[rbridge] Consensus Withdrawn: Point to Point links
"Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> Fri, 30 November 2007 02:47 UTC
Return-path: <rbridge-bounces@postel.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxvuI-0005Jd-NH for trill-archive-Osh9cae4@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:47:10 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu ([128.9.160.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxvuI-0001w5-1R for trill-archive-Osh9cae4@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:47:10 -0500
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAU2XIM9022679; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lAU2WuCv022582 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:32:57 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1196389974!10992826!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101]
Received: (qmail 18705 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2007 02:32:55 -0000
Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-3.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2007 02:32:55 -0000
Received: from az33exr03.mot.com (az33exr03.mot.com [10.64.251.233]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lAU2WiOb026244 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:32:54 -0700 (MST)
Received: from az10vts04.mot.com (az10vts04.mot.com [10.64.251.245]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lAU2Whjp001037 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:32:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lAU2WgxW001027 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:32:42 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:32:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790034C8222@de01exm64.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031CAD2C@de01exm64.ds.mot.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Consensus Withdrawn: Point to Point links
thread-index: AcgFbTWE9oP+tClqRJuKgVk2MsooBgATWlnAAAtVxQAAAikIcAAN9u2ACzJi2IA=
References: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031840BA@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01B370EA@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900318431B@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01B374C2@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031CAD2C@de01exm64.ds.mot.com>
From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>
To: Rbridge@postel.org
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lAU2WuCv022582
Subject: [rbridge] Consensus Withdrawn: Point to Point links
X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge>
List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
Errors-To: rbridge-bounces@postel.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2
Based on the feedback on the mailing list, the tentative consensus below from the Chicago meeting was not confirmed and is withdrawn. Thanks, Donald & Erik From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:27 PM To: Rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links This is a check via the mailing list to confirm or refute an apparent consensus from the minutes of the Chicago meeting for a change from protocol draft -05: If it is known that a link is a point to point link between two RBridges, then the outer header, if it is an Ethernet header, can have any source and/or destination addresses, those addresses will be ignored on receipt, and the outer VLAN tag can be omitted. If no particular controversy arises over this in the next two weeks, we will declare it to be the working group consensus. Thanks, Donald & Erik _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lAU2WuCv022582 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:32:57 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1196389974!10992826!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101] Received: (qmail 18705 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2007 02:32:55 -0000 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-3.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2007 02:32:55 -0000 Received: from az33exr03.mot.com (az33exr03.mot.com [10.64.251.233]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lAU2WiOb026244 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:32:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts04.mot.com (az10vts04.mot.com [10.64.251.245]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lAU2Whjp001037 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:32:43 -0600 (CST) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by az33exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lAU2WgxW001027 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:32:42 -0600 (CST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:32:40 -0500 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790034C8222@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031CAD2C@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Consensus Withdrawn: Point to Point links thread-index: AcgFbTWE9oP+tClqRJuKgVk2MsooBgATWlnAAAtVxQAAAikIcAAN9u2ACzJi2IA= References: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031840BA@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01B370EA@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900318431B@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01B374C2@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031CAD2C@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: <Rbridge@postel.org> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lAU2WuCv022582 Subject: [rbridge] Consensus Withdrawn: Point to Point links X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:33:17 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 973 Based on the feedback on the mailing list, the tentative consensus below from the Chicago meeting was not confirmed and is withdrawn. Thanks, Donald & Erik From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11:27 PM To: Rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links This is a check via the mailing list to confirm or refute an apparent consensus from the minutes of the Chicago meeting for a change from protocol draft -05: If it is known that a link is a point to point link between two RBridges, then the outer header, if it is an Ethernet header, can have any source and/or destination addresses, those addresses will be ignored on receipt, and the outer VLAN tag can be omitted. If no particular controversy arises over this in the next two weeks, we will declare it to be the working group consensus. Thanks, Donald & Erik Received: from people.com.cn ([202.99.23.227]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lAODJ3B0022155 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:19:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from people.com.cn([127.0.0.1]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm1947483174; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:31:42 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm3e47434418; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:30:32 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id AISP action; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:30:32 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuYZV-00082W-PH; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:45 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuYZJ-0007fQ-NH for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:33 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IuYZJ-0006WV-1T for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:33 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC00D175AC; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuYYo-0002Wq-7T; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <E1IuYYo-0002Wq-7T@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:02 -0500 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 14582b0692e7f70ce7111d04db3781c8 X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Errors-To: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org X-Auto-Forward: jaglee@people.com.cn jag@kw.com.cn X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:19:58 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3822 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Working Group of the IETF. Title : Rbridges: Base Protocol Specification Author(s) : R. Perlman, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt Pages : 73 Date : 2007-11-20 RBridges allow for optimal pair-wise forwarding with zero configuration, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and multipathing for both unicast and multicast traffic. They achieve these goals using IS-IS routing and encapsulation of traffic with a header that includes a hop count. RBridges are compatible with previous IEEE 802.1 bridges as well as current IPv4 and IPv6 routers and end nodes. They are as invisible to current IP routers as bridges are and, like routers, they terminate the bridge spanning tree protocol. The design supports VLANs, and, optionally, optimization of the distribution of multi-destination frames based on VLAN and IP derived multicast groups. It also allows forwarding tables to be based on RBridge destinations (rather than end node destinations), which allows internal forwarding tables to be substantially smaller than in conventional bridge systems. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-20130126.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-20130126.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce --NextPart-- Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lALMkK7t019774 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:46:21 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1195685179!3682350!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 24241 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2007 22:46:19 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-7.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 21 Nov 2007 22:46:19 -0000 Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lALMk8VW020144 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 15:46:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts03.mot.com (il06vts03.mot.com [129.188.137.143]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lALMk89e007805 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:46:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lALMk7DK007800 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:46:07 -0600 (CST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:46:06 -0500 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900348095B@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01F50110@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Rbridge Management thread-index: AcgmQgHb2ibYLfrhRpiyvyIuvJSEywAc+r0AAB2nUjA= References: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033F72BE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01F50110@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lALMkK7t019774 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Rbridge Management X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:47:21 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3827 Hi Eric, The suggested paragraph wasn't actually intended to "address management of RBridges generally" and I would agree that it fails to do that. I think that should be done in a separate document. The paragraph was just intended to reduce possible complaints that the document completely ignored management or zero configuration management. RFC 3410 seems to be the standard general SNMP reference when you just want to mention just one RFC. As you say, RFC 3410 points to many additional SNMP RFCs. If there is a better RFC to point to, the draft should be changed to use that. The text in protocol draft -06 was modified in response to your comment to mention management via Layer 3. Donald > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@ericsson.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:21 AM > To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: RE: [rbridge] Rbridge Management > > Donald, > > Assuming that we can accept that RFC 3410 is the appropriate > reference for SNMP generally (it seems to be an informational RFC > that talks about the relative advantages of different versions of > SNMP), this assertion is technically correct. One can use SNMP in > the way it is described in RFC 4789 to manage RBridges. > > However, there are probably at least 3 management models that > may apply to RBridges, where there are issues/concerns with whether > SNMP/L2 would be sufficient (e.g. - from a security perspective, > from a management platform support perspective, etc.). The 3 models > I can quickly imagine - where SNMP/L2 may be either inadequate or > not particularly useful - are: > > 1) litteral plug-and-play - no management is anticipated and what > small amount of management that may apply would most likely be > done via web-access (IP address required, probably configured > via DHCP) or direct connection to a computer; > 2) some management anticipated (minimal VLAN configuration, or a > deployment involving/expecting use of non-default behavior in > one or more aspects (out-of-band, or console, management may > be sufficient, SNMP/L2 may provide inadequate or incompatible > security); > 3) extensive management is the rule (plug and play is a non-goal, > avoidance of address configuration is explicitly a non-goal, > use of device interactive security access - requiring dialog > via IP - is unavoidable, etc.). > > Considering (at least) these cases, while the paragraph you > propose may be technically correct, it may also be insufficient to > address management of RBridges generally. > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III > > Donald-LDE008 > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:11 PM > > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > > Subject: [rbridge] Rbridge Management > > > > Judging from the experience of previous documents in the > > IESG, I believe > > it would be wise for the base protocol document to say > something about > > management. > > > > So I think that something like the following should be added, > > perhaps as > > a paragraph just before the 2.1 Section heading. > > > > "Rbridges can be managed with SNMP [RFC3410]. The Rbridge > MIB will be > > specified in a separate document. SNMP can be transported > directly by > > Layer 2 (see [RFC4789]) so its use within the bounds of an Rbridge > > campus does not require that Rbridges be configured with Layer 3 > > addresses such as IP addresses." > > > > Any comments? > > > > Donald > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > > Received: from ns3.neustar.com (ns3.neustar.com [156.154.24.138]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAKJF682010136 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:15:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC00D175AC; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IuYYo-0002Wq-7T; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <E1IuYYo-0002Wq-7T@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:15:02 -0500 X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ietf@ietf.org Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:16:00 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3537 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Working Group of the IETF. Title : Rbridges: Base Protocol Specification Author(s) : R. Perlman, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt Pages : 73 Date : 2007-11-20 RBridges allow for optimal pair-wise forwarding with zero configuration, safe forwarding even during periods of temporary loops, and multipathing for both unicast and multicast traffic. They achieve these goals using IS-IS routing and encapsulation of traffic with a header that includes a hop count. RBridges are compatible with previous IEEE 802.1 bridges as well as current IPv4 and IPv6 routers and end nodes. They are as invisible to current IP routers as bridges are and, like routers, they terminate the bridge spanning tree protocol. The design supports VLANs, and, optionally, optimization of the distribution of multi-destination frames based on VLAN and IP derived multicast groups. It also allows forwarding tables to be based on RBridge destinations (rather than end node destinations), which allows internal forwarding tables to be substantially smaller than in conventional bridge systems. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-20130126.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-20130126.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from ns4.neustar.com (ns4.neustar.com [156.154.24.139]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAJ6K2xL024584 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns4.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CBC2AC50; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:20:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ItzzF-00009c-R3; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:20:01 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: <E1ItzzF-00009c-R3@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:20:01 -0500 X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: ietf@ietf.org Cc: rbridge@postel.org Subject: [rbridge] I-D Action:draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:20:24 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4027 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links Working Group of the IETF. Title : The Architecture of an RBridge Solution to TRILL Author(s) : E. Gray, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt Pages : 34 Date : 2007-11-19 RBridges are link layer (L2) devices that use a routing protocol as a control plane. This combines several of the benefits of the link layer with those of the network layer. For example RBridges use existing link state routing, without necessarily requiring configuration, to improve aggregate throughput, for RBridge to Gray Expires May, 2008 [page 1] Internet-Draft RBridge Architecture November 2007 RBridge traffic. RBridges also may support IP multicast and IP address resolution optimizations. They are intended to be applicable to L2 network sizes similar to those of conventional bridges and are intended to be backward compatible with those bridges as both ingress/egress and transit. They also support VLANs (although this generally requires configuration) while otherwise attempting to retain as much 'plug and play' as is already available in existing bridges. This document proposes an architecture for RBridge systems as a solution to the TRILL problem, defines terminology, and describes basic components and desired behavior. One (or more) separate documents will specify protocols and mechanisms that satisfy the architecture presented herein. Gray Expires May, 2008 [page 2] Internet-Draft RBridge Architecture November 2007 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-19011433.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-11-19011433.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAEISUh9025344 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:28:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JRI00E4KDZIM110@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:28:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.145.154.66] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JRI0061MDZIZIN0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:28:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:28:29 -0800 From: Radia.Perlman@sun.com In-reply-to: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01F50110@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Message-id: <473B3E4D.8090408@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 References: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033F72BE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01F50110@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4v; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20070109 X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Rbridge Management X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:29:16 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3232 I wouldn't want us to agonize over that paragraph and delay putting out the next version of the spec. It seems fine to me, and does not preclude configuring (or otherwise acquiring, e.g., with DHCP) an IP address for the RBridge and configuring it using SNMP over IP. Radia Eric Gray wrote: >Donald, > > Assuming that we can accept that RFC 3410 is the appropriate >reference for SNMP generally (it seems to be an informational RFC >that talks about the relative advantages of different versions of >SNMP), this assertion is technically correct. One can use SNMP in >the way it is described in RFC 4789 to manage RBridges. > > However, there are probably at least 3 management models that >may apply to RBridges, where there are issues/concerns with whether >SNMP/L2 would be sufficient (e.g. - from a security perspective, >from a management platform support perspective, etc.). The 3 models >I can quickly imagine - where SNMP/L2 may be either inadequate or >not particularly useful - are: > >1) litteral plug-and-play - no management is anticipated and what > small amount of management that may apply would most likely be > done via web-access (IP address required, probably configured > via DHCP) or direct connection to a computer; >2) some management anticipated (minimal VLAN configuration, or a > deployment involving/expecting use of non-default behavior in > one or more aspects (out-of-band, or console, management may > be sufficient, SNMP/L2 may provide inadequate or incompatible > security); >3) extensive management is the rule (plug and play is a non-goal, > avoidance of address configuration is explicitly a non-goal, > use of device interactive security access - requiring dialog > via IP - is unavoidable, etc.). > > Considering (at least) these cases, while the paragraph you >propose may be technically correct, it may also be insufficient to >address management of RBridges generally. > >-- >Eric Gray >Principal Engineer >Ericsson > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org >>[mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III >>Donald-LDE008 >>Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:11 PM >>To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. >>Subject: [rbridge] Rbridge Management >> >>Judging from the experience of previous documents in the >>IESG, I believe >>it would be wise for the base protocol document to say something about >>management. >> >>So I think that something like the following should be added, >>perhaps as >>a paragraph just before the 2.1 Section heading. >> >>"Rbridges can be managed with SNMP [RFC3410]. The Rbridge MIB will be >>specified in a separate document. SNMP can be transported directly by >>Layer 2 (see [RFC4789]) so its use within the bounds of an Rbridge >>campus does not require that Rbridges be configured with Layer 3 >>addresses such as IP addresses." >> >>Any comments? >> >>Donald >> >>_______________________________________________ >>rbridge mailing list >>rbridge@postel.org >>http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >rbridge mailing list >rbridge@postel.org >http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAECLRJG026326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:21:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAECM6IY016155; Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:22:06 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:21:25 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 06:21:23 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01F50110@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033F72BE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Rbridge Management Thread-Index: AcgmQgHb2ibYLfrhRpiyvyIuvJSEywAc+r0A References: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033F72BE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2007 12:21:25.0683 (UTC) FILETIME=[E02B4830:01C826B8] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lAECLRJG026326 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Rbridge Management X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:22:27 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2732 Donald, Assuming that we can accept that RFC 3410 is the appropriate reference for SNMP generally (it seems to be an informational RFC that talks about the relative advantages of different versions of SNMP), this assertion is technically correct. One can use SNMP in the way it is described in RFC 4789 to manage RBridges. However, there are probably at least 3 management models that may apply to RBridges, where there are issues/concerns with whether SNMP/L2 would be sufficient (e.g. - from a security perspective, from a management platform support perspective, etc.). The 3 models I can quickly imagine - where SNMP/L2 may be either inadequate or not particularly useful - are: 1) litteral plug-and-play - no management is anticipated and what small amount of management that may apply would most likely be done via web-access (IP address required, probably configured via DHCP) or direct connection to a computer; 2) some management anticipated (minimal VLAN configuration, or a deployment involving/expecting use of non-default behavior in one or more aspects (out-of-band, or console, management may be sufficient, SNMP/L2 may provide inadequate or incompatible security); 3) extensive management is the rule (plug and play is a non-goal, avoidance of address configuration is explicitly a non-goal, use of device interactive security access - requiring dialog via IP - is unavoidable, etc.). Considering (at least) these cases, while the paragraph you propose may be technically correct, it may also be insufficient to address management of RBridges generally. