:49 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> In-Reply-To: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1109952455.76147.48.camel@unknown.hamachi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.325 Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:07:37 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: sommerfeld@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:09:49 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 764 On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 19:49, Alex Zinin wrote: > More specifically, the number of individual processes > that would run on the control CPU would stretch the CPU resources. On the other hand, multiple instances of a protocol are probably the easiest way to exploit thread-level parallelism. And scheduling algorithms which can cope efficiently with many threads/processes aren't exactly exotic. Maybe I'm making a big leap here but somehow I think multicore/multithreaded/etc. processors will eventually find their way into the embedded space. (And I agree with everything Margaret said about the 1:1 linkage you presume between protocol instance and "process" being an implementation artifact. Admittedly one that's painful to change...) - Bill Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24Er9607930 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Mar 2005 10:08:07 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="3.90,135,1107752400"; d="scan'208"; a="39271276:sNHT50158002954" Received: from russpc.Whitehouse.intra (rtp-vpn3-452.cisco.com [10.82.217.198]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j24EqdjJ017920; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:52:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:51:58 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> In-Reply-To: <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.61.0503040948210.2448@russpc.Whitehouse.intra> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> X-X-Sender: ruwhite@shako.cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ruwhite@cisco.com Cc: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Russ White <riw@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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:53:56 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1688 > If rbridges use the method currently used in bridges, i.e. install a new MAC > entry when a data frame is seen from the station, and remove it if the station > hasn't been heard from for about 5-15 minutes, we will be seeing more dynamic > state changes than if we used the control traffic-based approach. In other > words, we'd be announcing end station activity information rather than end > station reachability, and the former is likely to change faster, and thus > cause the switch to reoriginate and reflood its link-state information more > often. We would need something better than that for rbridges to scale. Hmmm... A simple thought is if there are no "traditional" bridges between you and the attached host, you could rely on simple link state, right? In other words, assuming the host is directly attached to an rbridge, there's really no reason the link would be up with the host down. (There are exceptions for ethernet and other oddities, and we're not going to solve those very easily for all cases, so let's consider them an exception, for now, and work with the majority of cases). So, what we could do is: -- Use some "magic" to determine if we're directly connected to the attached host. -- If we are, then just consider the link state the actual state, just like in a real link state protocol. :-) -- If we aren't, either use probing, or just use normal bridge techniques (learn etc). Thoughts? It would, at least, reduce the number of cases where we would need some technique other than simple link state to a minimal, and possible none in many networks. :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone Received: from thingmagic.com (tm-gw2.cictr.com [204.9.221.21] (may be forged)) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24Cpm607847 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:51:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.171]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 299780; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 07:49:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p06200709be4dfb3c4726@[10.0.0.171]> In-Reply-To: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> References: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 07:48:21 -0500 To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: margaret@thingmagic.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:52:51 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 10337 Hi Alex, A few clarifying questions and some random thoughts... At 4:49 PM -0800 3/3/05, Alex Zinin wrote: > VLANs are used in Ethernet networks of a considerable size to >control the size > of the broadcast domains. While the size of each VLAN is naturally >limited by > broadcast, the total number of VLANs in the network can be pretty high > (O(100s) for a mid-size network), and so the physical size of the >network may > be quite large. Connectivity between VLANs is provided via routing at the > network layer. Within the VLAN, switches do STP and bridging. Roughly how many nodes are on a "mid-size network"? How many L2 links? You later talk about a 50,000 node, 100 link network. Would you consider that to be a mid-sized network? Personally, I have never been involved in network administration at an organization that owned >5,000 nodes, so I consider 50,000 nodes to be a *large* enterprise network. I think of mid-sized enterprise networks as consisting of a few hundred to a few thousand nodes. (Small ones are less than a few hundred.) What do you mean by "routing at the network layer"? It is my understanding that each VLAN represents an IP subnet, and that IP routing between VLANs is performed using normal IP routing protocols (OSPF, etc.). This requires each VLAN to be configured with IP addresses on a separate IP subnet, and nodes cannot move between different VLANs without changing IP addresses or running a mobility/tunneling protocol. > Control plane functionality in switches is limited to STP operations. I am not sure what definition of "switches" you are using here. I think that some switches also contain routing functionality (as described above) for IP routing between VLANs. > STP is > data- and computationally inexpensive. One of its nice properties is that it > has no knowledge of end stations. Its purpose is to prune the topology to > remove possible loops, rather than to find shortest paths to >destinations. STP > is not used to populate the MAC table, and its operation is completely > independent from the MAC learning and forwarding processes. Therefore, STP > message and computational complexity doesn't depend on the number of end > stations. The protocol also doesn't maintain a complete topology map, but > rather functions in distance-vector-like behavior. Some of these same advantages could be ascribed to RIP (as opposed to OSPF or IS-IS), right? > 1) size of the topology graph and its denseness > 2) frequency of topological changes in the graph > 3) amount of routing information announced > 4) frequency of routing information changes These are excellent factors to focus on, I think. Do we know which of these factors is pushing the limits of existing switching hardware? Or is the computational portion of a typical switch under-used, with the cost largely contained in the switching fabric itself? > The first two scaling parameters (graph size and change frequency) do not > worry me much, since topologies of L2 networks tend to me much less complex > than those of IP networks (that may be a result of experience with STP > convergence, and could be expected to change in future). Right. One of the advantages of rbridges would be the ability to take advantage of redundant paths, so we should probably assume that people will install more redundant paths in an rbridge cloud than in an STP network. > The key consideration is the amount of MAC reachability info and its change > frequency. Clearly, since we're talking about announcing each individual MAC > address, and they are not summarizeable, we will have much more >information to > be distributed than we do in IP routing. E.g., in a multisegment network, if > IP routing was used with /27 subnets, a 100 IP prefixes would >represent about > 3,000 hosts that would have to be announced individually in TRILL. One could > certainly make a valid argument that the size of an Ethernet segment is > limited by broadcast, and that a reasonable segment would include a few > hundred stations maximum, which is nothing for link-state IP >routing protocol > implementations today. However, I believe we need to look at the multi-VLAN > scenario in large scale networks to understand the scaling properties. Without a way