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III > Donald-LDE008 > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:11 PM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: [rbridge] Rbridge Management > > Judging from the experience of previous documents in the > IESG, I believe > it would be wise for the base protocol document to say something about > management. > > So I think that something like the following should be added, > perhaps as > a paragraph just before the 2.1 Section heading. > > "Rbridges can be managed with SNMP [RFC3410]. The Rbridge MIB will be > specified in a separate document. SNMP can be transported directly by > Layer 2 (see [RFC4789]) so its use within the bounds of an Rbridge > campus does not require that Rbridges be configured with Layer 3 > addresses such as IP addresses." > > Any comments? > > Donald > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lADMAdrB010106 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:10:40 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1194991838!16395070!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 2569 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2007 22:10:39 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-12.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2007 22:10:39 -0000 Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lADMAaIS016003 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:10:38 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts01.mot.com (il06vts01.mot.com [129.188.137.141]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/Vontu) with SMTP id lADMAai6004736 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:10:36 -0600 (CST) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lADMAZhX004727 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:10:35 -0600 (CST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:10:32 -0500 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033F72BE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Rbridge Management thread-index: AcgmQgHb2ibYLfrhRpiyvyIuvJSEyw== From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lADMAdrB010106 Subject: [rbridge] Rbridge Management X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:10:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 609 Judging from the experience of previous documents in the IESG, I believe it would be wise for the base protocol document to say something about management. So I think that something like the following should be added, perhaps as a paragraph just before the 2.1 Section heading. "Rbridges can be managed with SNMP [RFC3410]. The Rbridge MIB will be specified in a separate document. SNMP can be transported directly by Layer 2 (see [RFC4789]) so its use within the bounds of an Rbridge campus does not require that Rbridges be configured with Layer 3 addresses such as IP addresses." Any comments? Donald Received: from sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.25]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7J21wC012727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from jurassic.eng.sun.com ([129.146.68.130]) by sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id lA7J1owU028811 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 19:02:01 GMT Received: from [10.7.251.248] (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [10.7.251.248]) by jurassic.eng.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7J1kv6631762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:01:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47320B99.2030706@sun.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:01:45 -0800 From: Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070723) 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-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: erik.nordmark@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Agenda items for Vancouver? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:02:21 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 131 I assume we will have issues to discuss/close on the protocol specification. What other agenda items should we cover? Erik Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7HJxvR002140 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:20:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA7HKJXI025848; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:20:19 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:19:57 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:19:56 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01EB4709@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B67@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcghTMHjyHbW2ShfTimSxGmdqzbXBwADzuIwAAFyfaA= References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com><47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com><4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com><4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><47310231.1040800@cisco.com><4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><4731A70D.504@cisco.com> <4731B327.70708@cisco.com><4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B55@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><4731CF33.3060603@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B67@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com>, "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 17:19:57.0940 (UTC) FILETIME=[6BD08B40:01C82162] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7HJxvR002140 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:20:47 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3671 Anoop, I think you make the mistake of thinking that - because all of the comments appear to be at a high level and none are specifically calling out flaws in the existing text - there are no issues with the existing text. It may very well be the case that some of us feel that the existing text is heading in a way that will lead to a hopeless tangle and that pursuing detailed evaluation of the existing text only helps to make that happen. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 11:40 AM > To: Russ White > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia Perlman > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russ White [mailto:riw@cisco.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:44 AM > > To: Anoop Ghanwani > > Cc: Radia Perlman; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > I thought that is what the draft does. > > > > The current draft has all of these different forwarding modes in it? > > It's been a while since I looked at it, but it looked > reasonable in terms of forwarding rules. We've had > some discussions around minor issues but nothing to > the extent of revamping the whole thing. > > > >> If an rbridge receives a unicast packet without a VLAN > > tag, it will: > > > > > > Assuming we're talking about the inner tag... > > > > No, the entire process. Look at the outer tag, determine it's > > not the real vlan (how do you do this?), then you do x, then > > y, then z.... > > Well, if the frame is not addressed to the RBridge, > or if it's not addressed to the All-RBridges multicast > address, then you pretty much treat it like > a bridged frame. I really recommend reading the > draft. Even in its current version it will tell > you a lot about the issues and the thought process > that has got us to where we are. > > > What's the entire decision tree for all possible types of > > traffic--not little bits and pieces of it, the entire thing? > > IMHO, once you see the entire tree in one place, you're going > > to realize this is a very complex forwarding mechanism, > > compared to anything currently running. > > > > Forwarding hardware eats power, space, and cooling. Simple > > forwarding processes are better than complex ones, where you > > have to do a lot of peeking and poking to figure out what to > > do with a packet. > > No argument there whatsoever! > > > > The problem with special casing the no-VLAN case is that > we're now > > > build a new type of bridging that combines 802.1D with > > 802.1Q, and in > > > the process will likely break both. With 802.1Q a packet > > always has a > > > VLAN context. With 802.D there is no VLAN context. This matters > > > especially when you encounter situations with the same MAC > > addresses > > > in different VLANs. > > > > Why do you need the vlan context in the cloud? You are > > forwarding to an egress rbridge, not along a vlan. > > You don't for unicast (assuming you're talking > about the inner tag). For multicast, it's needed > as an optimization to limit propagation to only > those egress RBridges that are interested in > the frame. A lot of this information is discussed > in the draft. > > Anoop > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7HBRRp029331 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA7HBOsx017717; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:11:25 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:11:24 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:11:24 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01EB46EC@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: Acgg0vKWDtDMre1mRfyg/GBQE1+AQgACdoggACCz+RA= References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com><47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com><4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com><4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com>, "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 17:11:24.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A0E5020:01C82161] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7HBRRp029331 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:12:02 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 7021 Anoop, When you talk of an implementation that allows for sending and receiving frames for multiple VLANs in a single interface, I strongly suspect that this is because your model for what "logical interfaces" are is different. If you define a logical (Ethernet) interface as being - for example - qualified by the MAC address and a specific VID, than it is non-sensical to talk about having multiple VLAN associations via that logical interface. Many implementers use the term logical interface exactly this way. On the other hand, if you define logical (Ethernet) interfaces by MAC address alone - or perhaps using some distinguishing factor, other than VID - then what you are saying is not incorrect. I wonder, though, how useful that model is from an implementer perspective. VID is - with the exception of the SVL case - integral to the forwarding context associated with any frames received on any interface (and - obviously - the same would apply when sending, since there is a similar implied context at the next receiver). Hence - from the perspective of making a forwarding decision - receiving a frame on a different VLAN is not different from receiving it on a completely different physical interface. What can an implementer gain from distinguishing "forwarding context" from "logical interface"? -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:39 PM > To: Russ White > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia Perlman > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Russ White [mailto:riw@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:09 PM > > To: Anoop Ghanwani > > Cc: Radia Perlman; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > - For ports that support both bridged and TRILL > > > traffic we have to go with what 802.1 says > > > (otherwise the traffic won't go through bridges). > > > > > > Thus far, all RBridge ports are assumed to be > > > of the last type. That means the encapsulation has > > > to follow rules defined by 802.1 - i.e. you have > > > a set of VLANs on that port. We only transmit > > > traffic on those VLANs. Some of those VLANs belong > > > to the "tagged set" in which case we transmit frames > > > for those VLANs in tagged format; other VLANs belong > > > to the "untagged" set in which case we transmit > > > frames without a tag. > > > > In all implementations that I know of, such interfaces are always: > > > > 1. Trunk ports, which I've already covered. > > 2. A single physical interface with multiple logical > "subinterfaces." > > > > Can you point to a single case where a device can send multiple vlan > > traffic on a single logical interface, or where it treats a single > > interface as a link with multiple vlans while not calling it > > a "trunk," > > and putting special operational rules around it (such as no end host > > devices)? > > We must be talking past each other because I'm > not sure what the above comment is getting at. > Nowhere have I talked about "multiple VLAN > traffic on a single logical interface". Please > give me the full context if possible. > > By the way, trunk ports in one large, prominent > vendor's implementation is a subset of the > standard. The 802.1 document does not talk > about trunk ports at all, and on a given port > you can have any bunch of VLANs, some of which > are tagged and some of which are untagged. > And this is different that the "trunk port". > > > > I think what we have defined so far is fine. > > > There is no need to change it. Making it optional > > > won't work. > > > > What has been defined so far is very complex--you're recreating > > subinterfaces without subinterfaces, for no reason I can see. > > The subinterfaces are there because an RBridge > is also a bridge. Just like a bridge has VLANs > configured on ports, an RBridge will also have > VLANs configured on ports. The reason this is > needed is because we have to know which VLANs > are configured on a port when we receive > a multicast packet from another RBridge that > needs to be forwarded on the port. > > > > Even routers have to follow those rules or > > > their packets don't make it through the LAN! > > > > Routers don't follow these rules.... They don't simply put > > "some random > > vlan number" on any packet they are transmitting to "get the packet > > through the LAN." There is no "common vlan" assigned to each link to > > allow routers to communicate. There is no concept of a > "single hello" > > for multiple virtual topologies on a single link, with all sorts of > > stuff added so everyone on the link knows which virtual > > network everyone > > else is on. > > We are not talking about putting a random number. > We are talking about putting some VLAN ID that is > configured on the port. > > > Routers operate exactly as I described previously. If a > > router receives > > a packet on an interface, it will: > > > > 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. > > 2. Figure out the outbound interface. > > 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that > > interface. > > 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer 2 > > header will > > include, of course, a vlan header. > > 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the > > layer 2 header > > will not include a vlan header. > > I agree with this. > > > Whether or not there's a vlan tag that needs to be added > plays no part > > in the forwarding decision. > > That is correct...however, as you note in 3, 3a, 3b, > you have to know the interface that you're forwarding > the packet on. That interface, in the RBridge world, > is a VLAN on a specific port (for unicast) or a \ > VLAN on a set of ports (for multicast). > > > IMHO, rbridges _should_ operate as much like routers as > > possible, rather > > than using some new forwarding paradigm. Once the traffic is > > placed in a > > tunnel, it should be carried--as much as possible--just like an IP > > packet is carried. > > So if I have the following configuration: > (R1) <---(vlan1)---> (R2) <---(vlan1)---> (R3) > the packets between the routers could either > be tagging the frames or not and that depends > on the configuration of the port in question. > (In the implementation you are familiar with, > untagged would mean there is no subinterface, > and tagged means there is a subinterface with > a tag of 1. Just because I have a subinterface > in the latter case, does not mean another > subinterface must exist on that router port.) > > Anoop > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7H1Ier026001 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:01:19 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,385,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="75381749" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 12:01:18 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA7H1I4O025473; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:01:18 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA7H0xdc022034; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:01:14 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:01:04 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:01:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4731EF2A.8070401@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:00:26 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> <4731B327.70708@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B55@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731CF33.3060603@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B67@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B67@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 17:01:04.0290 (UTC) FILETIME=[C81B4820:01C8215F] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15530.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.080200-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1803; t=1194454878; x=1195318878; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anoop=20Ghanwani=20<anoop@brocade.com>; bh=T9YgsKRvfPFO2G/qKdi8NhdZWYNeQTG9OWY8R3/Dv9A=; b=PYZUt8aWKpIDTBTHUvInFtv87Jdbxti/QyNQ2uGmwAI/OW27WpWhsf5g1nvadAYW8LS0O6c0 ITVkXp3c/fNlfBt8ks9ba/Sn6qxFGk4vLpU6gbIyK6NlID7rBrlGQRd+; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:01:46 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1782 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > It's been a while since I looked at it, but it looked > reasonable in terms of forwarding rules. We've had > some discussions around minor issues but nothing to > the extent of revamping the whole thing. The draft has been updated to include the discussion of the last two weeks, and the idea of including a vlan tag on all packets, unicast and multicast, in order to get across broadcast links? >> Why do you need the vlan context in the cloud? You are >> forwarding to an egress rbridge, not along a vlan. > > You don't for unicast (assuming you're talking > about the inner tag). For multicast, it's needed > as an optimization to limit propagation to only > those egress RBridges that are interested in > the frame. A lot of this information is discussed > in the draft. But, the recent discussion has been to add it for _all_ packets, unicast and multicast. First, I think we may have overoptimized for multicast--when we get to the point where we're adding context that's no needed in unicast to optimize for multicast, we're eating the bandwidth we thought we'd be saving through the optimization. Second, I think we may be overthinking the problem in general. There's no reason, I don't think, for vlan context tags even for multicast within the rbridge cloud. I suspect a lot of this doesn't revolve around multicast optimization, but rather around the idea of having fully mixed rbridge/bridge environments. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMe8qER27sUhU9OQRAnIzAKDJSn+2i/3NlJCbIvX0Ab/G03yRNACg1hIL Jxrd1GmKiZ1amTJx+W5Tk1Q= =E9Hy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7Gx1Kj024809 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:59:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA7GwxG3013125; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:59:00 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:58:59 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:58:59 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01EB46BB@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <47310B71.40604@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: Acgg3dGFabL37koiR8iYRWGp8CgVMwAgTURg References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com><4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com><4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <473105A8.3000903@sun.com> <47310B71.40604@cisco.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com>, "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 16:58:59.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D907CD0:01C8215F] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7Gx1Kj024809 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:59:27 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2287 Radia, I have to agree with what Russ says below. I think this has been a part of the issue in previous discussions: people are trying to see things simply (by pretending that VLANs can be treated arbritrarily) but have been making it all much more complicated in doing so. Russ' description of VLAN interactions is simple and correct. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Russ White > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:49 PM > To: Radia Perlman > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > RBridges, on the other hand, like bridges, are > simultaneously supporting > > multiple VLANs > > over the same port. VLANs that the RBridge itself is not a > member of in > > any sense -- just > > that the RBridge is supposed to support to glue it to other > pieces of > > the VLAN in other > > parts of the campus. > > Again, the only two instances I know of are: > > 1. There are subinterfaces, or physical interfaces, which belong to a > single vlan. > > 2. The port is declared a trunk, and specific rules apply to the port, > such as no end user traffic is allowed on the port. > > And I still don't see what any of this has to do with all this > complexity. I've described all the situations in previous emails, and > how to handle them, without the concept of a "common vlan," > etc. Again, > why do we need this complexity? What is it supporting? Can > someone point > to a specific situation that wouldn't be handled by the > forwarding rules > I proposed earlier--that's not contrived, and impossible with all > current implementations? > > :-) > > Russ > > - -- > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHMQtxER27sUhU9OQRAoeAAKDx4z6UoUgHVEWSMibQ7Z/sOfknDgCg1+YI > HDaYykz4jypmQnjo9P5KNcU= > =yDY4 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7GrCff022475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:53:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA7Gr9iN011030; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:53:10 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:53:09 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:53:08 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01EB469E@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B0F3A@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Thread-Index: AcgfwhTUjX8M824DQCWRzJk1fpQ2/AA+nr2wACgQ48A= References: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E92036D@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><18442502.671741193799238499.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900332B1E3@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><18216.36269.214404.179226@gargle.gargle.HOWL><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBEC@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><18223.13230.626187.543062@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B0F3A@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "James Carlson" <james.d.carlson@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 16:53:09.0222 (UTC) FILETIME=[ACF1A860:01C8215E] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7GrCff022475 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:53:17 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 5447 Donald, Speaking of meta-data, I find it very difficult to figure out who you're responding to when you use the @@@ and ### notation. It looks as if you're responding (with ###) to James Carlson's response to your earlier mail (with @@@), which was itsef a reply to James' response to me. Have I got it figured out right? In any case, I have to disagree with your assertion that "coloring" does not make sense on a P2P link. While your assertion that a wire is not going to queue frames, or make decisions based on priority, the next hop RBridge is going to do so. One of the obvious examples of where either the PCP or the VID might be useful additional information can be seen by analogy with what a service provider might need to do in transporting customer frames. An SP may have a way to map the customer's frames to compatible PCP and VID - used to provide some form of assured service, for example - that is compatible with but not the same as the PCP and VID used by the customer. In this case, the customer's frame PCP and VID are not useful when forwarding frames across the SP backbone, but the customer's PCP and VID MUST be preserved. I know that - thus far - we've not opened the door in our charter to talk about the application of RBridge technology to anything other than enterprise networks. Yet the analogy still applies even in the enterprise. Even if you feel that this technology will not be applied to even such an enterprise, I can see little value in specifying "extra stuff" just to make the work we're doing unusable for such applications. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III > Donald-LDE008 > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:59 PM > To: James Carlson > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > See below at ### > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:16 AM > To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 writes: > > From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] > [...] > > Eric Gray writes: > [...] > > > 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > > > to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > > > VID, or > [...] > > @@@ Well, I am Donald and I meant something like (2) but a bit > narrower. > > I would have said "all TRILL frames" because "all frames" is way too > > inclusive. What about control frames like 802.1AB? > Furthermore, in the > > case of point-to-point links between two Rbridges (i.e., no > bridges or > > end station connections in between), as far as I can see there is no > > particular utility in considering the TRILL frames to have any > external > > VLAN coloring and certainly no need for them to be outer > tagged with a > > VLAN ID or priority. > > I mostly agree with that. In fact, I think that's a desirable end > state for TRILL, when all other bridges are obsolete. Having no VLAN > tag on the outside makes a lot of sense there. > > (I think omitting the priority makes a bit less sense to me, though. > Wouldn't you want the priority value set on an 802.1q header with VLAN > ID 0 in this case?) > > ### The way I look at it, the VLAN coloring and priority of a > frame are > meta data associated with the frame. The priority is used in queuing > decisions related to processing and transmitting the frame. Just what > Q-tag gets put on the transmitted frame depends on configuration. > > ### If a link is point-to-point between Rbridges, there is no need for > an outer VLAN ID. If it is a data frame, the actual VLAN ID > of the data > is in the inner Q-tag and so easily available to the next Rbridge for > its decision processes. Similarly, I don't see any reason for priority > in the outer Q-tag. It's not as if a piece of wire is going to look at > the priority and re-order frames. If it is a data frame, the actual > priority of the data is in the inner Q-tag and so is easily > available to > the next Rbridge. > > ### TRILL core IS-IS frames, of course, are different. They don't have > any inner Q-tag because the don't have any inherent VLAN coloring and > they only go one hop anyway. An Rbridge might want to associate > "priority 7" or whatever as meta data with the core IS-IS > frame while it > is internal to the Rbridge and that could effect transmission queuing > but there is no particular reason for there to be a priority tag on it > over a point-to-point link. The next Rbridge will see that it > is a core > IS-IS message, will probably treat it a bit differently for > processing, > and give it to its core IS-IS instance. > > ### Thanks, > ### Donald > > I think the question is how to get there when there are networks that > are half-TRILL and half-otherwise. > > ... > > -- > James Carlson, Solaris Networking > <james.d.carlson@sun.com> > Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 > 781 442 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 > 781 442 1677 > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from mx20.brocade.com (mx20.brocade.com [66.243.153.19]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7GdehE016906 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:39:48 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,385,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="13597014" Received: from discus.brocade.com ([192.168.126.240]) by mx20.brocade.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 08:39:40 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-exchfeclus-2 [192.168.126.212]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A4C238302; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:39:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:39:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 08:39:30 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B67@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4731CF33.3060603@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcghTMHjyHbW2ShfTimSxGmdqzbXBwADzuIw References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> <4731B327.70708@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B55@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731CF33.3060603@cisco.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 16:39:40.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[CACC17A0:01C8215C] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7GdehE016906 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:40:22 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2564 > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ White [mailto:riw@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:44 AM > To: Anoop Ghanwani > Cc: Radia Perlman; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > I thought that is what the draft does. > > The current draft has all of these different forwarding modes in it? It's been a while since I looked at it, but it looked reasonable in terms of forwarding rules. We've had some discussions around minor issues but nothing to the extent of revamping the whole thing. > >> If an rbridge receives a unicast packet without a VLAN > tag, it will: > > > > Assuming we're talking about the inner tag... > > No, the entire process. Look at the outer tag, determine it's > not the real vlan (how do you do this?), then you do x, then > y, then z.... Well, if the frame is not addressed to the RBridge, or if it's not addressed to the All-RBridges multicast address, then you pretty much treat it like a bridged frame. I really recommend reading the draft. Even in its current version it will tell you a lot about the issues and the thought process that has got us to where we are. > What's the entire decision tree for all possible types of > traffic--not little bits and pieces of it, the entire thing? > IMHO, once you see the entire tree in one place, you're going > to realize this is a very complex forwarding mechanism, > compared to anything currently running. > > Forwarding hardware eats power, space, and cooling. Simple > forwarding processes are better than complex ones, where you > have to do a lot of peeking and poking to figure out what to > do with a packet. No argument there whatsoever! > > The problem with special casing the no-VLAN case is that we're now > > build a new type of bridging that combines 802.1D with > 802.1Q, and in > > the process will likely break both. With 802.1Q a packet > always has a > > VLAN context. With 802.D there is no VLAN context. This matters > > especially when you encounter situations with the same MAC > addresses > > in different VLANs. > > Why do you need the vlan context in the cloud? You are > forwarding to an egress rbridge, not along a vlan. You don't for unicast (assuming you're talking about the inner tag). For multicast, it's needed as an optimization to limit propagation to only those egress RBridges that are interested in the frame. A lot of this information is discussed in the draft. Anoop Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7EiqF9029797 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:44:52 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,384,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="75370432" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 09:44:52 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA7EipBM022022; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:44:51 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA7EikWT007137; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 14:44:47 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:44:41 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:44:40 -0500 Message-ID: <4731CF33.3060603@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:44:03 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> <4731B327.70708@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B55@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B55@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 14:44:40.0946 (UTC) FILETIME=[BA741520:01C8214C] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15530.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.354700-8.000000-2 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1713; t=1194446691; x=1195310691; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anoop=20Ghanwani=20<anoop@brocade.com>; bh=8E/N2QWho/IA51qoSeRxpuEAE4RAXqayz+lHMuZgv0U=; b=QSzSlTMgkx4MShoA2+6wEvKikV3jn/86XreOjVTEApUOlfPRKAuQ05D8pZgvU5rB+zuPm2AW iHOi1HWmyXQh9HDXVEYwxnb33GS1ULhEUmJL7PNlk3UBr1FgjyMPAuJy; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:45:22 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1691 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I thought that is what the draft does. The current draft has all of these different forwarding modes in it? >> If an rbridge receives a unicast packet without a VLAN tag, it will: > > Assuming we're talking about the inner tag... No, the entire process. Look at the outer tag, determine it's not the real vlan (how do you do this?), then you do x, then y, then z.... What's the entire decision tree for all possible types of traffic--not little bits and pieces of it, the entire thing? IMHO, once you see the entire tree in one place, you're going to realize this is a very complex forwarding mechanism, compared to anything currently running. Forwarding hardware eats power, space, and cooling. Simple forwarding processes are better than complex ones, where you have to do a lot of peeking and poking to figure out what to do with a packet. > The problem with special casing the no-VLAN case > is that we're now build a new type of bridging > that combines 802.1D with 802.1Q, and in the > process will likely break both. With 802.1Q > a packet always has a VLAN context. With 802.D > there is no VLAN context. This matters especially > when you encounter situations with the same > MAC addresses in different VLANs. Why do you need the vlan context in the cloud? You are forwarding to an egress rbridge, not along a vlan. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMc8zER27sUhU9OQRArt9AJ0ebnvnnRhJeOKqiDDiLlCsU9UDvwCfTZmB V/Ny5UnlRpFEW0/UgxROX1A= =S3ar -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mx20.brocade.com (mx20.brocade.com [66.243.153.19]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7E6v1n015595 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:06:57 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,384,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="13595001" Received: from discus.brocade.com ([192.168.126.240]) by mx20.brocade.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 06:06:47 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com (hq-plato-6 [192.168.126.214]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E33238301; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:06:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:06:48 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:06:39 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B55@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4731B327.70708@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcghPCOgmtrF0wkrT7eAz/ehSBhdKAACrxiA References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> <4731B327.70708@cisco.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 14:06:48.0188 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FC8BBC0:01C82147] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7E6v1n015595 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:07:21 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1504 > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ White [mailto:riw@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 4:44 AM > To: Anoop Ghanwani > Cc: Radia Perlman; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > >>> 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. > >>> 2. Figure out the outbound interface. > >>> 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that > >>> interface. > >>> 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the > layer 2 header > >>> will include, of course, a vlan header. > >>> 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the layer 2 > >>> header will not include a vlan header. > > >> I agree with this. > > Since this is obviously not the forwarding path for rbridges, > I think it would be very useful if you could outline the > actual forwarding path, with all the possible "if" statements > involved. I thought that is what the draft does. > If an rbridge receives a unicast packet without a VLAN tag, it will: Assuming we're talking about the inner tag... The problem with special casing the no-VLAN case is that we're now build a new type of bridging that combines 802.1D with 802.1Q, and in the process will likely break both. With 802.1Q a packet always has a VLAN context. With 802.D there is no VLAN context. This matters especially when you encounter situations with the same MAC addresses in different VLANs. Anoop Received: from mx20.brocade.com (mx20.brocade.com [66.243.153.19]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7E14MC012910 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:01:13 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,384,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="13594948" Received: from discus.brocade.com ([192.168.126.240]) by mx20.brocade.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 06:01:00 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com (hq-plato-6 [192.168.126.214]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4185238302; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:00:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:01:00 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:00:52 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2B54@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcghNM80JeHDF03ZQiuOq6xtMTuaQAAELNjQ References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 14:01:00.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0A4C780:01C82146] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA7E14MC012910 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:01:55 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3797 > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ White [mailto:riw@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:53 AM > To: Anoop Ghanwani > Cc: Radia Perlman; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > The subinterfaces are there because an RBridge is also a > bridge. Just > > like a bridge has VLANs configured on ports, an RBridge > will also have > > VLANs configured on ports. The reason this is needed is because we > > have to know which VLANs are configured on a port when we receive a > > multicast packet from another RBridge that needs to be forwarded on > > the port. > > I don't see where this matters.... All that matters is which > egress devices are within the correct vlan for the multicast > packet you've just received. You are forwarding to egress > devices, not along vlans within the cloud. > > IMHO, this is why this entire confusion has arisen.... You > don't need to forward along a given tree, and along a given > vlan, and glue vlans together.... Choose one, not all three. We don't forward along a tree except for multicast. We don't glue VLANs together unless they have the same VID. And there's no way around that either. > The entire point of rbridges is that the entire "core" of the > rbridge network forwards towards egress bridges, rather than > mimicking the virtual topologies along the edge. > You're now introducing requirements to do both--treat the > core as a vlan free space, and only forward along vlans > within the core. > > It makes no sense. I disagree. What is the point in sending traffic to an egress RBridge if it is going to discard it anyway? > > We are not talking about putting a random number. > > We are talking about putting some VLAN ID that is configured on the > > port. > > The phrase "some random vlan number, just to get the packet > through the LAN," has been used multiple times on list. Well at least I have never used that, so I'll let others who have proposed that I idea defend it. > Second, restricting all traffic flowing between any set of > rbridges on a single link to one vlan across that link makes no sense. Then you will have the problems for multicast pointed out by Radia in an earlier email. > >> Routers operate exactly as I described previously. If a router > >> receives a packet on an interface, it will: > >> > >> 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. > >> 2. Figure out the outbound interface. > >> 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that > >> interface. > >> 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer > 2 header > >> will include, of course, a vlan header. > >> 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the layer 2 > >> header will not include a vlan header. > > > > I agree with this. > > Then you don't need all this vlan stuff in the middle. You > are forwarding through the underlying cloud to the address of > an egress device. That address should be in the tunnel encap > once the packet enters the cloud. You deleted my nice picture with the routers discussing the tagging/untagging issue. You have to follow the tag/untag rules of the intermediate bridged clouds. You don't need it if there is no intermediate cloud. > It appears we are creating different forwarding rules for > multicast than for unicast, without considering the > implications of such alternate rule sets on the forwarding > hardware, or the simplicity of managing and troubleshooting > this stuff. If you have suggestions, we are all ears! But your proposal must be complete. We have spent _months_ on the list discussing these issues and we're starting to revisit them all over again. Anoop Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7Cj2IL015024 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:45:02 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,384,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="414102938" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 04:45:02 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA7Cj1Gx028305; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:45:01 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA7CiuQ8009728; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:45:01 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 07:45:00 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 07:45:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4731B327.70708@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:44:23 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 12:45:00.0466 (UTC) FILETIME=[028DC920:01C8213C] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15530.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.328800-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2389; t=1194439501; x=1195303501; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20; bh=TDSoenlXY+n0Cnvs4KpQ8gj524KV3TZN8ViNbDEsnBc=; b=BYfKG3v44smgs6SPr3I6J/qkqiyZ3V5pbrfZWmrfQrq4rU+6xetQxH7z6Q+plcSp6FHvRpdG J+V29vwsvx8JaBSG5B+pl4Eu3uxgkXaqQaHoFF1rmde+XUa3W4EqYict; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:45:07 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2347 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. >>> 2. Figure out the outbound interface. >>> 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that >>> interface. >>> 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer 2 >>> header will >>> include, of course, a vlan header. >>> 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the >>> layer 2 header >>> will not include a vlan header. >> I agree with this. Since this is obviously not the forwarding path for rbridges, I think it would be very useful if you could outline the actual forwarding path, with all the possible "if" statements involved. If an rbridge receives a unicast packet without a VLAN tag, it will: 1. Examine the local tree to determine the egress rbridge. 2. Examine the local tree to determine the next hop towards that rbridge. 3. Encapsulate the packet in a tunnel header with the next hop being the egress rbridge. 4. (add another tunnel header to get to the next hop with a "common vlan" tag, to "get through the network???") If an rbridge receives a multicast packet without a VLAN tag, it will: 1. Examine the local tree to determine the set of egress rbridges. 2. Examine the local tree to determine the next hop towards that set of egress rbridges. 3. Add a VLAN tag to denote the VLAN on which this multicast belongs. 4. (add another VLAN tag to get the packet to the next hop, one per next hop????) If an rbridge receives a unicast packet with a VLAN tag, it will: .... If an rbridge receives a multicast packet with a VLAN tag, it will: .... I think it would be very useful to combine all of this into a single forwarding path, so we can see what the complexity of this proposal is. It would also be useful to explain the full process from the attachment of a new IS onto a broadcast link through the ability of that IS to forward rbridge traffic--every step involved. Again, it would be useful to see the complexity level involved of all the different pieces being proposed. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMbMnER27sUhU9OQRAnaeAKCoxunj3mM6hoBXWZrrQ1ZWR1VzRQCgkiis VpfuqQ3KpAOiHGKa4WZ+HMQ= =nQ3o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA7BrOJa028619 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:53:24 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,384,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="75355821" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2007 06:53:23 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA7BrN9E021565; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:53:23 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA7BrNdQ013163; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:53:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:53:22 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:53:22 -0500 Message-ID: <4731A70D.504@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:52:45 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 11:53:22.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC1D08D0:01C82134] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15530.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--8.173100-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2884; t=1194436403; x=1195300403; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anoop=20Ghanwani=20<anoop@brocade.com>; bh=1n/cb6azHBEdwSPR/Igwlqh4uxdhhyjuF+bBmxsCE04=; b=hOPDQQdkHcyEjTIJtWcLtgsBR+wNH6Y8qhF66z/R/y6fqVcOHVPyIgvsBD2oyHf7avitAay8 7S/vQF7FvYc7DTiEstB3ewprR1ZVKJZk136SETJG4aNSfzAnVxwZgIdg; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:53:37 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2834 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The subinterfaces are there because an RBridge > is also a bridge. Just like a bridge has VLANs > configured on ports, an RBridge will also have > VLANs configured on ports. The reason this is > needed is because we have to know which VLANs > are configured on a port when we receive > a multicast packet from another RBridge that > needs to be forwarded on the port. I don't see where this matters.... All that matters is which egress devices are within the correct vlan for the multicast packet you've just received. You are forwarding to egress devices, not along vlans within the cloud. IMHO, this is why this entire confusion has arisen.... You don't need to forward along a given tree, and along a given vlan, and glue vlans together.... Choose one, not all three. The entire point of rbridges is that the entire "core" of the rbridge network forwards towards egress bridges, rather than mimicking the virtual topologies along the edge. You're now introducing requirements to do both--treat the core as a vlan free space, and only forward along vlans within the core. It makes no sense. > We are not talking about putting a random number. > We are talking about putting some VLAN ID that is > configured on the port. The phrase "some random vlan number, just to get the packet through the LAN," has been used multiple times on list. Second, restricting all traffic flowing between any set of rbridges on a single link to one vlan across that link makes no sense. >> Routers operate exactly as I described previously. If a >> router receives >> a packet on an interface, it will: >> >> 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. >> 2. Figure out the outbound interface. >> 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that >> interface. >> 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer 2 >> header will >> include, of course, a vlan header. >> 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the >> layer 2 header >> will not include a vlan header. > > I agree with this. Then you don't need all this vlan stuff in the middle. You are forwarding through the underlying cloud to the address of an egress device. That address should be in the tunnel encap once the packet enters the cloud. It appears we are creating different forwarding rules for multicast than for unicast, without considering the implications of such alternate rule sets on the forwarding hardware, or the simplicity of managing and troubleshooting this stuff. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMacNER27sUhU9OQRAufBAKCdPJ9VLoa+cP4Ue6RBuvzLpug37gCfer53 58WguUcL6VZD7VwTjnGT/Jo= =hrXM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA75IUkP015227 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:18:30 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1194412709!8022912!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.105] Received: (qmail 31515 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2007 05:18:29 -0000 Received: from motgate5.mot.com (HELO motgate5.mot.com) (144.189.100.105) by server-3.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2007 05:18:29 -0000 Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com [10.64.251.234]) by motgate5.