to limit broadcast/multicast traffic to a specific set of nodes, a single rbridge cloud could not grow beyond the practical size for a broadcast domain. I think that you may be an order of magnitude low in this estimation and that broadcast domains of a few thousand nodes may be reasonable (based on my dated knowledge of pre-VLAN bridged ethernet deployments). This still wouldn't tax the memory and processing capability of a mid-sized router, though. It would be interesting to get some real-world data on this. Are there any enterprise network operators in the room who would like to inject some numbers about the practical size of a single broadcast domain? > In a multi-VLAN environment, a single physical network of L2 switches > accommodates multiple virtual VLAN topologies. The number of VLANs >in a single > network may range from a few to a few hundred. The total number of stations > within VLANs may vary from hundreds to tens of thousands. Challenges of > scaling link-state routing in such environments are similar to those of > scaling routing in the VPN case. We should probably do some investigation to determine if the scaling factors of flat routing will hit before or after the scaling factors of a single broadcast domain. I agree that (as currently defined) an rbridge cloud will be a single broadcast domain, and I expect that limits the size of an rbridge cloud to something that can be flat routed using a fairly modest amount of processing. And, unless folks have some idea of how to create multiple broadcast domains without creating separate IP subnets (I am not seeing how that would work), it will be necessary (in rbridge networks, just like STP networks) to configure different IP subnet prefixes for different broadcast domains and to route between those domains at the IP layer. But, you seem to be making some other assumptions... > As proposed now, a single copy of IS-IS would be running on all switches in > the network. This means that all switches would need to flood and store MAC > addresses in all VLANs, regardless of whether they need them or not. This > scheme clearly has scaling problems--e.g., a 100 VLANs with 500 >stations will > require flooding and storing 50,000 entries on each switch in the network, > regardless of its position in the network, throughput, computational > abilities, available memory, or what traffic it actually sees. I don't understand where the VLANs come in as a multiplier. If you have 100 separate rbridge clouds with 500 nodes each, the internal rbridges for each cloud will each have 500 entries. Outside of the rbridge clouds, you will effectively have 100 IP subnets (with separate IP subnet addresses that will be routed at the IP layer). So, you will have 100 entries in your IP routing tables and a maximum of 500 entries in the "routing" table for any given rbridge. Are you planning to build one massive device that would run all of the bridging and routing for this 50,000 node network? If so, I agree that it would need to run 100 rbridge instances (each with 500 "routes"), plus at least one IP routing instance (with 100 routes). I don't really see a problem with that, though... The alternative device would be running 500 instances of STP and at least one IP routing instance (with 100 routes). > An alternate approach is to run a separate instance of IS-IS for each VLAN. > While this may give acceptable results in moderate-size network with a few > sparsely populated VLANs, it will have scaling issues of a different type in > mid- to large-size deployments, where core switches participate in the > majority of VLANs. More specifically, the number of individual processes > that would run on the control CPU would stretch the CPU resources. It isn't necessary to run separate IS-IS processes to have separate instances of the routing table... At least, I have worked on IP and OSPF implementations that ran multiple routing instances in a single process (with a single copy of the running code in RAM) by accesses different routing tables based on per-instance state blocks. But, this all falls into the category of implementation details, I think... Besides, it really isn't possible to talk about whether CPU resources will be adequate without understanding the time constraints for when the calculation would need to complete. Do you have a good feel for those constraints? > Update dynamics of topological information within a RBRIDGE >network should be > similar to that of an IP network. Frequency of reachability info >(MAC address) > updates will generally have different patterns. E.g. spikes of >updates related > to "start-of-day" activities, some level of noise related to stations that > hibernate and wake up. In scenarios with massive real-time >relocations, as in > the wireless case, the rate of updates may grow considerably high. A lot of this would depend on how the rbridge learning function handles the caching and timeout of information. Would an entry go away when a node hibernates? Or only when that node stops responding to <what?> for <how long>? What happens when the same node shows up elsewhere in the topology? It is hard, at this point, to distinguish between questions/issues in four categories: (1) Inherent properties of the TRILL concept (such as the scaling properties of flat routing MAC addresses inside rbridge clouds). (2) Specific properties of the current rbridge proposal (that could change). (3) Ideas that people have about how we could expand rbridge to solve additional problems (like adding a broadcast domain concept). (3) Constraints that need to be considered for standards work in this space (such as the practical limits for the size of broadcast domains). I think that your post touches on all of these areas, and we need to figure out how to break them apart and how/when to address each of them. Margaret Received: from thingmagic.com (tm-gw2.cictr.com [204.9.221.21] (may be forged)) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j24Bkn622624; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [10.0.0.171]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 299738; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:44:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <p06200708be4df8abad1a@[10.0.0.171]> In-Reply-To: <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 06:44:51 -0500 To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: margaret@thingmagic.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 11:47:48 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 997 At 4:57 PM -0800 3/3/05, Alex Zinin wrote: >> outer Ethernet header: source=transmitting RBridge, dest=next hop >> RBridge, Ethertype=NEW >> encapsulation addiitonal field: TTL > >OK. Got it now. I assumed there would be an "rbridge" header and the whole >package would be then be put in a link-local frame. This more or less matches what Radia is saying, I think... The rbridge header just happens to be very small. You have a full Ethernet packet. You add the rbridge header to the beginning (the TTL field), then you encapsulate the resulting packet (rbridge header + original packet) into an Ethernet frame. The Ethertype is set to <TBD> (a new value that identifies this as an rbridge packet), and that indicates that the next header is an rbridge header. One thing that I am not sure about, though, is that we can get away with such a short rbridge header. At minimum, I would expect it to also include an ethertype for the original packet (IPv4, ARP, IPv6...). Margaret Received: from mgw-x3.nokia.com (mgw-x3.nokia.com [131.228.20.26]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j247C0616078 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 23:12:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from esdks002.ntc.nokia.com (esdks002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.121]) by mgw-x3.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j247Bu903681; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:11:56 +0200 (EET) X-Scanned: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:10:41 +0200 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.34 2004121512 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks002.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id j247Afbo003710; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:10:41 +0200 Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks002.ntc.nokia.com 00NFU6dC; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:10:38 EET Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh003.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.82]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j247AaM05816; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:10:36 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebe003.