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA75IRPG007327 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:18:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts02.mot.com (az10vts02.mot.com [10.64.251.243]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA75IQ6K011022 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:18:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA75IOsY011004 for <Rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:18:25 -0600 (CST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:18:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B1034@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790032A5CFE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Egress processing of unicast not locally known thread-index: AcgGT/TieMR9BcXdTFeD5f3X6K6HCwOhW8kgAwVG5eA= References: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790031840B9@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><47048846.5090605@cisco.com> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790032A5CFE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: <Rbridge@postel.org> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA75IUkP015227 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Egress processing of unicast not locally known X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:19:24 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4317 Since there have been no further comments, I assume that this consensus from the Chicago IETF meeting, as expanded upon below, has been confirmed. Donald -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:22 PM To: Dinesh G Dutt Cc: Rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Egress processing of unicast not locally known Dinesh, Could you be more specific about your worries? I don't see that this normally has much to do with "configuration". This is only about the case where an ingress Rbridge receives a unicast frame where it has learned the egress Rbridge. So it is a known unicast which it encapsulates and sends off to the egress. The Egress Rbridge receives this TRILL data frame, can see that it is supposed to be a known unicast but, for whatever reason, it does not find the original destination MAC address in its cache of learned addresses. Generally speaking, this should be a rare occurrence. But you can imagine cases where you could get a burst of these or cases where you have a chronic trickle (something sending frames at an interval just slightly longer than the address cache time out for example). The alternatives discussed at the Chicago meeting included (1) broadcasting the frame as an unknown unicast (presumably what 802.1D bridges do), (2) just dropping the frame, or (3) decapsulating the frame and sending it out on local links for which this egress Rbridge is the DRB for the VLAN of the frame. Choice (3) was the consensus in Chicago. Is that what you are disagreeing with? There was also consensus in Chicago that the SHOULD do choice (3) did not apply to a local link where the egress Rbridge knows that a station with the destination MAC address could not be on that link. SHOULD means you must do it unless you have a good reason not to. The release of the "SHOULD" requirement if you know that the MAC address can't be on that link merely gives the egress Rbridge complete freedom to act. The consensus does NOT say that the egress Rbridge "SHOULD NOT" send the frame on such a link. It is free to send it or not on whatever basis it feels like and would still be in compliance with the standard. To emphasize this, it says "This is a local decision." Do you disagree with the consensus as explained in more detail above? Thanks, Donald -----Original Message----- From: Dinesh G Dutt [mailto:ddutt@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:29 AM To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 Cc: Rbridge@postel.org Subject: Re: [rbridge] Consensus Check: Egress processing of unicast not locally known Donald, This is different from existing IEEE 802.1D bridges. I'm OK with it, as long as it is a MAY and not a MUST or a SHOULD. I'm worried that misconfigurations and such can cause silent packet drops which can be hard to debug. Dinesh Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > This is a check via the mailing list to confirm or refute an apparent > consensus from the minutes of the Chicago meeting for a change from > protocol draft -05: > > Egress RBridges that receive a known unicast TRILL data frame whose > inner destination address is not known locally should send the > native form of the frame out on every link for which the RBridge > is DRB for the frame's VLAN unless it knows that an end station > with that MAC address could not be on that link. (For example, > there is a layer-2 registration procedure for end stations on that > link and the destination MAC address in question is not > registered.) This is a local decision. No "error" message will be > defined for this condition at this time. > > If no particular controversy arises over this in the next two weeks, we > will declare it to be the working group consensus. > > Thanks, > Donald & Erik > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > -- We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from mx10.brocade.com (mail.brocade.com [66.243.153.242]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA71dH5J009098 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:39:22 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,381,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="21046964" Received: from mailhost.brocade.com (HELO discus.brocade.com) ([192.168.126.240]) by mx10.brocade.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 17:39:17 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-exchfeclus-2 [192.168.126.212]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82264238301; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:39:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:39:17 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:39:08 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2ADA@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: Acgg0vKWDtDMre1mRfyg/GBQE1+AQgACdogg References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 01:39:17.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[027BE910:01C820DF] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA71dH5J009098 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:40:13 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4909 > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ White [mailto:riw@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:09 PM > To: Anoop Ghanwani > Cc: Radia Perlman; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > - For ports that support both bridged and TRILL > > traffic we have to go with what 802.1 says > > (otherwise the traffic won't go through bridges). > > > > Thus far, all RBridge ports are assumed to be > > of the last type. That means the encapsulation has > > to follow rules defined by 802.1 - i.e. you have > > a set of VLANs on that port. We only transmit > > traffic on those VLANs. Some of those VLANs belong > > to the "tagged set" in which case we transmit frames > > for those VLANs in tagged format; other VLANs belong > > to the "untagged" set in which case we transmit > > frames without a tag. > > In all implementations that I know of, such interfaces are always: > > 1. Trunk ports, which I've already covered. > 2. A single physical interface with multiple logical "subinterfaces." > > Can you point to a single case where a device can send multiple vlan > traffic on a single logical interface, or where it treats a single > interface as a link with multiple vlans while not calling it > a "trunk," > and putting special operational rules around it (such as no end host > devices)? We must be talking past each other because I'm not sure what the above comment is getting at. Nowhere have I talked about "multiple VLAN traffic on a single logical interface". Please give me the full context if possible. By the way, trunk ports in one large, prominent vendor's implementation is a subset of the standard. The 802.1 document does not talk about trunk ports at all, and on a given port you can have any bunch of VLANs, some of which are tagged and some of which are untagged. And this is different that the "trunk port". > > I think what we have defined so far is fine. > > There is no need to change it. Making it optional > > won't work. > > What has been defined so far is very complex--you're recreating > subinterfaces without subinterfaces, for no reason I can see. The subinterfaces are there because an RBridge is also a bridge. Just like a bridge has VLANs configured on ports, an RBridge will also have VLANs configured on ports. The reason this is needed is because we have to know which VLANs are configured on a port when we receive a multicast packet from another RBridge that needs to be forwarded on the port. > > Even routers have to follow those rules or > > their packets don't make it through the LAN! > > Routers don't follow these rules.... They don't simply put > "some random > vlan number" on any packet they are transmitting to "get the packet > through the LAN." There is no "common vlan" assigned to each link to > allow routers to communicate. There is no concept of a "single hello" > for multiple virtual topologies on a single link, with all sorts of > stuff added so everyone on the link knows which virtual > network everyone > else is on. We are not talking about putting a random number. We are talking about putting some VLAN ID that is configured on the port. > Routers operate exactly as I described previously. If a > router receives > a packet on an interface, it will: > > 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. > 2. Figure out the outbound interface. > 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that > interface. > 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer 2 > header will > include, of course, a vlan header. > 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the > layer 2 header > will not include a vlan header. I agree with this. > Whether or not there's a vlan tag that needs to be added plays no part > in the forwarding decision. That is correct...however, as you note in 3, 3a, 3b, you have to know the interface that you're forwarding the packet on. That interface, in the RBridge world, is a VLAN on a specific port (for unicast) or a \ VLAN on a set of ports (for multicast). > IMHO, rbridges _should_ operate as much like routers as > possible, rather > than using some new forwarding paradigm. Once the traffic is > placed in a > tunnel, it should be carried--as much as possible--just like an IP > packet is carried. So if I have the following configuration: (R1) <---(vlan1)---> (R2) <---(vlan1)---> (R3) the packets between the routers could either be tagging the frames or not and that depends on the configuration of the port in question. (In the implementation you are familiar with, untagged would mean there is no subinterface, and tagged means there is a subinterface with a tag of 1. Just because I have a subinterface in the latter case, does not mean another subinterface must exist on that router port.) Anoop Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA70nVHZ023145 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:49:31 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,381,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="413959771" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 16:49:31 -0800 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA70nVxw022487; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:49:31 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA70nQCL003393; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:49:27 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:49:26 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:49:25 -0500 Message-ID: <47310B71.40604@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:48:49 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> <473105A8.3000903@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <473105A8.3000903@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 00:49:25.0905 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B8FB010:01C820D8] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.970200-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1363; t=1194396571; x=1195260571; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20; bh=4EnY8HbXOQPR5FgIXtdBDIXEEpDFZk1Nmg2T5lUWQSs=; b=hRM4Bo795DpEEvwBYqqXYWswoOIbdZm1E3J7z3LMUtLw+WWVUUIGVQKcNPstAjyOda+gsL/O +hAR0l2WhD9xzZ96qd+LvhAkndxGTo169YJ/QXa+4+GhSGnN+6heqPcfXn65ef9YCrrHxGe2PN 0kBZJNQOjhpxwJj5TH/WUHc6k=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:50:17 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1349 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > RBridges, on the other hand, like bridges, are simultaneously supporting > multiple VLANs > over the same port. VLANs that the RBridge itself is not a member of in > any sense -- just > that the RBridge is supposed to support to glue it to other pieces of > the VLAN in other > parts of the campus. Again, the only two instances I know of are: 1. There are subinterfaces, or physical interfaces, which belong to a single vlan. 2. The port is declared a trunk, and specific rules apply to the port, such as no end user traffic is allowed on the port. And I still don't see what any of this has to do with all this complexity. I've described all the situations in previous emails, and how to handle them, without the concept of a "common vlan," etc. Again, why do we need this complexity? What is it supporting? Can someone point to a specific situation that wouldn't be handled by the forwarding rules I proposed earlier--that's not contrived, and impossible with all current implementations? :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMQtxER27sUhU9OQRAoeAAKDx4z6UoUgHVEWSMibQ7Z/sOfknDgCg1+YI HDaYykz4jypmQnjo9P5KNcU= =yDY4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA70MfbO016020 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR4000JN11TOI00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR4006F211RZCK0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:22:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:24:08 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Message-id: <473105A8.3000903@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:25:10 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4164 Russ...as much as I share your love of the complexity of VLANs... I think the reason RBridges are more complicated with the VLAN stuff than IP routers are is that in IP a VLAN is an IP subnet, so a router would only be talking on a single VLAN at a time over a particular port-as-seen-by-IP. If an IP node (whether it be a router or a logically-multi-link endnode) were on multiple VLANs through the same port, it would be configured so that the higher level software wouldn't have to know anything about that stuff. If an IP node used a single port as 4 logical ports, by having each in a different VLAN, then each of those "ports" would be associated with a single VLAN. RBridges, on the other hand, like bridges, are simultaneously supporting multiple VLANs over the same port. VLANs that the RBridge itself is not a member of in any sense -- just that the RBridge is supposed to support to glue it to other pieces of the VLAN in other parts of the campus. Radia Russ White wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > >> - For ports that support both bridged and TRILL >> traffic we have to go with what 802.1 says >> (otherwise the traffic won't go through bridges). >> >> Thus far, all RBridge ports are assumed to be >> of the last type. That means the encapsulation has >> to follow rules defined by 802.1 - i.e. you have >> a set of VLANs on that port. We only transmit >> traffic on those VLANs. Some of those VLANs belong >> to the "tagged set" in which case we transmit frames >> for those VLANs in tagged format; other VLANs belong >> to the "untagged" set in which case we transmit >> frames without a tag. >> > > In all implementations that I know of, such interfaces are always: > > 1. Trunk ports, which I've already covered. > 2. A single physical interface with multiple logical "subinterfaces." > > Can you point to a single case where a device can send multiple vlan > traffic on a single logical interface, or where it treats a single > interface as a link with multiple vlans while not calling it a "trunk," > and putting special operational rules around it (such as no end host > devices)? > > >> I think what we have defined so far is fine. >> There is no need to change it. Making it optional >> won't work. >> > > What has been defined so far is very complex--you're recreating > subinterfaces without subinterfaces, for no reason I can see. > > >> Even routers have to follow those rules or >> their packets don't make it through the LAN! >> > > Routers don't follow these rules.... They don't simply put "some random > vlan number" on any packet they are transmitting to "get the packet > through the LAN." There is no "common vlan" assigned to each link to > allow routers to communicate. There is no concept of a "single hello" > for multiple virtual topologies on a single link, with all sorts of > stuff added so everyone on the link knows which virtual network everyone > else is on. > > Routers operate exactly as I described previously. If a router receives > a packet on an interface, it will: > > 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. > 2. Figure out the outbound interface. > 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that interface. > 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer 2 header will > include, of course, a vlan header. > 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the layer 2 header > will not include a vlan header. > > Whether or not there's a vlan tag that needs to be added plays no part > in the forwarding decision. > > IMHO, rbridges _should_ operate as much like routers as possible, rather > than using some new forwarding paradigm. Once the traffic is placed in a > tunnel, it should be carried--as much as possible--just like an IP > packet is carried. > > :-) > > Russ > > - -- > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHMQIxER27sUhU9OQRAo51AJ4wilUVzWflNoanrdcX7U/nCtICMwCbBog6 > 50JNAS2hu/otps6EXwSZ4lc= > =6yb5 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA70CpL3013702 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,381,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="75333637" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 19:12:51 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA70CgZA025625; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:12:51 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA70Ande021269; Wed, 7 Nov 2007 00:12:01 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:09:57 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 19:09:57 -0500 Message-ID: <47310231.1040800@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:09:21 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2007 00:09:57.0280 (UTC) FILETIME=[87C03200:01C820D2] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.590500-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3048; t=1194394371; x=1195258371; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Anoop=20Ghanwani=20<anoop@brocade.com>; bh=l6S7dKmm1lCzzd71W4oft5zBYaAK0nOE7FkWDmJXc6s=; b=m1ZDHvf0u0vgKqQ+LyIZ24DRMI1FyJiB+vt3P81dLPWRp1vimq1plpwKr1kKlKbpRCagI+o0 7hdeucnZ+2sy2DT09lYn1audHFlE3iMtQnkG6qYqI6XvQaH+0X3+Qv9a; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:14:50 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2996 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > - For ports that support both bridged and TRILL > traffic we have to go with what 802.1 says > (otherwise the traffic won't go through bridges). > > Thus far, all RBridge ports are assumed to be > of the last type. That means the encapsulation has > to follow rules defined by 802.1 - i.e. you have > a set of VLANs on that port. We only transmit > traffic on those VLANs. Some of those VLANs belong > to the "tagged set" in which case we transmit frames > for those VLANs in tagged format; other VLANs belong > to the "untagged" set in which case we transmit > frames without a tag. In all implementations that I know of, such interfaces are always: 1. Trunk ports, which I've already covered. 2. A single physical interface with multiple logical "subinterfaces." Can you point to a single case where a device can send multiple vlan traffic on a single logical interface, or where it treats a single interface as a link with multiple vlans while not calling it a "trunk," and putting special operational rules around it (such as no end host devices)? > I think what we have defined so far is fine. > There is no need to change it. Making it optional > won't work. What has been defined so far is very complex--you're recreating subinterfaces without subinterfaces, for no reason I can see. > Even routers have to follow those rules or > their packets don't make it through the LAN! Routers don't follow these rules.... They don't simply put "some random vlan number" on any packet they are transmitting to "get the packet through the LAN." There is no "common vlan" assigned to each link to allow routers to communicate. There is no concept of a "single hello" for multiple virtual topologies on a single link, with all sorts of stuff added so everyone on the link knows which virtual network everyone else is on. Routers operate exactly as I described previously. If a router receives a packet on an interface, it will: 1. Find the next hop, by looking at the tree. 2. Figure out the outbound interface. 3. Encap the packet with the correct layer 2 header for that interface. 3a. If the outbound interface is a subinterface, the layer 2 header will include, of course, a vlan header. 3b. If the outbound interface is not a subinterface, the layer 2 header will not include a vlan header. Whether or not there's a vlan tag that needs to be added plays no part in the forwarding decision. IMHO, rbridges _should_ operate as much like routers as possible, rather than using some new forwarding paradigm. Once the traffic is placed in a tunnel, it should be carried--as much as possible--just like an IP packet is carried. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMQIxER27sUhU9OQRAo51AJ4wilUVzWflNoanrdcX7U/nCtICMwCbBog6 50JNAS2hu/otps6EXwSZ4lc= =6yb5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA6Lwxtc027712 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:58:59 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1194386338!5926373!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.102] Received: (qmail 14455 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2007 21:58:58 -0000 Received: from motgate4.mot.com (HELO motgate4.mot.com) (144.189.100.102) by server-2.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2007 21:58:58 -0000 Received: from az33exr01.mot.com (az33exr01.mot.com [10.64.251.231]) by motgate4.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA6LwlLN015598 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:58:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts03 (az10vts03.mot.com [10.64.251.244]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA6Lwk0f013680 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:58:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA6LwjB6013672 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:58:46 -0600 (CST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:58:44 -0500 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B0F3A@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <18223.13230.626187.543062@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study thread-index: AcgfwhTUjX8M824DQCWRzJk1fpQ2/AA+nr2w References: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E92036D@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><18442502.671741193799238499.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900332B1E3@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><18216.36269.214404.179226@gargle.gargle.HOWL><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBEC@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> <18223.13230.626187.543062@gargle.gargle.HOWL> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "James Carlson" <james.d.carlson@sun.com> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6Lwxtc027712 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:03:54 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3174 See below at ### -----Original Message----- From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:16 AM To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 writes: > From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] [...] > Eric Gray writes: [...] > > 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > > to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > > VID, or [...] > @@@ Well, I am Donald and I meant something like (2) but a bit narrower. > I would have said "all TRILL frames" because "all frames" is way too > inclusive. What about control frames like 802.1AB? Furthermore, in the > case of point-to-point links between two Rbridges (i.e., no bridges or > end station connections in between), as far as I can see there is no > particular utility in considering the TRILL frames to have any external > VLAN coloring and certainly no need for them to be outer tagged with a > VLAN ID or priority. I mostly agree with that. In fact, I think that's a desirable end state for TRILL, when all other bridges are obsolete. Having no VLAN tag on the outside makes a lot of sense there. (I think omitting the priority makes a bit less sense to me, though. Wouldn't you want the priority value set on an 802.1q header with VLAN ID 0 in this case?) ### The way I look at it, the VLAN coloring and priority of a frame are meta data associated with the frame. The priority is used in queuing decisions related to processing and transmitting the frame. Just what Q-tag gets put on the transmitted frame depends on configuration. ### If a link is point-to-point between Rbridges, there is no need for an outer VLAN ID. If it is a data frame, the actual VLAN ID of the data is in the inner Q-tag and so easily available to the next Rbridge for its decision processes. Similarly, I don't see any reason for priority in the outer Q-tag. It's not as if a piece of wire is going to look at the priority and re-order frames. If it is a data frame, the actual priority of the data is in the inner Q-tag and so is easily available to the next Rbridge. ### TRILL core IS-IS frames, of course, are different. They don't have any inner Q-tag because the don't have any inherent VLAN coloring and they only go one hop anyway. An Rbridge might want to associate "priority 7" or whatever as meta data with the core IS-IS frame while it is internal to the Rbridge and that could effect transmission queuing but there is no particular reason for there to be a priority tag on it over a point-to-point link. The next Rbridge will see that it is a core IS-IS message, will probably treat it a bit differently for processing, and give it to its core IS-IS instance. ### Thanks, ### Donald I think the question is how to get there when there are networks that are half-TRILL and half-otherwise. ... -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 Received: from mx10.brocade.com (mail.brocade.com [66.243.153.242]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6Lv7x4027216 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:57:07 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,380,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="21037711" Received: from mailhost.brocade.com (HELO discus.brocade.com) ([192.168.126.240]) by mx10.brocade.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 13:57:07 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-exchfeclus-2 [192.168.126.212]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58057238301; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:57:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:57:07 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:56:58 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2A06@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: Acggs+b1aiiEWhfOQ/WV9vfElWKVmgACoM3Q References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com>, "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 21:57:07.0949 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9A8C9D0:01C820BF] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6Lv7x4027216 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:57:38 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2124 > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Russ White > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:15 PM > To: Radia Perlman > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Certainly I'd love to get rid of the outer VLAN tag. Unfortunately, > > bridges on the link can be configured in weird ways such > that the only > > way to send a packet is using a particular set of VLAN tags. Then > > there are other complicated issues, > > Since this is probably going to be 5% or less of the cases, > we should make this capability optional, and make the 95% > case the simpler case of sending with no vlan tag. The only > case this really arises in is when you have hosts on links > with through traffic, which any good network designer avoids > like the plague. > > I'd rather not make this whole thing really complicated just > to support a small set of networks.... It's not that simple...again back to terminology: - For ports that support only bridged traffic 802.1 defines what they should do. - For ports that support only TRILL traffic, we get to define how they operate (within some limits since we may still see link-local control traffic). - For ports that support both bridged and TRILL traffic we have to go with what 802.1 says (otherwise the traffic won't go through bridges). Thus far, all RBridge ports are assumed to be of the last type. That means the encapsulation has to follow rules defined by 802.1 - i.e. you have a set of VLANs on that port. We only transmit traffic on those VLANs. Some of those VLANs belong to the "tagged set" in which case we transmit frames for those VLANs in tagged format; other VLANs belong to the "untagged" set in which case we transmit frames without a tag. I think what we have defined so far is fine. There is no need to change it. Making it optional won't work. Even routers have to follow those rules or their packets don't make it through the LAN! Anoop Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6Lag0q020184 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:36:42 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,380,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="543853813" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 13:36:42 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA6LafGD001546; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:36:41 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA6LaXdQ017542; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:36:33 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:36:33 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:36:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4730DE3C.7050002@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:35:56 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B0F10@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B0F10@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 21:36:32.0967 (UTC) FILETIME=[198D7D70:01C820BD] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.031600-8.000000-4 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1285; t=1194385001; x=1195249001; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Eastlake=20III=20Donald-LDE008=20<Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>; bh=s+03hPhaMkBdIHWeDFYDlyzaQg4iKFsz698EyPIGd30=; b=nQyeROVr0bjXRiafShbocCbP98MF5qm08oiDe5SFX2tE3YEz65nrSJUSgzf5YxzoHo4xoKr7 du4S4OjGXMQeKXKQcbW3fugUWd1ySDmdlO4bu7qWs+lhOvJZvEO+5Hov; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:37:55 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1277 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > So, while I'm fine with noticing/configuring point-to-point > Rbridge links and omitting the outer VLAN tag on them, since it pretty > much serves no function, you want a scheme that has a reasonable chance > of working if a link is a complex bridged LAN. I'm not certain I can see where always putting an outer vlan tag on a packet will really help on a mixed bridge/rbridge link.... You would have the bridges configured with a bunch of subinterfaces, one for each vlan, and you'd configure the rbridges the same way, I think. I don't think it's useful to expect the rbridges to autodetect all the possible vlans on the link, and try to sort out what the user normally sorts out through manual configuration anyway. The only other situation is an rbridge connected to a normal bridge through a trunk port--but this would normally be a p-2-p link, so I think the rules I suggested earlier would work in this situation. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMN48ER27sUhU9OQRAreFAKCZdYxmCdnCghiEelIXAhz8MRD74gCfS8Hg yZHFWRD1wxz5auExfZmg+uM= =WAk/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA6LVQhl018529 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:31:30 -0800 (PST) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1194384685!32429816!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 9485 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2007 21:31:25 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-12.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2007 21:31:25 -0000 Received: from il06exr02.mot.com (il06exr02.mot.com [129.188.137.132]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA6LVP6J020864 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:31:25 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA6LVOsl010418 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:31:24 -0600 (CST) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA6LVNDN010410 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:31:24 -0600 (CST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:31:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D9790033B0F10@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. thread-index: Acggs4/qqBtgY8v5TCizg/wiv/jc6AABzJMw References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6LVQhl018529 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:31:43 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2210 The big problem is incremental deployment. Sure, looking at existing 802.3 bridged networks, you almost never have links with both bridges and end station on them. But with incremental deployment of Rbridges, a bridged LAN between N Rbridges will commonly look like a through link that also has end stations on it. And furthermore, it can easily be a link between these N Rbridges with odd, VLAN dependent connectivity. Some people in the working group consider the mixed bridges and Rbridges case very important. So, while I'm fine with noticing/configuring point-to-point Rbridge links and omitting the outer VLAN tag on them, since it pretty much serves no function, you want a scheme that has a reasonable chance of working if a link is a complex bridged LAN. Donald -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Russ White Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:15 PM To: Radia Perlman Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Certainly I'd love to get rid of the outer VLAN tag. Unfortunately, > bridges on the link > can be configured in weird ways such that the only way to send a packet > is using a > particular set of VLAN tags. Then there are other complicated issues, Since this is probably going to be 5% or less of the cases, we should make this capability optional, and make the 95% case the simpler case of sending with no vlan tag. The only case this really arises in is when you have hosts on links with through traffic, which any good network designer avoids like the plague. I'd rather not make this whole thing really complicated just to support a small set of networks.... :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMMswER27sUhU9OQRAsoPAJ9BLiR9MOpIeoZr7O2IZ0+Dt4wEGwCcCsSz L4dMGZWmOWwpkh+nJH2RPrY= =PgGG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6Kfks8028598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6Kg4Go027535; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:42:04 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:41:44 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:41:43 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7C210@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcggrSAEXMvz8VppTQmD3WdqZPTrKwAAVxLw References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>, "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 20:41:44.0361 (UTC) FILETIME=[71640990:01C820B5] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6Kfks8028598 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:43:44 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3530 Radia, What gets us wrapped around the axle is attemtping to specify things in such a way that we have to care about the VLAN tag used in RBridge-to-RBridge forwarding. The point to using logical interfaces - or virtualization - is to hide network complexity. Trying to "unroll it" is not making it simpler. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:35 PM > To: Russ White > Cc: Eric Gray; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > Certainly I'd love to get rid of the outer VLAN tag. Unfortunately, > bridges on the link can be configured in weird ways such that the > only way to send a packet is using a particular set of VLAN tags. > Then there are other complicated issues, like finding which VLAN > tag works for which neighbors. And then if you form an adjacency > with each neighbor via a potentially different (set of) VLAN tags, > then how would you send multicast on a link? There wouldn't be > guaranteed to be a single VLAN tag that would reach everyone on > the link. > > So the proposal is to use a single, unpartitioned VLAN tag for > communication on the link, and if anyone can't talk to the DRB on > that link using the VLAN tag that the DRB specifies, then they > basically can't use the link. > > If "which VLAN number" is configurable, then we have to deal with > different configurations in different RBridges, which we do by > having the DRB inform all the other RBridges what VLAN tag to > use. > > Radia > > > Russ White wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > >> - but without explicitly forbidding the use of a VLAN tag in > >> the link-level encapsulation required to get a frame from one > >> RBridge to another. > >> > > > > Sure--If the only way to reach the next hop is through a > vlan, then you > > would need to encap in that vlan to get to the next hop. I think the > > cleanest way to do this is: > > > > 1. Receive packet. > > 2. Look up exit rbridge. > > 3. Find next hop to the exit. > > 4. Look at the outbound interface towards this next hop. > > 5. If the outbound interface is a 1q interface (logical, rather than > > physical), then encap with the inside vlan stuff, then the tunnel > > header, then put it in another tunnel header, with the destination > > address being the next hop, and the vlan stuff being the > correct one to > > reach that next hop. > > 6. If the outbound interface is not a 1q interface (physical, rather > > than logical), then encap with the vlan stuff, then the > tunnel header > > for the outer edge rbridge (egress rbridge), and forward it. > > > > When the next hop receives the packet in the case of #5, it > will see the > > packet is to it, strip the outer header, and then see the > inner tunnel, > > and forward the packet according to local rules, based on it's tree, > > etc. I think this is much simpler than having a "set" vlan > on any given > > link, or having to carry around a set of vlans you forward > for, and such. > > > > :-) > > > > Russ > > > > - -- > > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFHMJOgER27sUhU9OQRAmPPAJ9QC7qUavulxDpa5am4RxbTUBJ38gCdGFc9 > > RfgcEqMnZgWPpnAh+RRwy0k= > > =//s3 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6KKYZe020168 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:20:34 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,380,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="30581359" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 12:20:24 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA6KKN7F030626; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:20:23 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA6KKNdS011193; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 20:20:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:20:19 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:20:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4730CC5F.30302@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:19:43 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47300FB4.707@sun.com> <473013B8.7040805@sun.com> <47307BB4.60206@cisco.com> <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 20:20:19.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[73996780:01C820B2] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.805800-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1875; t=1194380423; x=1195244423; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Can=20we=20ever=20have=20pt-to-pt=20links ? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Radia=20Perlman=20<Radia.Perlman@sun.com>; bh=PTfhmlr8V+g8/qthFXLp/B9cr/Lt2Vdl8yyuzsI3AAk=; b=JTTYULqYnnQjCUnBaXFo3q0ixQvU/uU5b2v1QqJEysxgEMh+d9n8vkBrlQ0KwrubR/+xOsWV i4gNwr9nGZgWsxnb+TMSDXVyQgk61UVCmX0YXvceZfuSGkAG/wAcLoEz; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:21:23 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1857 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I'm going to ask on the IS-IS list. Manual configuration is actually > scarier (and harder) because different > RBridges can be configured differently. With this proposal (the DRB I'm pretty certain the worst that is going to have with two ends configured differently is that the link won't be used for transit. One end will be transmitting a pnode, but the other end won't be advertising a connection to it--instead, it will be advertising a connection to the other is on the link. This means the twcc won't work, and the tree won't build through that link. The only other possibility is that the link could be configured for p-2-p, while there are actually three devices on it. A good implementation would shut down all adj's on such a link, but that's implementation specific, though perhaps we should have suggested in the p-2-p draft.... Even if it tries to form, the twcc across the 0 cost backlinks to the pnode are going to cause the tree to fail to build through the link, I think. It might build for the pair that do build an adjacency, but the third is on the link will just be left out in everyone else's tree..... Hence, I think the manual configuration option is pretty safe.... And, the protocol can't tell if the link was intended to be a p-2-p or not. If you have a link with three is', and one fails, auto detecting the link has now become p-2-p makes everyone in the domain run SPF. If you don't do the auto-detection, they can run a partial, just slicing off the link that failed. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMMxfER27sUhU9OQRAkiiAJ0TVIpBTMINkn8xvYm5+5njibqlywCdF+u7 27otCI2fnWz1MQXz0tAVv6o= =z9eC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6KFflD018280 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:15:41 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,380,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="14873081" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 12:15:40 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA6KFeZl019362; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 12:15:40 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA6KF1Qa015507; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 20:15:40 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:15:16 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:15:16 -0500 Message-ID: <4730CB30.5020702@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:14:40 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 20:15:16.0530 (UTC) FILETIME=[BEF84120:01C820B1] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.763300-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1024; t=1194380140; x=1195244140; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20; bh=YkVc28GMtVfIscspp3vGcLHpdNcnoWGMwiEnmXnWnrE=; b=sMcyviUVsDv50NbOWUH1qbReIElVP420VVn/J+JaMng0KiQenh01Obj9lIdhb3+YfzoATY9D 4cd4ZHWRPwhbugJ3GrngrPul5IJlZzQIZqfNZGiTXwzVgfB2juFkXCzj; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:16:09 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1019 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Certainly I'd love to get rid of the outer VLAN tag. Unfortunately, > bridges on the link > can be configured in weird ways such that the only way to send a packet > is using a > particular set of VLAN tags. Then there are other complicated issues, Since this is probably going to be 5% or less of the cases, we should make this capability optional, and make the 95% case the simpler case of sending with no vlan tag. The only case this really arises in is when you have hosts on links with through traffic, which any good network designer avoids like the plague. I'd rather not make this whole thing really complicated just to support a small set of networks.... :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMMswER27sUhU9OQRAsoPAJ9BLiR9MOpIeoZr7O2IZ0+Dt4wEGwCcCsSz L4dMGZWmOWwpkh+nJH2RPrY= =PgGG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6JpkN9008769 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:51:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6Jq5vR006303; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:52:05 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:51:45 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 13:51:42 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7C16D@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? Thread-Index: AcggojL8gIFcNHzXSO2LubrbcmaeLwACb8MA References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com><4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><47300FB4.707@sun.com> <473013B8.7040805@sun.com><47307BB4.60206@cisco.com> <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>, "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 19:51:45.0454 (UTC) FILETIME=[75E724E0:01C820AE] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6JpkN9008769 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:52:30 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4136 Radia, I think taking this to the IS-IS mailing list is a great idea. I'd hate to think we were trying to "fix" something to do with IS-IS generally, in this working group. However, as a general observation, the argument that putting complexity into protocol - to avoid some types of configuration errors - is often used, and frequently either wrong or irrelevant. As the paraphrased saying goes, people who think anything can be made proof against configuration error are under-estimating the ability, inventiveness and - possibly - evil intentions of the person doing the configuration. Also, in many cases, it is better for a misconfigured network to not work at all, than it is to have it working in some unexpected way. In my opinion, implementers want to build equipment that behaves reasonably under misconfigured operating conditions, and that may simply mean that it doesn't fail in some spectacular way. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:44 PM > To: Russ White > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? > > I'm going to ask on the IS-IS list. Manual configuration is actually > scarier (and harder) because different RBridges can be configured > differently. With this proposal (the DRB switches over to pseudonode > once there are, say, 3 other RBridges on the link, and perhaps stays > that way forever, or until there is ever a time when there is just > one (or zero) RBridge neighbors. > > It's not disruptive to take away the pseudonode when there are very > few neighbors, since the coming or going of an RBridge neighbor would > require reissuing the pseudonode LSP anyway. So if there were three > guys, R1, R2, and R3, with pseudonode R1.x, then if R3 went away, and > we kept the pseudonode, then the pseudonode (R1.x) would reissue its > LSP saying it now had just two neighbors (R1 and R2), whereas if R1 > decided to go with "no pseudonode now", then R1 would change its > Hello to be "no pseudonode", and R1 and R2 would reissue their LSPs > to say their only neighbor was each other (R1 would remove R1.x as a > neighbor and say it is connected to R2....similarly R2). > > There is no confusion about whether or not there is a pseudonode > because the DRB decides. > > The exact algorithm for deciding doesn't have to be standardized even, > though we certainly should recommend something. > > Radia > > > > > Russ White wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > >>> The only thing special we were doing with the pseudonode > was reporting > >>> the bridge root. > >>> So that means that R1, the DRB, would report the root > bridge ID in its > >>> LSP if > >>> R1 has decided not to create a pseudonode. > >>> > >>> > >> Actually, let me change that to: "Let's always report the > root bridge ID > >> in the DRB's > >> LSP, not the pseudonode LSP" > >> > >> So I'm getting more comfortable with that proposal -- the DRB only > >> declares a pseudonode > >> if there really are too many neighbors, and switching over from > >> non-pseudonode to > >> pseudnode is really not very disruptive. > >> > > > > In most implementations of IS-IS, there is a way to > manually configured > > a link as point-to-point, no matter what the layer 2 part > of the device > > thinks it is. The IS-IS WG pretty much eschewed > auto-detection schemes > > when we went through this exercise. > > > > :-) > > > > Russ > > > > - -- > > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > > > iD8DBQFHMHu0ER27sUhU9OQRAgyEAKC3ic9tS1kROaWxVSWuwnrr2HUh9gCeJJss > > wNbLsz14yV/oQ3FCO6Xh2Pg= > > =vYAd > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6J6DYY018275 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR300LAIME9IM10@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:06:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR3006IZME8ZIK0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:06:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:07:37 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4730BB79.4090309@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47300FB4.707@sun.com> <473013B8.7040805@sun.com> <47307BB4.60206@cisco.com> <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:06:38 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1952 FYI: This is the proposal I'm running by the IS-IS list. Summary: DRB chooses whether or not to create a pseudonode on the port, and tells the other RBridges whether to claim pt-to-pt links to the other RBridges on the link, or attachment to a pseudonode. Algorithm: if R1 has zero or one RBridge neighbor, no pseudonode. If R1 has 4 or more RBridge neighbors, R1 creates pseudonode for the port. If R1 has 2 o3 3 RBridge neighbors, R1 leaves the state of the link (pseudonode or not) alone. ********************************** a) perform normal DR election. If R1 is the only router, R1 is the DR. Assuming there are other routers on the link, say R1, R2, R3, and R4, let's say R1 is the DR. b) R1 (DR) is the one that decides on behalf of the link whether there will be a pseudonode or not. R1 has some algorithm for deciding if there should be a pseudonode. In R1's Hello it says "the name of the pseudonode is R1.x", which means that there will be a pseudonode. The other routers issue LSPs claiming to be connected to R1.x. However....if R1 decides not to have a pseudonode, then R1's Hello says "the name of the pseudonode is 0" in which case any routers on the link claim the other routers on the link as direct neighbors. c) a reasonable strategy for DR R1 to decide when to have a pseudonode: If R1 has zero or one router neighbors on the link, R1 puts the link into "no pseudonode" mode. If R1 has at least 4 router neighbors, R1 puts the link into "pseudonode" mode. If R1 has 2 or 3 router neighbors, R1 does not change the state of the link. (so 3 router neighbors have to come up or go down before R1 switches the link between pseudonode vs no pseudonode). d) if you aren't DR, then you do as you are told. I believe this proposal is 1) zero configuration 2) safe 3) simple 4) not disruptive if a router is going up and down 5) no danger of confusion 6) much more efficient than creating a pseudonode for every port Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6HgdXQ016709 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR300L3ZIJ3IM10@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR3006CZIJ2Z0K0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:42:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:44:07 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <47307BB4.60206@cisco.com> To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Message-id: <4730A7E7.5030709@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47300FB4.707@sun.com> <473013B8.7040805@sun.com> <47307BB4.60206@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:43:21 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2557 I'm going to ask on the IS-IS