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.39]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:10:35 +0200 Received: from esebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.215]) by esebe003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:10:34 +0200 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="iso-8859-1" Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 09:10:34 +0200 Message-ID: <DD129318C94521409355FE397682A2360E99A8@esebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Control plane scalability Thread-Index: AcUgVL3jZx/UepVJTda7oE6XxRaZ9wANAPCA From: <jarno.rajahalme@nokia.com> To: <zinin@psg.com>, <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2005 07:10:34.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[426CEB90:01C52089] X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jarno.rajahalme@nokia.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id j247C0616078 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 07:13:16 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 745 Alex wrote: > An alternate approach is to run a separate instance of > IS-IS for each VLAN. > While this may give acceptable results in moderate-size > network with a few > sparsely populated VLANs, it will have scaling issues of a > different type in > mid- to large-size deployments, where core switches > participate in the > majority of VLANs. More specifically, the number of > individual processes > that would run on the control CPU would stretch the CPU resources. > Isn't this an implementation/platform issue? E.g. running the different instances as threads on the same process would not cause any extra CPU overhead? So, running separate protocol instances should not be ruled out yet. Regards, Jarno Rajahalme Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j240vI625278 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7182-000GWu-10; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:57:18 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:57:17 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <82466039.20050303165717@psg.com> To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:57:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 898 Radia, ... > However, if the cloud consists of Ethernet links, and let's say that S > and D are IP nodes, > then the original packet as transmitted by S will look like: > Ethernet header: source=S, destination=D, Ethertype=something > IP header: who knows, S and D might be IP routers and the source and > destination might > be distant nodes > layer 4 headers, etc.: who knows > Let's call that "pkt". The RBridges don't change that at all. Oh, can we call this "frame", and what's inside it "packet", please :) This would make it much easier for me. > What the RBridges would add while forwarding the packet is: > outer Ethernet header: source=transmitting RBridge, dest=next hop > RBridge, Ethertype=NEW > encapsulation addiitonal field: TTL OK. Got it now. I assumed there would be an "rbridge" header and the whole package would be then be put in a link-local frame. Thanks. Alex 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 j240mn622777 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:48:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j240mnNV012391 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:48:49 -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 <0ICS00601Y43GH@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-24-81.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.24.81]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICS005E4Y9CTH@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:48:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:48:52 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4227B074.9010201@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:49:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2010 Alex Zinin wrote: Radia, I must be confused about the number of headers a frame is wrapped around in then. The text talks about the original packet (which I assume is the original Ether frame, or is it the L3 packet?), the forwarding header, and the encapsulating header. How many headers is there when an original frame is put on a link inside the rbridge cloud? ************************ Let's say source S emits a packet onto the cloud for target node D (also on the cloud). S and D are addresses on the cloud. RBridges want to forward the packet in such a way that the RBridges are invisible to D (D will assume that S is a direct neighbor). So exactly the bits that S transmits will get delivered to D (other than the possible functionality of RBridging dissimilar links to trick S and D on dissimilar links into thinking they are neighbors, but let's not complicate things here.) If there was an MPLS infrastructure inside the cloud between RBridges, with MPLS paths set up between all pairs of RBridges, then the first RBridge could add an MPLS header onto what S transmitted, which would be removed by the exit MPLS RBridge. Again, D should not know that anything funny happened in between the time when S transmitted the packet and D received it. However, if the cloud consists of Ethernet links, and let's say that S and D are IP nodes, then the original packet as transmitted by S will look like: Ethernet header: source=S, destination=D, Ethertype=something IP header: who knows, S and D might be IP routers and the source and destination might be distant nodes layer 4 headers, etc.: who knows Let's call that "pkt". The RBridges don't change that at all. What the RBridges would add while forwarding the packet is: outer Ethernet header: source=transmitting RBridge, dest=next hop RBridge, Ethertype=NEW encapsulation addiitonal field: TTL So the packet will have one EXTRA Ethernet header, plus an extra byte for TTL. Hope that answers the question. Radia > > Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j240n7622815 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D7107-000EyI-77 for rbridge@postel.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:49:07 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:49:06 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <21344293.20050303164906@psg.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Subject: [rbridge] Control plane scalability X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:49:47 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5850 Radia, folks- Below are some thoughts on scalability of the routing part in a multi-VLAN environment below. Note that I'm explicitly scoping this to control plane only. Comments are welcome. VLANs are used in Ethernet networks of a considerable size to control the size of the broadcast domains. While the size of each VLAN is naturally limited by broadcast, the total number of VLANs in the network can be pretty high (O(100s) for a mid-size network), and so the physical size of the network may be quite large. Connectivity between VLANs is provided via routing at the network layer. Within the VLAN, switches do STP and bridging. Control plane functionality in switches is limited to STP operations. STP is data- and computationally inexpensive. One of its nice properties is that it has no knowledge of end stations. Its purpose is to prune the topology to remove possible loops, rather than to find shortest paths to destinations. STP is not used to populate the MAC table, and its operation is completely independent from the MAC learning and forwarding processes. Therefore, STP message and computational complexity doesn't depend on the number of end stations. The protocol also doesn't maintain a complete topology map, but rather functions in distance-vector-like behavior. Looking at the control plane part of rbridges now: Though technical details haven't been worked out yet, the essence of the routing part in the RBRIDGE proposal is to run a link-state protocol like IS-IS in the bridges and let them announce learned MAC-addresses as we do the IP prefixes now--as leaves hanging off the transit nodes. Control-plane complexity in link-state routing roughly includes two components: database/flooding, and route calculation (I skip neighbor discovery and maintenance for simplicity). Several parameters drive the overhead in these two components: 1) size of the topology graph and its denseness 2) frequency of topological changes in the graph 3) amount of routing information announced 4) frequency of routing information changes Compared to STP, the amount of information that needs to be maintained by rbridges in the control plane is clearly greater. Same is true for the computational overhead. The first two scaling parameters (graph size and change frequency) do not worry me much, since topologies of L2 networks tend to me much less complex than those of IP networks (that may be a result of experience with STP convergence, and could be expected to change in future). The key consideration is the amount of MAC reachability info and its change frequency. Clearly, since we're talking about announcing each individual MAC address, and they are not summarizeable, we will have much more information to be distributed than we do in IP routing. E.g., in a multisegment network, if IP routing was used with /27 subnets, a 100 IP prefixes would represent about 3,000 hosts that would have to be announced individually in TRILL. One could certainly make a valid argument that the size of an Ethernet segment is limited by broadcast, and that a reasonable segment would include a few hundred stations maximum, which is nothing for link-state IP routing protocol implementations today. However, I believe we need to look at the multi-VLAN scenario in large scale networks to understand the scaling properties. In a multi-VLAN environment, a single physical network of L2 switches accommodates multiple virtual VLAN topologies. The number of VLANs in a single network may range from a few to a few hundred. The total number of stations within VLANs may vary from hundreds to tens of thousands. Challenges of scaling link-state routing in such environments are similar to those of scaling routing in the VPN case. As proposed now, a single copy of IS-IS would be running on all switches in the network. This means that all switches would need to flood and store MAC addresses in all VLANs, regardless of whether they need them or not. This scheme clearly has scaling problems--e.g., a 100 VLANs with 500 stations will require flooding and storing 50,000 entries on each switch in the network, regardless of its position in the network, throughput, computational abilities, available memory, or what traffic it actually sees. An alternate approach is to run a separate instance of IS-IS for each VLAN. While this may give acceptable results in moderate-size network with a few sparsely populated VLANs, it will have scaling issues of a different type in mid- to large-size deployments, where core switches participate in the majority of VLANs. More specifically, the number of individual processes that would run on the control CPU would stretch the CPU resources. The most promising approach would be to use what link-state protocols don't do today yet--multi-topology flooding, where information related to each VLAN would be flooded only to the nodes that need it. Note that this would only reduce the amount of information maintained by the edge switches, and only if they participate in a considerably smaller subset of VLANs. The core switches, exposed to most of VLANs would still have to maintain entries for all of them in their control-plane databases. Update dynamics of topological information within a RBRIDGE network should be similar to that of an IP network. Frequency of reachability info (MAC address) updates will generally have different patterns. E.g. spikes of updates related to "start-of-day" activities, some level of noise related to stations that hibernate and wake up. In scenarios with massive real-time relocations, as in the wireless case, the rate of updates may grow considerably high. -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j240h4621536 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:43:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D70uB-000EAt-BT; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:42:59 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:42:56 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1809704725.20050303164256@psg.com> To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <4227A61D.1010207@sun.com> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> <4227A61D.1010207@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:44:13 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3405 Radia, Thursday, March 3, 2005, 4:04:45 PM, Radia Perlman wrote: > Well, endnode reachability information in and of itself is not a problem, > because as those that remember DECnet (and CLNP) that's what level 1 routers > passed around. The difference was that DECnet/CLNP had the advantage of having > endnodes proactively advertise. I think very large flag CLNP networks were > deployed, and worked better than bridged topologies of the same size. How large was "large", if you remember? > But Ales, I think you are arguing that instead of reporting endnode up/down > status we are reporting endnode active/quiet status, which would be more > volatile. Exactly. > That argument I think argues for having the DB check up on the endnodes, so > that the DB is indeed arguing for aliveness rather than "recent activity". > This can be done for IP nodes, because we know how to make them talk (ARP, > ND). Not sure what other non-IP protocols are widely deployed, and how it > would be best to keep tabs on who is still there. IPX and NetBEUI are probably the most widely spread in enterprise LANs. See below. > One optimization that come to mind is leaving E in your link state information > unless you see it pop up elsewhere. If E is dead, then it's not reachable > anyway. It's no different than assuming E is on link L based on its IP prefix. Yes, I was thinking in the direction of "presumption of reachability". I.e., once you've seen it on the the port, assume it's still there unless you've got an explicit evidence that it's not, at which time you start actively looking for truth by probing or aging the entry out in the absence of traffic from it. > The obvious thing to worry about is that E has moved, it has spoken, but > nobody noticed it has moved becausewhat it said when it came up in the new > location got lost. If positive reachability can be identified based on both traffic and control messages, that shouldn't happen. > To handle that case, we could have the DB, R, in the case where R has reported > E as being attached, but R hasn't verified that information in "a long time", > then R can continue assuming E is alive and well and still connected, until > someone attempts to talk to E. If E is dead or not there and nobody wants to > talk to E, then who cares. But if E might have moved, then at the point of > delivering data to it, is a good time to check to make sure it's still there, > so at that point R can do an ARP/ND query to reassure itself that E is > actually there. One case that I worry about is when a station moves and its address is announced by two rbridges for some time, because the old rbridge hasn't had enough time to make sure the station is really down. Some of the traffic will be delivered to the old location. > Another optimization is pure data compression. Having link state information > that reports all the attached endnodes, with locally assigned dense nicknames > (R reports 1=Alice, 2=George, 3=Debra, ...etc). Then R can report the up/down > status of all its endnodes as a bitmask. That would have a visible advantage only in cases where multiple end stations changed their state simultaneously. If only one station does (the common case), it is not a big difference whether one flushes/floods its MAC address or the updated bitmask--the size of the message is approx the same, and the frequency is still the same. -- Alex Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j240GT615596 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:16:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D70UW-000AYJ-QA; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:16:28 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:16:28 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1557001959.20050303161628@psg.com> To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:16:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1882 Radia, I must be confused about the number of headers a frame is wrapped around in then. The text talks about the original packet (which I assume is the original Ether frame, or is it the L3 packet?), the forwarding header, and the encapsulating header. How many headers is there when an original frame is put on a link inside the rbridge cloud? -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Thursday, March 3, 2005, 4:06:37 PM, Radia Perlman wrote: > The reason I think it's a good idea to do hop-by-hop forwarding (i.e., > specify next > hop rather than destination RBridge) is that then there is no > duplication of packets. > If all you specify is final RBridge, and you forward the packet onto a > shared medium, > it is possible that multiple RBridges will think they should forward the > packet. > Radia > Alex Zinin wrote: >>Radia- >> >> draft-perlman-rbridge-02 says: >> >> >> >>>4. Handling non-IP packets >>> >>> >>... >> >> >>> Therefore, the first RBridge (and only the Designated RBridge on the >>> source's link) encapsulates the packet with an encapsulation header. >>> The specified next RBridge, R2, will look up the layer 2 destination >>> in the inner header to determine the forwarding direction. Then R2 >>> will replace the layer 2 source and destination addresses in the >>> outer header with R2 as source and next Rbridge as destination, >>> decrement the TTL, and forward the packet. If R2 is the Designated >>> >>> >> >> Is hop-by-hop lookup on the original destination MAC inside the rbridge cloud >> essential? Would it be possible for the first rbridge to encapsulate the >> original frame setting the destination MAC address to the egress rbridge >> in the cloud, so that rbridges inside the cloud only had to maintain forwarding >> information about edge rbridges, rather than all end stations? >> >> >> 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 j2406Y612848 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from phys-bur1-1 ([129.148.13.15]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j2406YNV024760 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:06:34 -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 <0ICS00J01W4NU6@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:06:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-24-81.