list. Manual configuration is actually scarier (and harder) because different RBridges can be configured differently. With this proposal (the DRB switches over to pseudonode once there are, say, 3 other RBridges on the link, and perhaps stays that way forever, or until there is ever a time when there is just one (or zero) RBridge neighbors. It's not disruptive to take away the pseudonode when there are very few neighbors, since the coming or going of an RBridge neighbor would require reissuing the pseudonode LSP anyway. So if there were three guys, R1, R2, and R3, with pseudonode R1.x, then if R3 went away, and we kept the pseudonode, then the pseudonode (R1.x) would reissue its LSP saying it now had just two neighbors (R1 and R2), whereas if R1 decided to go with "no pseudonode now", then R1 would change its Hello to be "no pseudonode", and R1 and R2 would reissue their LSPs to say their only neighbor was eachother (R1 would remove R1.x as a neighbor and say it is connected to R2....similarly R2). There is no confusion about whether or not there is a pseudonode because the DRB decides. The exact algorithm for deciding doesn't have to be standardized even, though we certainly should recommend something. Radia Russ White wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > >>> The only thing special we were doing with the pseudonode was reporting >>> the bridge root. >>> So that means that R1, the DRB, would report the root bridge ID in its >>> LSP if >>> R1 has decided not to create a pseudonode. >>> >>> >> Actually, let me change that to: "Let's always report the root bridge ID >> in the DRB's >> LSP, not the pseudonode LSP" >> >> So I'm getting more comfortable with that proposal -- the DRB only >> declares a pseudonode >> if there really are too many neighbors, and switching over from >> non-pseudonode to >> pseudnode is really not very disruptive. >> > > In most implementations of IS-IS, there is a way to manually configured > a link as point-to-point, no matter what the layer 2 part of the device > thinks it is. The IS-IS WG pretty much eschewed auto-detection schemes > when we went through this exercise. > > :-) > > Russ > > - -- > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHMHu0ER27sUhU9OQRAgyEAKC3ic9tS1kROaWxVSWuwnrr2HUh9gCeJJss > wNbLsz14yV/oQ3FCO6Xh2Pg= > =vYAd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6HXjTE012374 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR300L3PI3VIM10@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:33:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR3006LLI3UZDK0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:33:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:34:55 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Message-id: <4730A5BF.30408@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:34:04 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2747 Certainly I'd love to get rid of the outer VLAN tag. Unfortunately, bridges on the link can be configured in weird ways such that the only way to send a packet is using a particular set of VLAN tags. Then there are other complicated issues, like finding which VLAN tag works for which neighbors. And then if you form an adjacency with each neighbor via a potentially different (set of) VLAN tags, then how would you send multicast on a link? There wouldn't be guaranteed to be a single VLAN tag that would reach everyone on the link. So the proposal is to use a single, unpartitioned VLAN tag for communication on the link, and if anyone can't talk to the DRB on that link using the VLAN tag that the DRB specifies, then they basically can't use the link. If "which VLAN number" is configurable, then we have to deal with different configurations in different RBridges, which we do by having the DRB inform all the other RBridges what VLAN tag to use. Radia Russ White wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > >> - but without explicitly forbidding the use of a VLAN tag in >> the link-level encapsulation required to get a frame from one >> RBridge to another. >> > > Sure--If the only way to reach the next hop is through a vlan, then you > would need to encap in that vlan to get to the next hop. I think the > cleanest way to do this is: > > 1. Receive packet. > 2. Look up exit rbridge. > 3. Find next hop to the exit. > 4. Look at the outbound interface towards this next hop. > 5. If the outbound interface is a 1q interface (logical, rather than > physical), then encap with the inside vlan stuff, then the tunnel > header, then put it in another tunnel header, with the destination > address being the next hop, and the vlan stuff being the correct one to > reach that next hop. > 6. If the outbound interface is not a 1q interface (physical, rather > than logical), then encap with the vlan stuff, then the tunnel header > for the outer edge rbridge (egress rbridge), and forward it. > > When the next hop receives the packet in the case of #5, it will see the > packet is to it, strip the outer header, and then see the inner tunnel, > and forward the packet according to local rules, based on it's tree, > etc. I think this is much simpler than having a "set" vlan on any given > link, or having to carry around a set of vlans you forward for, and such. > > :-) > > Russ > > - -- > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHMJOgER27sUhU9OQRAmPPAJ9QC7qUavulxDpa5am4RxbTUBJ38gCdGFc9 > RfgcEqMnZgWPpnAh+RRwy0k= > =//s3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6GITXF015480 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:18:30 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,378,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="413804461" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 08:18:29 -0800 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA6GISaC011898; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:18:28 -0800 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA6GIHw2019062; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:18:28 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:18:12 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:18:11 -0500 Message-ID: <473093A0.6030708@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:17:36 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 16:18:11.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[A06210E0:01C82090] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.594100-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1676; t=1194365908; x=1195229908; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20; bh=RnfHc/Mw9w/zYenh/SDFtHcB7k1zBcoMApMRnaj73KY=; b=etqYAHzh0Sf9/f36plXigIvIf8IFe63HE63Z6gsmr/+FRbLEDgZjXkL7yL7/QpjIdpqtyR7Q x+UTFMlfYALFK/vmdjFlD1j8KdzKF8WxN/jafzLyCgdmNQiG6LbpwwaO; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org>, Radia.Perlman@sun.com Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:20:01 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1659 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > - but without explicitly forbidding the use of a VLAN tag in > the link-level encapsulation required to get a frame from one > RBridge to another. Sure--If the only way to reach the next hop is through a vlan, then you would need to encap in that vlan to get to the next hop. I think the cleanest way to do this is: 1. Receive packet. 2. Look up exit rbridge. 3. Find next hop to the exit. 4. Look at the outbound interface towards this next hop. 5. If the outbound interface is a 1q interface (logical, rather than physical), then encap with the inside vlan stuff, then the tunnel header, then put it in another tunnel header, with the destination address being the next hop, and the vlan stuff being the correct one to reach that next hop. 6. If the outbound interface is not a 1q interface (physical, rather than logical), then encap with the vlan stuff, then the tunnel header for the outer edge rbridge (egress rbridge), and forward it. When the next hop receives the packet in the case of #5, it will see the packet is to it, strip the outer header, and then see the inner tunnel, and forward the packet according to local rules, based on it's tree, etc. I think this is much simpler than having a "set" vlan on any given link, or having to carry around a set of vlans you forward for, and such. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMJOgER27sUhU9OQRAmPPAJ9QC7qUavulxDpa5am4RxbTUBJ38gCdGFc9 RfgcEqMnZgWPpnAh+RRwy0k= =//s3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6FnMwj003919 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:49:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6Fn9rR032723; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:49:40 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:49:19 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:49:18 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BD13@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <47307B30.307@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcggiMuKbIx3P2GpSaKky5XKdRw5HAAA0XMg References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> <47307B30.307@cisco.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Russ White" <riw@cisco.com>, <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 15:49:19.0482 (UTC) FILETIME=[97D3F5A0:01C8208C] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6FnMwj003919 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:49:58 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4433 Russ, I think you have made a very valid point, here. I would like to qualify it somewhat by saying that we should specify this as the default behavior - for the exact reason you state - but without explicitly forbidding the use of a VLAN tag in the link-level encapsulation required to get a frame from one RBridge to another. It's important to remember that VLAN tags may be used to "virtualize" a LAN (link) and it may be the case that a VID is mandated for some other reason. Thanks! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Russ White > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:33 AM > To: Radia.Perlman@sun.com > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > a) all RBridges on a link can talk to each other using a > single (outer) VLAN tag, and > > that VLAN is not allowed to be partitioned. If it is, > whichever RBridges can't talk > > to the DRB on that VLAN are just orphaned. All the other > RBridges send IS-IS > > messages (Hellos, LSPs, CSNPs) on that link tagged with the > one VLAN tag. > > Why have this vlan tag at all? If the traffic for any given vlan is > tunneled to the outer edge using the direct layer 2 address > of the exit > rbridge, then the "outer" vlan tag is an unnecessary complication. The > simpler rule would be the only traffic on link which should > have a vlan > tag will be that originating from a non-rbridge device. Once traffic > hits the first rbridge, there should never be an "outer" vlan > tag, just > the destination address in the outer tunnel header. > > All the other stuff you talk about seems to be much easier > without this > outer header--the way IS-IS runs, the DIS election on each link, > forwarding, etc. > > > f) Hellos shouldn't have to be bigger with this proposal. > What's in a Hello? > > . my ID > > . my priority for becoming DRB > > . name of the pseudonode if I am DRB > > . VLAN tag "V" to use for outer VLAN tag on this cloud if I am DRB > > . set of neighbors I've heard Hellos from on the specified > > VLAN tag (V) > > . flag "please send CSNP" used when starting up, to ensure that > > you have synchronized LSP databases with your neighbors > > > > Now there might also be the following in the Hello: > > . "Bidding for VLANs": If I'm not DRB, set of (priority, > {set of VLAN tags}) that I would like > > to be assigned to en/decapsulate for > > This does make the hello larger. Probably much larger.... > > > . "VLAN assignments" If I am DRB, en/decapsulator > assignments, of the form > > (RBridge neighbor ID, {set of VLANs}) that I want that RBridge > > to encapsulate/decapsulate for. > > I don't understand why we need this.... I don't think you're really > going to have a case where a single interface on the user side > "services" multiple vlans, which are generally separated at the edge > through virtual interfaces on the box. IE, if I receive a packet on > interface ethernet 1.1, then it's vlan x, if it's on ethernet > 1.2, then > it's vlan y. There's no reason not to stick with this convention--the > chipsets already know how to separate things this way, I think. > > IE, forwarding would look like this: > > 1. Receive packet on interface X. > 2. Check to see if there's a 1q header. > 3. If so, then look up appropriate edge destination, encap in > a tunnel, > and resend. > 3. If not, then find correct vlan, look up appropriate edge > destination, > place vlan header on packet, encap in tunnel, and resend. > > On the receiving side, you just strip off mac headers and process them > normally. There's no need for special processing of any type, > is there? > > I don't see anything about the "merging" vlans > automatically.... I don't > think this should be done, in any case. > > :-) > > Russ > > - -- > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHMHswER27sUhU9OQRAkk+AKDf3LMTQCXPCL3Z7vNy5mmZT9c7bgCfbldB > RYbmkapg1cE1sSlsgQNVneQ= > =1x27 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6Fd5Db000345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 07:39:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6FdNHm028427; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:39:23 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:39:04 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:39:03 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7BCDD@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? Thread-Index: AcggQMJ+9MY4Rf2ASa2QNcxaPzgqtAASF8Rg References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 15:39:04.0499 (UTC) FILETIME=[29450030:01C8208B] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA6Fd5Db000345 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:40:27 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3167 Radia, The usual approach to specifying the (optimized) behavior you describe would be to say something like: "An implementation MAY be aware that a specific link is point-to- point, in which case <the DRB election process> MAY be omitted." However, it is worth realizing that this relies on a common view at both ends of the point-to-point link. What happens if one end tries to perform a DRB election and the other does not? It then becomes necessary to specify the behavior in this case. I suspect that - if one has valid reasons to think that a link is point-to-point - one might configure both ends to assume this is the case. In the event that any RBridge on the link tries to do DRB election, then this MUST become the common mode. Using that approach, the only failure mode where RBridges will become confused is if three (or more) RBridges are 1) connected to the same shared media and 2) configured to assume P2P. Clever implementations MAY deal with that scenario in some robust way - but we should not need to specify how that may be done (it is always possible to misconfigure yourself into a hole, so there is little point in trying to prevent that). -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:11 AM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? > > Suppose the topology consisted only of RBridges with pt-to-pt links > either to each other or > to endnodes, e.g., no bridges, no CSMA/CD. As specified, > we'd wind up > creating > a pseudonode for each link. Not a total disaster, but it does seem > suboptimal, especially > if we created a pseudonode for every port that contains an endnode. > > I think we discussed this and said that there was no way of > knowing for > sure that a port > was a pt-to-pt link. > > Do we want to try to optimize this case, for instance by: > a) allowing a port to be configured as "pt-to-pt", and > freaking out (as > in disabling > the port and declaring an error) if an RBridge sees multiple nodes on > that port, or sees > a BPDU? > b) assuming if there is only one RBridge neighbors on a port > that it is > a pt-to-pt > link and there does not need to be a pseudonode? That makes > me nervous > because if > a third RBridge comes and goes, then things could get messy. > c) if there are zero RBridge neighbors on a port (just an endnode or > set of endnodes), do not create a pseudonode > for it > d) something else? > > Or is it fine as is (if R1 and R2 are connected with a > pt-to-pt link, R1 > will get elected DRB, > name the link R1.x, and issue two LSPs -- one for R1, one for > R1.x, with > R1.x claiming > connectivity to R1 and R2). Basically, there will be a pseudonode for > every RBridge-RBridge > link. I hope we don't have to create a pseudonode for every port to > every endnode. > > Radia > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6EbNaR006033 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 06:37:23 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,378,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="413767721" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 06:37:04 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA6Eb32c011370; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:37:03 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA6Eb3ep007785; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:36:08 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:36:08 -0500 Message-ID: <47307BB4.60206@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:35:32 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47300FB4.707@sun.com> <473013B8.7040805@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <473013B8.7040805@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 14:36:08.0369 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E854A10:01C82082] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.856700-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1186; t=1194359823; x=1195223823; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Can=20we=20ever=20have=20pt-to-pt=20links ? |Sender:=20 |To:=20Radia=20Perlman=20<Radia.Perlman@sun.com>; bh=iY1NJDUozK/78qqj2uti7Oic5Rba22P9k44wXVBuVRk=; b=IAmUxxhYz1kswQ+mlZWol5CCiwRL6jEGaSxod+0yULpIpTnFwfwvDWDpLABqMhRnTkUk6H45 Nx93tGybHHt3LqDi2wmwbJAFmFWJUzNRu9HBXrYt5c5vpzLBLl908L+y; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:38:20 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1175 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> The only thing special we were doing with the pseudonode was reporting >> the bridge root. >> So that means that R1, the DRB, would report the root bridge ID in its >> LSP if >> R1 has decided not to create a pseudonode. >> > Actually, let me change that to: "Let's always report the root bridge ID > in the DRB's > LSP, not the pseudonode LSP" > > So I'm getting more comfortable with that proposal -- the DRB only > declares a pseudonode > if there really are too many neighbors, and switching over from > non-pseudonode to > pseudnode is really not very disruptive. In most implementations of IS-IS, there is a way to manually configured a link as point-to-point, no matter what the layer 2 part of the device thinks it is. The IS-IS WG pretty much eschewed auto-detection schemes when we went through this exercise. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMHu0ER27sUhU9OQRAgyEAKC3ic9tS1kROaWxVSWuwnrr2HUh9gCeJJss wNbLsz14yV/oQ3FCO6Xh2Pg= =vYAd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA6Eaoe0005818 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 06:36:50 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,378,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="543704562" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2007 06:36:48 -0800 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA6EaldO011134; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:36:47 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA6EaCgE025265; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:36:45 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:33:56 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: <47307B30.307@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:33:20 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia.Perlman@sun.com References: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> In-Reply-To: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 14:33:55.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[0F5E1340:01C82082] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15528.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.313200-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3283; t=1194359807; x=1195223807; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Radia.Perlman@sun.com; bh=VXNEYQn1k56UrB8faNICtmQP57l2z5u691RZ0XgiIj0=; b=Gd3lDsqFECNA+77fpg6UZBHgOrxP+nP3hOCCLWxd9vG4YDcB8V0oiq63CH8x0VhcXM0SMNXi DaniUBNkhTK9SuJuF8rs2ZF42eNNDrv4ExLW2F/mV1ENcmqnDc3gu6fq; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 14:37:32 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3233 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > a) all RBridges on a link can talk to each other using a single (outer) VLAN tag, and > that VLAN is not allowed to be partitioned. If it is, whichever RBridges can't talk > to the DRB on that VLAN are just orphaned. All the other RBridges send IS-IS > messages (Hellos, LSPs, CSNPs) on that link tagged with the one VLAN tag. Why have this vlan tag at all? If the traffic for any given vlan is tunneled to the outer edge using the direct layer 2 address of the exit rbridge, then the "outer" vlan tag is an unnecessary complication. The simpler rule would be the only traffic on link which should have a vlan tag will be that originating from a non-rbridge device. Once traffic hits the first rbridge, there should never be an "outer" vlan tag, just the destination address in the outer tunnel header. All the other stuff you talk about seems to be much easier without this outer header--the way IS-IS runs, the DIS election on each link, forwarding, etc. > f) Hellos shouldn't have to be bigger with this proposal. What's in a Hello? > . my ID > . my priority for becoming DRB > . name of the pseudonode if I am DRB > . VLAN tag "V" to use for outer VLAN tag on this cloud if I am DRB > . set of neighbors I've heard Hellos from on the specified > VLAN tag (V) > . flag "please send CSNP" used when starting up, to ensure that > you have synchronized LSP databases with your neighbors > > Now there might also be the following in the Hello: > . "Bidding for VLANs": If I'm not DRB, set of (priority, {set of VLAN tags}) that I would like > to be assigned to en/decapsulate for This does make the hello larger. Probably much larger.... > . "VLAN assignments" If I am DRB, en/decapsulator assignments, of the form > (RBridge neighbor ID, {set of VLANs}) that I want that RBridge > to encapsulate/decapsulate for. I don't understand why we need this.... I don't think you're really going to have a case where a single interface on the user side "services" multiple vlans, which are generally separated at the edge through virtual interfaces on the box. IE, if I receive a packet on interface ethernet 1.1, then it's vlan x, if it's on ethernet 1.2, then it's vlan y. There's no reason not to stick with this convention--the chipsets already know how to separate things this way, I think. IE, forwarding would look like this: 1. Receive packet on interface X. 2. Check to see if there's a 1q header. 3. If so, then look up appropriate edge destination, encap in a tunnel, and resend. 