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.24.81]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICS00HUBWAXIN@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:06:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:06:37 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4227A68D.70200@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:06:54 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1379 The reason I think it's a good idea to do hop-by-hop forwarding (i.e., specify next hop rather than destination RBridge) is that then there is no duplication of packets. If all you specify is final RBridge, and you forward the packet onto a shared medium, it is possible that multiple RBridges will think they should forward the packet. Radia Alex Zinin wrote: >Radia- > > draft-perlman-rbridge-02 says: > > > >>4. Handling non-IP packets >> >> >... > > >> Therefore, the first RBridge (and only the Designated RBridge on the >> source's link) encapsulates the packet with an encapsulation header. >> The specified next RBridge, R2, will look up the layer 2 destination >> in the inner header to determine the forwarding direction. Then R2 >> will replace the layer 2 source and destination addresses in the >> outer header with R2 as source and next Rbridge as destination, >> decrement the TTL, and forward the packet. If R2 is the Designated >> >> > > Is hop-by-hop lookup on the original destination MAC inside the rbridge cloud > essential? Would it be possible for the first rbridge to encapsulate the > original frame setting the destination MAC address to the egress rbridge > in the cloud, so that rbridges inside the cloud only had to maintain forwarding > information about edge rbridges, rather than all end stations? > > > 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 j2405L612324 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:05:21 -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 j2404gX8028110 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:04:42 -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 <0ICS00J01W4NU6@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-24-81.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.24.81]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICS00HPFW7TIN@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:04:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:04:45 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> Message-id: <4227A61D.1010207@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:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:05:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3405 Well, endnode reachability information in and of itself is not a problem, because as those that remember DECnet (and CLNP) that's what level 1 routers passed around. The difference was that DECnet/CLNP had the advantage of having endnodes proactively advertise. I think very large flag CLNP networks were deployed, and worked better than bridged topologies of the same size. But Ales, I think you are arguing that instead of reporting endnode up/down status we are reporting endnode active/quiet status, which would be more volatile. That argument I think argues for having the DB check up on the endnodes, so that the DB is indeed arguing for aliveness rather than "recent activity". This can be done for IP nodes, because we know how to make them talk (ARP, ND). Not sure what other non-IP protocols are widely deployed, and how it would be best to keep tabs on who is still there. One optimization that come to mind is leaving E in your link state information unless you see it pop up elsewhere. If E is dead, then it's not reachable anyway. It's no different than assuming E is on link L based on its IP prefix. The obvious thing to worry about is that E has moved, it has spoken, but nobody noticed it has moved becausewhat it said when it came up in the new location got lost. To handle that case, we could have the DB, R, in the case where R has reported E as being attached, but R hasn't verified that information in "a long time", then R can continue assuming E is alive and well and still connected, until someone attempts to talk to E. If E is dead or not there and nobody wants to talk to E, then who cares. But if E might have moved, then at the point of delivering data to it, is a good time to check to make sure it's still there, so at that point R can do an ARP/ND query to reassure itself that E is actually there. Another optimization is pure data compression. Having link state information that reports all the attached endnodes, with locally assigned dense nicknames (R reports 1=Alice, 2=George, 3=Debra, ...etc). Then R can report the up/down status of all its endnodes as a bitmask. Radia Alex Zinin wrote: >Radia, > > That didn't answer my question about timing ;) Anyway, I'll explain what I > have in mind. > > MAC address info would account for the largest portion of information > distributed in the link-state routing protocol running in rbridges. Hence, > it's important to understand the change dynamics for it, as this will affect > how much information will be flooded around, and as a result affect > scalability of the technology. Without trying to pin it down here and now, I'd > like to understand what we can and can't get here. > > If rbridges use the method currently used in bridges, i.e. install a new MAC > entry when a data frame is seen from the station, and remove it if the station > hasn't been heard from for about 5-15 minutes, we will be seeing more dynamic > state changes than if we used the control traffic-based approach. In other > words, we'd be announcing end station activity information rather than end > station reachability, and the former is likely to change faster, and thus > cause the switch to reoriginate and reflood its link-state information more > often. We would need something better than that for rbridges to scale. > > I need to think a little about control protocol probing... > > > Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j23Nhx605172 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D6zz5-0004kU-JF for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:43:59 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:43:59 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1271254355.20050303154359@psg.com> To: rbridge@postel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Subject: [rbridge] Forwarding inside rbridge cloud X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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 Mar 2005 23:44:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 996 Radia- draft-perlman-rbridge-02 says: > 4. Handling non-IP packets ... > Therefore, the first RBridge (and only the Designated RBridge on the > source's link) encapsulates the packet with an encapsulation header. > The specified next RBridge, R2, will look up the layer 2 destination > in the inner header to determine the forwarding direction. Then R2 > will replace the layer 2 source and destination addresses in the > outer header with R2 as source and next Rbridge as destination, > decrement the TTL, and forward the packet. If R2 is the Designated Is hop-by-hop lookup on the original destination MAC inside the rbridge cloud essential? Would it be possible for the first rbridge to encapsulate the original frame setting the destination MAC address to the egress rbridge in the cloud, so that rbridges inside the cloud only had to maintain forwarding information about edge rbridges, rather than all end stations? -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j23Nan602588 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:36:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D6zs9-0003av-5k; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:36:49 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:36:48 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1721849179.20050303153648@psg.com> To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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 Mar 2005 23:38:15 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4319 Radia, That didn't answer my question about timing ;) Anyway, I'll explain what I have in mind. MAC address info would account for the largest portion of information distributed in the link-state routing protocol running in rbridges. Hence, it's important to understand the change dynamics for it, as this will affect how much information will be flooded around, and as a result affect scalability of the technology. Without trying to pin it down here and now, I'd like to understand what we can and can't get here. If rbridges use the method currently used in bridges, i.e. install a new MAC entry when a data frame is seen from the station, and remove it if the station hasn't been heard from for about 5-15 minutes, we will be seeing more dynamic state changes than if we used the control traffic-based approach. In other words, we'd be announcing end station activity information rather than end station reachability, and the former is likely to change faster, and thus cause the switch to reoriginate and reflood its link-state information more often. We would need something better than that for rbridges to scale. I need to think a little about control protocol probing... -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Thursday, March 3, 2005, 11:43:44 AM, Radia Perlman wrote: > Well, it's trivial to do no better or worse than bridges. Just learn > from seeing data > packets and use the same timeouts as bridges do for station learning. > However, there is an opportunity to do better, and I think the WG should > decide > what optimizations are worth doing. > Some of the possibilities: > a) have the DB on endnode E's LAN "keep tabs" on whether E is still there by > checking up on it (with periodic ARP/ND queries, for instance). The possible > downside of this is devices that want to go to sleep and save power. > It's possible > this is only an issue on wireless links, but it should be discussed. > b) have the DB only check if E is there if E gets reported by some other > DB as > existing in some other part of the campus. Then the DB can check to see if E > has indeed moved, or might perhaps be multiply connected (though multiple > connections with layer 2 is/should be illegal with bridges, so perhaps > we shouldn't > say that it is not allowed because I'm sure mixing bridges and RBridges will > cause weird situations if we allow a layer 2 address to exist in > multiple locations). > The other issue discussed was whether ARP/ND queries for E should be > optimized. > The simplest thing would be doing exactly what bridges would > do...forward all > queries through the spanning tree. But I think it would be nice to > optimize so > that at least some of the time the DB proxies the answer, or routes the > query to > where the DB thinks E is located (then there wouldn't be a false > reply...only if > E is actually alive will it respond). Some combination can be done. > The cases people are worried about are: > a) E dies, but looks alive to S when S does an ARP/ND query because the S's > DB proxy ARPs. I don't think this is that bad a situation, though, > because if E > died after responding to S's query, S still has to have some way of > coping. The > RBridge timers won't keep E around forever. Without bridges or RBridges, > there are always issues with caches like ARP caches, or router-router links > that haven't yet missed n hellos, etc. > b) E moves, but the RBridges don't notice. Again, if E doesn't say > something, bridges > won't forward traffic to E properly either. > But as I said, it is trivial to be at least as good as bridges at end > station discovery/liveness > detection. The only question is should we take advantage of the fact > that RBridges > can do better. > Radia > Alex Zinin wrote: >>Radia, et al- >> >> In reviewing the RBRIDGE proposal within the IESG, I've been evaluating its >> scaling properties. I'd like to clarify how exactly it is envisioned to >> discover new and detect unreachable end stations. >> >> In particular, I'm interested in what kind of time-outs we're looking at for >> traffic- and ARP/ND-based proposals. I also remember seeing a discussion about >> disadvantages of the ARP-based method in the meeting minutes. Was there a >> decision one way or the other? >> >> >> 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 j23Jhf623262 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:43:41 -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 j23JheX8021768 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:43:40 -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 <0ICS00501K2KEQ@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-24-81.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.24.81]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICS00DZ4K4REJ@bur-mail2.east.sun.com>; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:43:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:43:44 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <422768F0.6010502@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:44:57 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2889 Well, it's trivial to do no better or worse than bridges. Just learn from seeing data packets and use the same timeouts as bridges do for station learning. However, there is an opportunity to do better, and I think the WG should decide what optimizations are worth doing. Some of the possibilities: a) have the DB on endnode E's LAN "keep tabs" on whether E is still there by checking up on it (with periodic ARP/ND queries, for instance). The possible downside of this is devices that want to go to sleep and save power. It's possible this is only an issue on wireless links, but it should be discussed. b) have the DB only check if E is there if E gets reported by some other DB as existing in some other part of the campus. Then the DB can check to see if E has indeed moved, or might perhaps be multiply connected (though multiple connections with layer 2 is/should be illegal with bridges, so perhaps we shouldn't say that it is not allowed because I'm sure mixing bridges and RBridges will cause weird situations if we allow a layer 2 address to exist in multiple locations). The other issue discussed was whether ARP/ND queries for E should be optimized. The simplest thing would be doing exactly what bridges would do...forward all queries through the spanning tree. But I think it would be nice to optimize so that at least some of the time the DB proxies the answer, or routes the query to where the DB thinks E is located (then there wouldn't be a false reply...only if E is actually alive will it respond). Some combination can be done. The cases people are worried about are: a) E dies, but looks alive to S when S does an ARP/ND query because the S's DB proxy ARPs. I don't think this is that bad a situation, though, because if E died after responding to S's query, S still has to have some way of coping. The RBridge timers won't keep E around forever. Without bridges or RBridges, there are always issues with caches like ARP caches, or router-router links that haven't yet missed n hellos, etc. b) E moves, but the RBridges don't notice. Again, if E doesn't say something, bridges won't forward traffic to E properly either. But as I said, it is trivial to be at least as good as bridges at end station discovery/liveness detection. The only question is should we take advantage of the fact that RBridges can do better. Radia Alex Zinin wrote: >Radia, et al- > > In reviewing the RBRIDGE proposal within the IESG, I've been evaluating its > scaling properties. I'd like to clarify how exactly it is envisioned to > discover new and detect unreachable end stations. > > In particular, I'm interested in what kind of time-outs we're looking at for > traffic- and ARP/ND-based proposals. I also remember seeing a discussion about > disadvantages of the ARP-based method in the meeting minutes. Was there a > decision one way or the other? > > > Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j23J4l606456 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:04:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D6vcH-000AhI-Ke for rbridge@postel.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:04:09 +0000 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:04:08 -0800 From: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1331112021.20050303110408@psg.com> To: rbridge@postel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: zinin@psg.com Subject: [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.