3. If not, then find correct vlan, look up appropriate edge destination, place vlan header on packet, encap in tunnel, and resend. On the receiving side, you just strip off mac headers and process them normally. There's no need for special processing of any type, is there? I don't see anything about the "merging" vlans automatically.... I don't think this should be done, in any case. :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHMHswER27sUhU9OQRAkk+AKDf3LMTQCXPCL3Z7vNy5mmZT9c7bgCfbldB RYbmkapg1cE1sSlsgQNVneQ= =1x27 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA67Ae7q029532 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 23:10:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR200LFOP9HIM00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:10:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR20067YP9AZ0K0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:10:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:11:52 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <47300FB4.707@sun.com> To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> Message-id: <473013B8.7040805@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <47300FB4.707@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:11:17 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 587 Radia Perlman wrote: > > The only thing special we were doing with the pseudonode was reporting > the bridge root. > So that means that R1, the DRB, would report the root bridge ID in its > LSP if > R1 has decided not to create a pseudonode. > Actually, let me change that to: "Let's always report the root bridge ID in the DRB's LSP, not the pseudonode LSP" So I'm getting more comfortable with that proposal -- the DRB only declares a pseudonode if there really are too many neighbors, and switching over from non-pseudonode to pseudnode is really not very disruptive. Radia Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA66rGtn023975 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR200LF7OGSIM00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:53:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR2006DIOGRZHK0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:53:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:54:44 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> Message-id: <47300FB4.707@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:53:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4261 Hmm. I don't know what LLDP is, but here is a proposal. Observation: It's actually OK to consider a link with n RBridges to be n*2 pt-to-pt links as long as n isn't very large. So here's a proposal: The Designated RBridge, R1, gets to decide if a particular link is to have a pseudonode or not. R1 specifies either a pseudonode name in its Hello, or some value (like 0) that says "Hey, I don't want to bother with a pseudonode, so just report all your RBridge neighbors as pt-to-pt links". So if there is a link with R1, R2, R3, and R4, then R1 gets to decide whether to a) create pseudonode R1.x, and R1, R2, R3, and R4 all claim just the neighbor R1.x, and R1.x claims neighbors R1, R2, R3, and R4, or b) don't create a pseudonode, so R1 claims neighbors R2, R3, and R4...R2 claims neighbors R1, R3, and R4, etc. The only thing special we were doing with the pseudonode was reporting the bridge root. So that means that R1, the DRB, would report the root bridge ID in its LSP if R1 has decided not to create a pseudonode. We could declare some threshold, like 4 RBridges, and if R1 is DRB and there are every 3 RBridge neighbors on a port, then R1 declares a pseudonode, and perhaps leaves the pseudonode even if one of the neighbors goes down. Maybe once a port is a pseudonode, it stays a pseudonode. That way R1 would definitely not create pseudonodes for ports with just endnodes, or for ports that are just pt-to-pt links. The default would be "no pseudonode", but once a port had 3 RBridge neighbors, R1 decides that port should have a pseudonode. Radia Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org >> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman >> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:11 PM >> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. >> Subject: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? >> >> Suppose the topology consisted only of RBridges with pt-to-pt >> links either to each other or to endnodes, e.g., no bridges, >> no CSMA/CD. As specified, we'd wind up creating a pseudonode >> for each link. Not a total disaster, but it does seem >> suboptimal, especially if we created a pseudonode for every >> port that contains an endnode. >> >> I think we discussed this and said that there was no way of >> knowing for sure that a port was a pt-to-pt link. >> > > If you were using LLDP, you could be certain that the link > is a point to point link if the system information in LLDP > matches what you receive in the IS-IS hello. Or you we could > identify RBridges as a type of device in LLDP itself. > > >> Do we want to try to optimize this case, for instance by: >> > > I think it would be useful to optimize. > > >> a) allowing a port to be configured as "pt-to-pt", and >> freaking out (as in disabling the port and declaring an >> error) if an RBridge sees multiple nodes on that port, or sees a BPDU? >> b) assuming if there is only one RBridge neighbors on a port >> that it is a pt-to-pt link and there does not need to be a >> pseudonode? That makes me nervous because if a third RBridge >> comes and goes, then things could get messy. >> c) if there are zero RBridge neighbors on a port (just an >> endnode or set of endnodes), do not create a pseudonode for it >> d) something else? >> > > Is a combination of (a) and (b) possible? A node can > either use LLDP to discover it is point to point (and > that won't change as long as the link stays up), or > it can be manually configured (in which case if a third > adjacency is discovered, then you switch to broadcast-media > mode and once in broadcast-media mode you never switch > back). > > >> Or is it fine as is (if R1 and R2 are connected with a >> pt-to-pt link, R1 will get elected DRB, name the link R1.x, >> and issue two LSPs -- one for R1, one for R1.x, with R1.x >> claiming connectivity to R1 and R2). Basically, there will be >> a pseudonode for every RBridge-RBridge link. I hope we don't >> have to create a pseudonode for every port to every endnode. >> >> Radia >> _______________________________________________ >> rbridge mailing list >> rbridge@postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> >> Received: from mx10.brocade.com (mail.brocade.com [66.243.153.242]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA66QRU2016649 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:26:27 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,376,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="21005289" Received: from discus.brocade.com ([192.168.126.240]) by mx10.brocade.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2007 22:26:22 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-exchfeclus-2 [192.168.126.212]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54E6238301; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:26:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:26:22 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:26:14 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2873@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? Thread-Index: AcggPJBuHlM44m0YSzWXxdrtc3CJIQAALJAg References: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 06:26:22.0854 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3638A60:01C8203D] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA66QRU2016649 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:26:47 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2529 > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:11 PM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? > > Suppose the topology consisted only of RBridges with pt-to-pt > links either to each other or to endnodes, e.g., no bridges, > no CSMA/CD. As specified, we'd wind up creating a pseudonode > for each link. Not a total disaster, but it does seem > suboptimal, especially if we created a pseudonode for every > port that contains an endnode. > > I think we discussed this and said that there was no way of > knowing for sure that a port was a pt-to-pt link. If you were using LLDP, you could be certain that the link is a point to point link if the system information in LLDP matches what you receive in the IS-IS hello. Or you we could identify RBridges as a type of device in LLDP itself. > Do we want to try to optimize this case, for instance by: I think it would be useful to optimize. > a) allowing a port to be configured as "pt-to-pt", and > freaking out (as in disabling the port and declaring an > error) if an RBridge sees multiple nodes on that port, or sees a BPDU? > b) assuming if there is only one RBridge neighbors on a port > that it is a pt-to-pt link and there does not need to be a > pseudonode? That makes me nervous because if a third RBridge > comes and goes, then things could get messy. > c) if there are zero RBridge neighbors on a port (just an > endnode or set of endnodes), do not create a pseudonode for it > d) something else? Is a combination of (a) and (b) possible? A node can either use LLDP to discover it is point to point (and that won't change as long as the link stays up), or it can be manually configured (in which case if a third adjacency is discovered, then you switch to broadcast-media mode and once in broadcast-media mode you never switch back). > Or is it fine as is (if R1 and R2 are connected with a > pt-to-pt link, R1 will get elected DRB, name the link R1.x, > and issue two LSPs -- one for R1, one for R1.x, with R1.x > claiming connectivity to R1 and R2). Basically, there will be > a pseudonode for every RBridge-RBridge link. I hope we don't > have to create a pseudonode for every port to every endnode. > > Radia > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA669KUR010822 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR200LDNMFAIM00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR200690MF9ZGK0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:09:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:10:39 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <4730055F.3000507@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Can we ever have pt-to-pt links? X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:09:38 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1425 Suppose the topology consisted only of RBridges with pt-to-pt links either to each other or to endnodes, e.g., no bridges, no CSMA/CD. As specified, we'd wind up creating a pseudonode for each link. Not a total disaster, but it does seem suboptimal, especially if we created a pseudonode for every port that contains an endnode. I think we discussed this and said that there was no way of knowing for sure that a port was a pt-to-pt link. Do we want to try to optimize this case, for instance by: a) allowing a port to be configured as "pt-to-pt", and freaking out (as in disabling the port and declaring an error) if an RBridge sees multiple nodes on that port, or sees a BPDU? b) assuming if there is only one RBridge neighbors on a port that it is a pt-to-pt link and there does not need to be a pseudonode? That makes me nervous because if a third RBridge comes and goes, then things could get messy. c) if there are zero RBridge neighbors on a port (just an endnode or set of endnodes), do not create a pseudonode for it d) something else? Or is it fine as is (if R1 and R2 are connected with a pt-to-pt link, R1 will get elected DRB, name the link R1.x, and issue two LSPs -- one for R1, one for R1.x, with R1.x claiming connectivity to R1 and R2). Basically, there will be a pseudonode for every RBridge-RBridge link. I hope we don't have to create a pseudonode for every port to every endnode. Radia Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA63mwga001027 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 19:48:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from sml-sfvt3a.sfvic.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.254]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR200LAAFXHIM00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.254]) by mail-srv.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR2005V1FXHNO30@mail-srv.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:48:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [152.70.2.164] (Forwarded-For: [67.161.89.58]) by mail-srv.sfvic.sunlabs.com (mshttpd); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:48:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:48:53 -0800 From: Radia.Perlman@sun.com To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Message-id: <489af9d376b9.472f73a5@sunlabs.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 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-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:49:15 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 8851 Russ, The way to look at it is that the VLAN tag with which RBridges talk to each other on one link is irrelevant outside the link. So really...one pseudonode, and one VLAN per link for interRBridge communication is a simplification. Really. Though I'm not surprised if my sketch of a design might have not been self-explanatory. Let me try to explain a bit more, and from an IS-IS point of view. If this isn't clear, or if you still have concerns, then we (you and I) can have a quick phone call (are you available tomorrow afternoon?), or you can wait until you see the details in the spec. Or you can ask another question on the list. a) all RBridges on a link can talk to each other using a single (outer) VLAN tag, and that VLAN is not allowed to be partitioned. If it is, whichever RBridges can't talk to the DRB on that VLAN are just orphaned. All the other RBridges send IS-IS messages (Hellos, LSPs, CSNPs) on that link tagged with the one VLAN tag. b) All RBridge-RBridge links can be used as transit for data that belongs on any VLAN. So a data packet from VLAN x on one link destined to VLAN x on some other link in the campus can transit any RBridge-RBridge link (say from R2 to R3) regardless of what VLAN tag R2 has to slap on the outside of the frame in order to carry the frame from R2 to R3. c) the only time VLANs are relevant, in terms of IS-IS forwarding, is when pruning multicast (you don't have to send down a branch if none of the links at the end of that branch support that VLAN. But for sending unicast...you are sending to the specified egress RBridge. The forwarding RBridge does not care at all what the inner VLAN is. It also doesn't care what VLAN tag R3 has to tack on in order to forward it across the next hop to R4. e) A LAN will have a single DRB. A single pseudonode. No VLANs or endnodes are associated with the pseudonode. Endnodes and VLANs are only associated with RBridges. If R1 is DRB for pseudonode R1.25, then R1.25's LSP only lists the other RBridges attached to R1.25. Whatever RBridge R2 is appointed by R1 to forward VLAN x traffic to/from pseudonode R1.25 will specify in R2's LSP, "I, R2, am attached to VLAN x". R2 might even have lots of links attached to VLAN x. But R2 just says in R2's LSP "I am attached to VLAN x". f) Hellos shouldn't have to be bigger with this proposal. What's in a Hello? . my ID . my priority for becoming DRB . name of the pseudonode if I am DRB . VLAN tag "V" to use for outer VLAN tag on this cloud if I am DRB . set of neighbors I've heard Hellos from on the specified VLAN tag (V) . flag "please send CSNP" used when starting up, to ensure that you have synchronized LSP databases with your neighbors Now there might also be the following in the Hello: . "Bidding for VLANs": If I'm not DRB, set of (priority, {set of VLAN tags}) that I would like to be assigned to en/decapsulate for . "VLAN assignments" If I am DRB, en/decapsulator assignments, of the form (RBridge neighbor ID, {set of VLANs}) that I want that RBridge to encapsulate/decapsulate for. I think we could come up with reasonably compact encodings for those. Though they don't really have to be in the Hello. Instead, especially the "bidding" part could be in a separate message to the DRB. I like having the DRB specify assignments in its Hello, though, to ensure there is no confusion. I'd think that 99% of the time there would be no assignments, and the DRB itself would be the encapsulator/decapsulator for all VLANs on that link. Hope that's clearer... Radia ----- Original Message ----- From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> Date: Monday, November 5, 2007 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Based on talking to people, here is how I'm assuming the VLAN stuff > > will look. The main points are > > I'm a bit confused by this entire thread, and these changes.... > > > a) single DRB per link (rather than DRB election per VLAN). > > I assume this is to reduce overhead by reducing the number of > hello's.... But, then we turn around and make the hellos significantly > larger, and change the format significantly, and we change their > processing significantly.... I don't think there's any savings here. > > Further, how does this look in SPF to other devices? Suppose you have > one pnode per link, with multiple vlans: > > o Do all the devices on the link advertise themselves as connected to > the pnode? How does the pnode indicate all the vlans it transits, > so the > SPF tree will work correctly? Does the pnode advertise one lsp per > vlan?If so, then how does this one pnode per link really save > anything? > o What if there is no device that's actually on every vlan on the > segment? Does it act as the pnode for vlans in which it doesn't > participate? How do other is' build a tree in this situation--do they > route through a pnode that's not on the vlan they're building a > tree for? > > > b) that DRB can delegate to another RBridge on the link the > > job of forwarding VLAN-x data to/from the link. > > I think this kills all thoughts of load sharing through any sort of > multiaccess medium. You'll still be able to load share on point-to- > pointlinks, but not across Ethernet, for instance.... Is that an > acceptabletradeoff? > > What if an rbridge sends some traffic to the only path on which it can > send traffic for a specific vlan, and the exit point finds the only > pathit has is through the rbridge that just sent it the traffic? > How do we > resolve this? Do we need ICMP redirects for TRILL? > > > c) RBridges MAY be configured to send Hellos on a set of VLANs, > > though VLAN 1 is the default. They are also configured with a single > > preferred VLAN "V". If RBridge RB1 is DRB, it tells all the other > RBridges> on the link to send ALL RBridge-Rbridge traffic (Hellos, > LSPs,> forwarded encapsulated data traffic) with outer VLAN tag "V". > > Doesn't this concept of a single "management" vlan on any given link > destroy the ability to see what's going on on a specific vlan > throughouta network? IE, if I want to look at the neighbor > adjacencies for vlan x, > I must look at debugs for vlan y, because the hellos are only sent on > vlan y. I find this confusing--it will probably contribute to many > hoursof lost network time as engineers try to figure out what "vlan > v" is so > they can see what's actually going on. > > > d) For safety, the DRB RB1 continues to send Hellos not only on V, > > but on all the VLANs that RB1 is configured to send Hellos on. > > Which kills off any advantages from not sending all those hellos and > doing dis election on all those vlans, doesn't it? > > > f) We use all the link-avoidance stuff we'd discussed before (don't > > decapsulate from ingress RBx unless you have RBx's LSP and all > pseudonodes> that RBx claims to be attached to, and can verify that > none of them > > have the same root bridge ID as the link you are about to > decapsulate> onto -- also, be conservative about when you start > encapsulting data > > off the link by waiting a few Hello intervals, and waiting until > > you've synchornized LSP databases with your neighbors). > > This is a lot of complex stuff at layer 2.... Are current chipsets > goingto be able to handle all of this? Or have we abandoned the > idea of minor > or no modifications in hardware? > > > g) IS-IS Hellos list the set of neighbors from which Hellos are > heard.> Once the DRB RB1 specifies "V" as the VLAN, the only > neighbors listed > > in IS-IS Hellos are those from which a Hello is received on VLAN V. > > What if someone's not configured to run on vlan v? What if a box > has a > limited number of vlans it can support, and already has that number of > vlans configured? There will probably be an upper limit on support on > any given box, after all, so this is always a possibility as we get > intothe virtualization that rbridges will open up as possibilities. > > Finally, I see a lot of stuff about welding together vlans with the > sameid no matter where they are in the network. I consider this to > be a huge > "surprise" problem, at the least, and extremely dangerous, at the > worst.... Just because two vlans are configured with the same id does > not mean they were intended to be in the same broadcast domain. > > So, can someone explain why we are doing all of this work, changing > fundamental principles of IS-IS, changing SPF operation, etc.? > > :-) > > Russ > > - -- > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHL8kaER27sUhU9OQRAjcEAKCFZEHG7u6OzBc8ysqc6h5u7IQMIACg9tCG > RBP6jhPZ0HtaYae+XAYg+5A= > =J+a1 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA61sABM024400 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:54:10 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,375,1188792000"; d="scan'208";a="136184347" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2007 20:54:10 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lA61sA4G026910; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:54:10 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lA61rmfw028803; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 01:54:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:54:05 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.82.175.126]) by xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:54:04 -0500 Message-ID: <472FC91A.2070908@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:53:30 -0500 From: Russ White <riw@cisco.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> References: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 01:54:04.0701 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9173CD0:01C82017] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15522.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.807400-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4984; t=1194314050; x=1195178050; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20<riw@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[rbridge]=20Preview=20of=20changes=20for=20VLANs, =20e tc. |Sender:=20 |To:=20Radia=20Perlman=20<Radia.Perlman@sun.com>; bh=q0YjMr9GSZyGxLcvodwIpoCl9YkFbq0fl8cFzfgGkWE=; b=fsS7o1jJaBipdSFNNTNLs6DN6SELs2D93yW6+L/EBgAvYesVzUsCtdo3G4rSMoKNrFii8z3N /+Q8EIIUV5ls9L7Xb9odYnpyWy57G5p+9/SA026pIcE6qvZnsxt9Pcj2; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: riw@cisco.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:55:01 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4905 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Based on talking to people, here is how I'm assuming the VLAN stuff > will look. The main points are I'm a bit confused by this entire thread, and these changes.... > a) single DRB per link (rather than DRB election per VLAN). I assume this is to reduce overhead by reducing the number of hello's.... But, then we turn around and make the hellos significantly larger, and change the format significantly, and we change their processing significantly.... I don't think there's any savings here. Further, how does this look in SPF to other devices? Suppose you have one pnode per link, with multiple vlans: o Do all the devices on the link advertise themselves as connected to the pnode? How does the pnode indicate all the vlans it transits, so the SPF tree will work correctly? Does the pnode advertise one lsp per vlan? If so, then how does this one pnode per link really save anything? o What if there is no device that's actually on every vlan on the segment? Does it act as the pnode for vlans in which it doesn't participate? How do other is' build a tree in this situation--do they route through a pnode that's not on the vlan they're building a tree for? > b) that DRB can delegate to another RBridge on the link the > job of forwarding VLAN-x data to/from the link. I think this kills all thoughts of load sharing through any sort of multiaccess medium. You'll still be able to load share on point-to-point links, but not across Ethernet, for instance.... Is that an acceptable tradeoff? What if an rbridge sends some traffic to the only path on which it can send traffic for a specific vlan, and the exit point finds the only path it has is through the rbridge that just sent it the traffic? How do we resolve this? Do we need ICMP redirects for TRILL? > c) RBridges MAY be configured to send Hellos on a set of VLANs, > though VLAN 1 is the default. They are also configured with a single > preferred VLAN "V". If RBridge RB1 is DRB, it tells all the other RBridges > on the link to send ALL RBridge-Rbridge traffic (Hellos, LSPs, > forwarded encapsulated data traffic) with outer VLAN tag "V". Doesn't this concept of a single "management" vlan on any given link destroy the ability to see what's going on on a specific vlan throughout a network? IE, if I want to look at the neighbor adjacencies for vlan x, I must look at debugs for vlan y, because the hellos are only sent on vlan y. I find this confusing--it will probably contribute to many hours of lost network time as engineers try to figure out what "vlan v" is so they can see what's actually going on. > d) For safety, the DRB RB1 continues to send Hellos not only on V, > but on all the VLANs that RB1 is configured to send Hellos on. Which kills off any advantages from not sending all those hellos and doing dis election on all those vlans, doesn't it? > f) We use all the link-avoidance stuff we'd discussed before (don't > decapsulate from ingress RBx unless you have RBx's LSP and all pseudonodes > that RBx claims to be attached to, and can verify that none of them > have the same root bridge ID as the link you are about to decapsulate > onto -- also, be conservative about when you start encapsulting data > off the link by waiting a few Hello intervals, and waiting until > you've synchornized LSP databases with your neighbors). This is a lot of complex stuff at layer 2.... Are current chipsets going to be able to handle all of this? Or have we abandoned the idea of minor or no modifications in hardware? > g) IS-IS Hellos list the set of neighbors from which Hellos are heard. > Once the DRB RB1 specifies "V" as the VLAN, the only neighbors listed > in IS-IS Hellos are those from which a Hello is received on VLAN V. What if someone's not configured to run on vlan v? What if a box has a limited number of vlans it can support, and already has that number of vlans configured? There will probably be an upper limit on support on any given box, after all, so this is always a possibility as we get into the virtualization that rbridges will open up as possibilities. Finally, I see a lot of stuff about welding together vlans with the same id no matter where they are in the network. I consider this to be a huge "surprise" problem, at the least, and extremely dangerous, at the worst.... Just because two vlans are configured with the same id does not mean they were intended to be in the same broadcast domain. So, can someone explain why we are doing all of this work, changing fundamental principles of IS-IS, changing SPF operation, etc.? :-) Russ - -- riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHL8kaER27sUhU9OQRAjcEAKCFZEHG7u6OzBc8ysqc6h5u7IQMIACg9tCG RBP6jhPZ0HtaYae+XAYg+5A= =J+a1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from mx20.brocade.com (mx20.brocade.com [66.243.153.19]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA61HbKg011579 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:17:37 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,375,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="13577880" Received: from discus.brocade.com ([192.168.126.240]) by mx20.brocade.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2007 17:17:37 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-exchfeclus-2 [192.168.126.212]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A8C7238301; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:17:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-3.