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 Mar 2005 19:06:11 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 519 Radia, et al- In reviewing the RBRIDGE proposal within the IESG, I've been evaluating its scaling properties. I'd like to clarify how exactly it is envisioned to discover new and detect unreachable end stations. In particular, I'm interested in what kind of time-outs we're looking at for traffic- and ARP/ND-based proposals. I also remember seeing a discussion about disadvantages of the ARP-based method in the meeting minutes. Was there a decision one way or the other? -- Alex http://www.psg.com/~zinin Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.136.122]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j22H0TE17440 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:00:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA2445CC4 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:00:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from [163.117.139.55] (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.55]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1E740812 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 18:00:22 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <688530235c47b0d2fe85baf08a163f71@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 Mar 2005 18:00:21 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: marcelo@it.uc3m.es Subject: [rbridge] analysis of threats X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:00:49 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 388 Hi all, i have just finished an initial threat analysis of rbridges. http://www.it.uc3m.es/marcelo/draft-bagnulo-trill-threats-pre.txt This is a very drafty version, but i guess it will allow us to discuss about the security in minneapolis. Any comments are welcome regards, marcelo PS: this is based in the current draft where forwarding is done sometimes based on IP addresses 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 j21JI9E19524 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:18:09 -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 j21JI8X8020353 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:18:08 -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 <0ICO00701TKCZB@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:18:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-24-81.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.24.81]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICO005GYTM7KZ@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:18:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:18:12 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <15f82936b3e5be836a55e747fac01eef@it.uc3m.es> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4224BFF4.6070004@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <ba787fc2185b73ef56ccf8c7b536bc94@it.uc3m.es> <4224A4D9.3080208@sun.com> <15f82936b3e5be836a55e747fac01eef@it.uc3m.es> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] forwarding of IP packets to off-campus destiantions X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:18:34 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4850 Yup. You're absolutely right. The current draft still says that RBridges forward based on the IP header, which as you point out, would require RBridges to know the campus prefix, and therefore not be zero configuration (unless they autoconfigure it the same way IP endnodes would, but I'm not advocating that). That section in the draft was an attempt to both avoid the encapsulation header (in the case of IP packets) and an attempt to avoid requiring RBridges to learn locations in the forwarding path (in the case of IP packets). I think after discussing it for awhile we realized it just made everything more complicated, so that portion of the internet draft should change (by being removed). It seems a better design to just always forward based on the layer 2 header. I thought we had removed it, but I guess we didn't. So I think you and I are agreeing on what the design should be, and you're pointing out that the draft doesn't reflect that design. Radia marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >Hi Radia, > >I am not understanding some point here.. >please see below... > >El 01/03/2005, a las 18:22, Radia Perlman escribi?: > > > >>The devices that have zero configuration are the RBridges. RBridges do >>not know >>anything about "on-campus" or "off-campus". It's the IP nodes attached >>to the cloud that know the difference, but just in the way that IP >>nodes >>have >>always acted. The IP nodes will decide if the target is "their >>neighbor", i.e., >>on-campus, the way they have always done. >> >>It certainly wasn't the intention that RBridges know the on-campus IP >>prefix, but >>it might have been discussed when discussing variations on the design. >>At any >>rate, it isn't the intention now. >> >>The design now is that RBridges will forward all data packets >>based on the layer 2 destination. >> >> >> > >this is not what i read on the draft > >5. Handling on-campus IP Packets > > Here, RBridges forward based on the layer 3 header. > >am i misunderstanding something? > > > >>IP nodes will fill in the layer 2 destination as the MAC address they >>receive in an >>ARP/ND reply (if the target is deemed by the IP node as on-campus), or >>to >>the layer 2 address of an IP router (if the IP source node deems that >>the target is >>off-campus). >> >>But RBridges won't know the difference as to whether the node they are >>delivering >>the packet to is an IP router or the actual destination. >> >> >> > >I am afraid no. > >Current draft states that IP packets are treated differently by >rbridges dependeing their destiantion. > >it is stated that: > >5. Handling on-campus IP Packets > > Here, RBridges forward based on the layer 3 header. > >and later on that: > >6. Handling off-campus IP packets > > Here, RBridges must forward based on the destination in the original > layer 2 header, because the endnode must be able to choose which > router to send off-campus packets to. In particular, an IP router > must be able to forward to another IP router across the campus. > > >So, rbrdige needs to know if the IP destiantion address is on campus or >off campus, in order to treat them differently, hence on campus prefix >configuration is needed. > >What am i missing? > > >thanks, marcelo > > > > > >>Hope that answered your question. I know I had written something about >>what would >>happen if RBridges attempted to avoid encapsulation with IP packets, >>and >>why that >>would be hard (because they'd have to forward based on the layer 2 >>header when >>the packet was off-campus), but that was intended only to explain why >>it's better if >>they always forward based on the layer 2 destination. So, sorry for the >>confusion... >> >>Radia >> >>marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>i have one question regarding the forwarding of IP packets to >>>off-campus destiantions >>> >>>AFAIU, the rbrdiges will forward differently packets addressed to off >>>campus destiantions that those whose destiantion is on-campus. >>> >>>My question is how do they know if a packet destination is on campus >>>or >>>off campus? >>> >>>I guess this requires manual configuration of the on campus prefix, >>>right? >>> >>>But if this is the case, wouldn't this be contradicting the proposed >>>charter requirement: >>> >>>- zero configuration of the hybrid devices >>> >>>Regards, marcelo >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >rbridge mailing list >rbridge@postel.org >http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.136.122]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j21IpuE10175 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:51:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D26C496C9 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:51:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from [163.117.139.55] (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.55]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AFA496C5 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:51:50 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <4224A4D9.3080208@sun.com> References: <ba787fc2185b73ef56ccf8c7b536bc94@it.uc3m.es> <4224A4D9.3080208@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: <15f82936b3e5be836a55e747fac01eef@it.uc3m.es> From: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 19:51:49 +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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id j21IpuE10175 Subject: Re: [rbridge] forwarding of IP packets to off-campus destiantions X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:52:34 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3556 Hi Radia, I am not understanding some point here.. please see below... El 01/03/2005, a las 18:22, Radia Perlman escribi?: > The devices that have zero configuration are the RBridges. RBridges do > not know > anything about "on-campus" or "off-campus". It's the IP nodes attached > to the cloud that know the difference, but just in the way that IP > nodes > have > always acted. The IP nodes will decide if the target is "their > neighbor", i.e., > on-campus, the way they have always done. > > It certainly wasn't the intention that RBridges know the on-campus IP > prefix, but > it might have been discussed when discussing variations on the design. > At any > rate, it isn't the intention now. > > The design now is that RBridges will forward all data packets > based on the layer 2 destination. > this is not what i read on the draft 5. Handling on-campus IP Packets Here, RBridges forward based on the layer 3 header. am i misunderstanding something? > IP nodes will fill in the layer 2 destination as the MAC address they > receive in an > ARP/ND reply (if the target is deemed by the IP node as on-campus), or > to > the layer 2 address of an IP router (if the IP source node deems that > the target is > off-campus). > > But RBridges won't know the difference as to whether the node they are > delivering > the packet to is an IP router or the actual destination. > I am afraid no. Current draft states that IP packets are treated differently by rbridges dependeing their destiantion. it is stated that: 5. Handling on-campus IP Packets Here, RBridges forward based on the layer 3 header. and later on that: 6. Handling off-campus IP packets Here, RBridges must forward based on the destination in the original layer 2 header, because the endnode must be able to choose which router to send off-campus packets to. In particular, an IP router must be able to forward to another IP router across the campus. So, rbrdige needs to know if the IP destiantion address is on campus or off campus, in order to treat them differently, hence on campus prefix configuration is needed. What am i missing? thanks, marcelo > Hope that answered your question. I know I had written something about > what would > happen if RBridges attempted to avoid encapsulation with IP packets, > and > why that > would be hard (because they'd have to forward based on the layer 2 > header when > the packet was off-campus), but that was intended only to explain why > it's better if > they always forward based on the layer 2 destination. So, sorry for the > confusion... > > Radia > > marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> i have one question regarding the forwarding of IP packets to >> off-campus destiantions >> >> AFAIU, the rbrdiges will forward differently packets addressed to off >> campus destiantions that those whose destiantion is on-campus. >> >> My question is how do they know if a packet destination is on campus >> or >> off campus? >> >> I guess this requires manual configuration of the on campus prefix, >> right? >> >> But if this is the case, wouldn't this be contradicting the proposed >> charter requirement: >> >> - zero configuration of the hybrid devices >> >> Regards, marcelo >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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-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 j21HMXE12503 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:22:33 -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 j21HMTX8008459 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:22:33 -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 <0ICO00901O2PAO@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> (original mail from Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM) for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from sun.com (vpn-129-150-24-81.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.150.24.81]) by bur-mail2.east.sun.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.24 (built Dec 19 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0ICO002FDO9G56@bur-mail2.east.sun.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:22:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:22:33 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM> In-reply-to: <ba787fc2185b73ef56ccf8c7b536bc94@it.uc3m.es> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4224A4D9.3080208@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008 References: <ba787fc2185b73ef56ccf8c7b536bc94@it.uc3m.es> X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] forwarding of IP packets to off-campus destiantions X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:23:55 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2217 The devices that have zero configuration are the RBridges. RBridges do not know anything about "on-campus" or "off-campus". It's the IP nodes attached to the cloud that know the difference, but just in the way that IP nodes have always acted. The IP nodes will decide if the target is "their neighbor", i.e., on-campus, the way they have always done. It certainly wasn't the intention that RBridges know the on-campus IP prefix, but it might have been discussed when discussing variations on the design. At any rate, it isn't the intention now. The design now is that RBridges will forward all data packets based on the layer 2 destination. IP nodes will fill in the layer 2 destination as the MAC address they receive in an ARP/ND reply (if the target is deemed by the IP node as on-campus), or to the layer 2 address of an IP router (if the IP source node deems that the target is off-campus). But RBridges won't know the difference as to whether the node they are delivering the packet to is an IP router or the actual destination. Hope that answered your question. I know I had written something about what would happen if RBridges attempted to avoid encapsulation with IP packets, and why that would be hard (because they'd have to forward based on the layer 2 header when the packet was off-campus), but that was intended only to explain why it's better if they always forward based on the layer 2 destination. So, sorry for the confusion... Radia marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >Hi, > >i have one question regarding the forwarding of IP packets to >off-campus destiantions > >AFAIU, the rbrdiges will forward differently packets addressed to off >campus destiantions that those whose destiantion is on-campus. > >My question is how do they know if a packet destination is on campus or >off campus? > >I guess this requires manual configuration of the on campus prefix, >right? > >But if this is the case, wouldn't this be contradicting the proposed >charter requirement: > >- zero configuration of the hybrid devices > >Regards, marcelo > > >_______________________________________________ >rbridge mailing list >rbridge@postel.org >http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.136.122]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.11.6p2+0917/8.11.2) with ESMTP id j21GPxE24410 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:26:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE1F49678 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:25:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from [163.117.139.55] (chelo-it-uc3m-es.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.55]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D8849637 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:25:52 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <ba787fc2185b73ef56ccf8c7b536bc94@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: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:25:53 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-ISI-4-30-3-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: marcelo@it.uc3m.es Subject: [rbridge] forwarding of IP packets to off-campus destiantions X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6b3 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:26:26 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 546 Hi, i have one question regarding the forwarding of IP packets to off-campus destiantions AFAIU, the rbrdiges will forward differently packets addressed to off campus destiantions that those whose destiantion is on-campus. My question is how do they know if a packet destination is on campus or off campus? I guess this requires manual configuration of the on campus prefix, right? But if this is the case, wouldn't this be contradicting the proposed charter requirement: - zero configuration of the hybrid devices Regards, marcelo
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Russ White
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Cheng-Yin Lee
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Bill Sommerfeld
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Russ White
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] VLANs Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] VLANs Joe Touch
- [rbridge] VLANs Alex Zinin
- [rbridge] VLANs Dino Farinacci
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Joe Touch
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection CHO, JAI HYUNG
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Joe Touch
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection CHO, JAI HYUNG
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Joe Touch
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection CHO, JAI HYUNG
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Joe Touch
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection CHO, JAI HYUNG
- [rbridge] End station discovery/liveness detection Joe Touch