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:17:37 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:17:28 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B2813@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <472FC00D.90809@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: AcggEjxMmlsLzLwyT8Kc2qiOyIAePwAAEU1Q References: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B27B6@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <472FC00D.90809@sun.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 01:17:37.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[D143F0D0:01C82012] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA61HbKg011579 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:18:00 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 568 > -----Original Message----- > From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com] > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 5:15 PM > To: Anoop Ghanwani > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > But...if an RBridge is configured to accept frames with any > VLAN tag, is it burdensome for it to accept Hellos on any of > those VLANs? It most certainly would be. Data frames are all processed in hardware while the hellos would have to make their way through system bus up the software stack to IS-IS. Anoop Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA61DaUX010248 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:13:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR200L8C8QDIM00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:13:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR2006118QBZCK0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:13:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:14:53 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> In-reply-to: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B27B6@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> To: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@brocade.com> Message-id: <472FC00D.90809@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B27B6@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:14:17 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3892 Good question. Once an RBridge knows it isn't the DRB, it seems like the only VLAN it should need to send or receive Hellos on is the one that the DRB specifies should be used for interbridge communication. I think the "safety" case is to maximize the probability that RB1 and RB2 can hear each other if they both believe they are DRB. That was why I was suggesting that the DRB continue to send Hellos on all the VLANs that it is configured to send Hellos on, which is hopefully a much smaller set than the set of VLANs it supports. In other words, even if an RBridge is configured to accept frames with any of the 4000 VLANs on a link, that doesn't mean it would send Hellos on all 4000. It would have to be separately configured for the set of VLANs to send Hellos on, and hopefully it would only be configured to send Hellos on a handful of VLANs (3 or 4). But...if an RBridge is configured to accept frames with any VLAN tag, is it burdensome for it to accept Hellos on any of those VLANs? Radia Anoop Ghanwani wrote: > Hi Radia, > > I think the proposal is reasonable in that per-VLAN > hellos are now optional (and can be made use of in > certain scenarios). However, what is not specified > is the recipient behavior. Can an RBridge choose > to ignore hellos from all other VLANs except the > one it is configured to send hellos on? It seems > like that should be allowed because it won't do > anything other than detect misconfigurations that > can also be detected by other means (although > perhaps taking slightly longer to be detected). > > If that recipient behavior is not allowed, we will > still get into scaling issues with having to receive > and process hellos from potentially all VLANs > configured on a port. > > Anoop > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org >> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman >> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:52 PM >> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. >> Subject: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. >> >> Based on talking to people, here is how I'm assuming the VLAN >> stuff will look. The main points are >> >> a) single DRB per link (rather than DRB election per VLAN). >> >> b) that DRB can delegate to another RBridge on the link the >> job of forwarding VLAN-x data to/from the link. >> >> c) RBridges MAY be configured to send Hellos on a set of >> VLANs, though VLAN 1 is the default. They are also configured >> with a single preferred VLAN "V". If RBridge RB1 is DRB, it >> tells all the other RBridges on the link to send ALL >> RBridge-Rbridge traffic (Hellos, LSPs, forwarded encapsulated >> data traffic) with outer VLAN tag "V". >> >> d) For safety, the DRB RB1 continues to send Hellos not only >> on V, but on all the VLANs that RB1 is configured to send Hellos on. >> >> e) The set of VLANs that RB1 is configured to support on the >> link may be greater than the set of VLANs that RB1 is >> configured to send Hellos on >> >> f) We use all the link-avoidance stuff we'd discussed before >> (don't decapsulate from ingress RBx unless you have RBx's LSP >> and all pseudonodes that RBx claims to be attached to, and >> can verify that none of them have the same root bridge ID as >> the link you are about to decapsulate onto -- also, be >> conservative about when you start encapsulting data off the >> link by waiting a few Hello intervals, and waiting until >> you've synchornized LSP databases with your neighbors). >> >> g) IS-IS Hellos list the set of neighbors from which Hellos are heard. >> Once the DRB RB1 specifies "V" as the VLAN, the only >> neighbors listed in IS-IS Hellos are those from which a Hello >> is received on VLAN V. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rbridge mailing list >> rbridge@postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge >> >> Received: from mx20.brocade.com (mx20.brocade.com [66.243.153.19]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA5NtWmi013647 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:55:36 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,374,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="13576607" Received: from discus.brocade.com ([192.168.126.240]) by mx20.brocade.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2007 15:28:25 -0800 Received: from HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com (hq-plato-6 [192.168.126.214]) by discus.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8314D238301; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:28:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com ([10.3.8.87]) by HQ-EXCHFE-2.corp.brocade.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:28:25 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:28:17 -0800 Message-ID: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E9B27B6@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> In-Reply-To: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. Thread-Index: Acgf/6RHGiYbi/SRRyK5CPE2cVERPAAA1j9w References: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> From: "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com>, "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2007 23:28:25.0568 (UTC) FILETIME=[90295E00:01C82003] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: anoop@brocade.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA5NtWmi013647 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:56:08 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2769 Hi Radia, I think the proposal is reasonable in that per-VLAN hellos are now optional (and can be made use of in certain scenarios). However, what is not specified is the recipient behavior. Can an RBridge choose to ignore hellos from all other VLANs except the one it is configured to send hellos on? It seems like that should be allowed because it won't do anything other than detect misconfigurations that can also be detected by other means (although perhaps taking slightly longer to be detected). If that recipient behavior is not allowed, we will still get into scaling issues with having to receive and process hellos from potentially all VLANs configured on a port. Anoop > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 2:52 PM > To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. > > Based on talking to people, here is how I'm assuming the VLAN > stuff will look. The main points are > > a) single DRB per link (rather than DRB election per VLAN). > > b) that DRB can delegate to another RBridge on the link the > job of forwarding VLAN-x data to/from the link. > > c) RBridges MAY be configured to send Hellos on a set of > VLANs, though VLAN 1 is the default. They are also configured > with a single preferred VLAN "V". If RBridge RB1 is DRB, it > tells all the other RBridges on the link to send ALL > RBridge-Rbridge traffic (Hellos, LSPs, forwarded encapsulated > data traffic) with outer VLAN tag "V". > > d) For safety, the DRB RB1 continues to send Hellos not only > on V, but on all the VLANs that RB1 is configured to send Hellos on. > > e) The set of VLANs that RB1 is configured to support on the > link may be greater than the set of VLANs that RB1 is > configured to send Hellos on > > f) We use all the link-avoidance stuff we'd discussed before > (don't decapsulate from ingress RBx unless you have RBx's LSP > and all pseudonodes that RBx claims to be attached to, and > can verify that none of them have the same root bridge ID as > the link you are about to decapsulate onto -- also, be > conservative about when you start encapsulting data off the > link by waiting a few Hello intervals, and waiting until > you've synchornized LSP databases with your neighbors). > > g) IS-IS Hellos list the set of neighbors from which Hellos are heard. > Once the DRB RB1 specifies "V" as the VLAN, the only > neighbors listed in IS-IS Hellos are those from which a Hello > is received on VLAN V. > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > Received: from mail-mta.sunlabs.com (edge.sunlabs.com [204.153.12.50]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA5MpKBN004060 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:51:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sunlabs.com ([152.70.2.186]) by mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JR200L4O250IL00@mail-mta.sfvic.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:51:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from [129.150.22.40] ([192.18.43.225]) by mail.sunlabs.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.1 HotFix 0.02 (built Aug 25 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0JR2006W024ZZKJ0@mail.sunlabs.com> for rbridge@postel.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:51:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:52:29 -0800 From: Radia Perlman <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Message-id: <472F9EAD.2040600@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: radia.perlman@sun.com Subject: [rbridge] Preview of changes for VLANs, etc. X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:51:39 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1562 Based on talking to people, here is how I'm assuming the VLAN stuff will look. The main points are a) single DRB per link (rather than DRB election per VLAN). b) that DRB can delegate to another RBridge on the link the job of forwarding VLAN-x data to/from the link. c) RBridges MAY be configured to send Hellos on a set of VLANs, though VLAN 1 is the default. They are also configured with a single preferred VLAN "V". If RBridge RB1 is DRB, it tells all the other RBridges on the link to send ALL RBridge-Rbridge traffic (Hellos, LSPs, forwarded encapsulated data traffic) with outer VLAN tag "V". d) For safety, the DRB RB1 continues to send Hellos not only on V, but on all the VLANs that RB1 is configured to send Hellos on. e) The set of VLANs that RB1 is configured to support on the link may be greater than the set of VLANs that RB1 is configured to send Hellos on f) We use all the link-avoidance stuff we'd discussed before (don't decapsulate from ingress RBx unless you have RBx's LSP and all pseudonodes that RBx claims to be attached to, and can verify that none of them have the same root bridge ID as the link you are about to decapsulate onto -- also, be conservative about when you start encapsulting data off the link by waiting a few Hello intervals, and waiting until you've synchornized LSP databases with your neighbors). g) IS-IS Hellos list the set of neighbors from which Hellos are heard. Once the DRB RB1 specifies "V" as the VLAN, the only neighbors listed in IS-IS Hellos are those from which a Hello is received on VLAN V. Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA5KjTKL017935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:45:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA5KjScI003574; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:45:28 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:45:28 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 14:45:26 -0600 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E7B739@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4728F8AC.8080506@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Thread-Index: AcgcCAZhrdJXc76bTRGby8lmIMMrSgD3QmfA References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <22446679.673821193851046308.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E920442@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDF347@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4728F8AC.8080506@sun.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2007 20:45:28.0519 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC961570:01C81FEC] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA5KjTKL017935 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:46:28 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 12548 Radia, On looking at this again, it seems as if you've tried to answer a question I am not asking. I will try this again. Please see in-line below. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:51 PM > To: Eric Gray > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > Importance: High > > Eric....if I understand your concern... > > Having all RBridge-RBridge traffic between neighbor RBridges > (RBridges on a single layer 2 cloud) take place on a single > VLAN (whether the VLAN used be configurable for that cloud, > or whether it's always VLAN 1), does not preclude load > splitting. For some types of load splitting, what you're saying may be correct. At the egress from, and ingress to, the RBridge campus, the only form of load-splitting that we have talked about thus far is based on the DRB election process - in combination with VLAN-specific DRB election. The why's and wherefore's of the issues of other forms of load splitting at the campus edge have to do with the need to have symmetrical frame delivery - and that's a discussion complex enough to ignore (because it is irrelevant) in this discussion. For this particular form of load-splitting, obviously using only one VLAN for forwarding precludes it. > > "VLAN 1" as the VLAN tag in the outer header is just used in > order to get a packet from one RBridge to a neighbor RBridge. > Layer 3 techniques for load splitting, traffic engineering, > etc., can be used for having RBridges choose paths across the > campus. When doing load splitting, a smart RBridge, just like > a router, could choose anything it can see in order to decide > which path to send a frame on, or which traffic to drop when > there is congestion, including the inner VLAN tag. > And although some might consider it architecturally impure, > there isn't anything precluding an RBridge from looking > even further into the packet and making forwarding/traffic > splitting/traffic dropping decisions based on things like the > diffsrv field in the IP header, or the TCP ports. And this is where we're missing the point. If there is only one DRB for a given TRILL link, only that device will act as egress from, and ingress to, the link. Many of the clever load-splitting approaches out there will break a layer 2 network because they lead to asymmetrical forwarding. > > The outer VLAN tag is just how to wrap up the frame when > forwarding to the next hop RBridge that the RBridge forwarding > decision has selected for this frame. And - for the case where the forwarding RBridge is not the DRB - it is necessary for the frame to traverse the local network twice; once with TRILL encaps and again without. It is quite likely that this will often result in the DRB forwarding frames onto a local bridged LAN for a VLAN that it would otherwise not participate in. > > Radia > My earlier response pointed out - possibly at too much length - that you CANNOT assume that a link that provides egress from the RBridge campus is not also a link between RBridges, nor that a link between RBridges is not also an egress/ingress point. I thought this obvious because I did qualify the concern by the words "based on VLAN separation" - in reference to the specific mechanism by which load-splitting would occur. Even if we are talking about traffic that is not going to be egressed onto the local link, this statement would have been true. All of that said, if you are referring JUST to traffic that is literally traversing the local link, then what you say is true. The DRB election does not apply in that case. However, that is not the way I initially interpretted what you said. In part, that is because of the earlier statement from Donald - regarding the use of a single VLAN ID for all traffic sent on any physical interface. If that is not what you were referring to, then my objection to the idea is simply that it's unnecessarily restrictive and may, in fact, interfere with deployment. > > > Eric Gray wrote: > > Anoop, > > > > This is a generic VLAN bridging problem, commonly > > dealt with using VLAN bridges today. Clearly, it is not > > the case that all VLAN bridges are required to use a > > common VLAN for frame forwarding. > > > > In addition, as I understand it (in part based on > > James' reply), we are NOT saying that the common VLAN > > you mention must be used for all frame forwarding - > > hence it is likely that the existence of a common VLAN > > does not necessarily fix the problem. > > > > Just to be clear, if we were saying that a common > > VLAN must be used for all forwarding between RBridges, > > it quickly becomes obvious that load-sharing based on > > VLAN separation becomes useless in practice. If load > > sharing based on VID is not useful, then MSTP already > > provides L2 forwarding that makes more efficient use of > > links than would be possible using RBridges (unless all > > RBridge-to-RBridge connections are via P2P links). > > > > -- > > Eric Gray > > Principal Engineer > > Ericsson > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@brocade.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:33 PM > >> To: Zhi-Hern Loh; Eric Gray > >> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > >> Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >> Importance: High > >> > >> > >> Hern, > >> > >> That's one of the problems that we're trying to avoid > >> by forcing all RBridges on a bridged LAN to be configured > >> such that they are all reachable and see one another on > >> a single VLAN. > >> > >> Anoop > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Zhi-Hern Loh > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:17 AM > >>> To: Eric Gray > >>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > >>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>> > >>> Donald, > >>> > >>> In addition to Eric's questions, could you (or anyone else) > >>> explain what would happen in the following scenario? > >>> > >>> Toplogy: > >>> > >>> RBa > >>> / > >>> VID a > >>> / > >>> RBn-link X-----VID b------RBb > >>> > >>> Problem: > >>> > >>> RBn is connected to 2 VLANs on link/port X. Connectivity to > >>> RBa is via VLAN a, and connectivity to RBb is via VLAN b. > >>> > >>> Suppose that RBa and RBb are in the multi-destination > >>> distribution tree from RBn. For a multi-destination frame > >>> going out link/port X on RBn to RBa and RBb, what is the VID > >>> on the outer VLAN tag? Or could there be need to send 2 > >>> frames, one with VID a and another with VID b? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Hern > >>> Fulcrum Microsystems > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> > >>> To: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" > >>> <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "Zhi-Hern Loh" > >>> > >> <zloh@fulcrummicro.com> > >> > >>> Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:16:33 AM (GMT-0800) > >>> America/Los_Angeles > >>> Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>> > >>> Donald, > >>> > >>> When you say "would all have the same Outer [VID]" > >>> - do you mean: > >>> > >>> 1) all frames MUST have the same VID within the an RBridge > >>> campus, > >>> 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > >>> to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > >>> VID, or > >>> 3) something else? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Eric Gray > >>> Principal Engineer > >>> Ericsson > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III > >>>> Donald-LDE008 > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:22 AM > >>>> To: Zhi-Hern Loh > >>>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > >>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Yes, as noted in protocol draft -05, the pseudo code was > >>>> > >> unchanged > >> > >>>> from > >>>> -04 and is out of date. > >>>> > >>>> As currently being discussed, the TRILL encapsulated data being > >>>> forwarded out a particular physical port would all have the > >>>> > >>> same Outer > >>> > >>>> VLAN ID. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Donald > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Zhi-Hern Loh > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:54 PM > >>>> To: Anoop Ghanwani > >>>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia Perlman; > >>>> > >> James Carlson > >> > >>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>>>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of James Carlson > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:37 PM > >>>>>> To: Silvano Gai > >>>>>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Silvano Gai writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Radia, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have added few slides to the example and I suggest that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> we use it as > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> a possible case of study for TRILL (of course, not the > >>>>>>> > >>>> only one). > >>>> > >>>>>>> Let's see if the solutions we have discussed work on this > >>>>>>> > >>>>> example. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> The complete case of study is at: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.ip6.com/acme-example-v1.ppt > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a few narrow questions that I think might help me > >>>>>> understand this picture a bit better. (I probably have more > >>>>>> questions once I know the narrow answers. ;-}) > >>>>>> > >>>>> Let me take a shot at answering these. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 1. After the proposed fix, should VLAN 3 on Cloud L > >>>>>> > >>> be bridged > >>> > >>>>>> together with VLAN 3 on Cloud R, even though > >>>>>> > >> the backbone > >> > >>>>> itself > >>>>> > >>>>>> doesn't directly carry VLAN 3? (I.e., are TRILL > >>>>>> > >>>> packets with > >>>> > >>>>>> outer VLAN ID 7 or 8 and with inner VLAN 3 > >>>>>> > >> present on the > >> > >>>>>> backbone?) > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes, that's pretty much what ends up happening. > >>>>> We have effectively extended the bridged LAN. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Anoop, I'm reading the RBridge protocol specification > >>>> > >>> version 5 and it > >>> > >>>> seems to me that your comment is inconsistent with the spec. > >>>> In section, > >>>> 5.2.2.3, the spec says that the outer VLAN tag of TRILL data > >>>> frames has > >>>> the same VID as the inner tag. Is this section going to > >>>> > >> be changed? > >> > >>>> Futhermore, if we were to use different VIDs on outer VLAN > >>>> tags then we > >>>> would need to handle the multi-destination case where one > >>>> would need to > >>>> send a multi-destination frame per outer VID to communicate > >>>> with the RBs > >>>> in the distribution tree which are using different VIDs. Is this > >>>> correct? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Hern > >>>> Fulcrum Microsystems > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rbridge mailing list > >>>> rbridge@postel.org > >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rbridge mailing list > >>>> rbridge@postel.org > >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rbridge mailing list > >>> rbridge@postel.org > >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > >>> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > > > Received: from sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.43.22]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA5FphrE025598 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 07:51:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-east-01.east.sun.com ([129.148.9.192]) by sca-ea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id lA5FpgQe028118 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:51:42 GMT Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (phorcys.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.143]) by dm-east-01.east.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id lA5Fpg88049808 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lA5FL50S021544; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:21:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id lA5FL3OR021541; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:21:03 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18223.13535.22482.195169@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:21:03 -0500 From: James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBED@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> References: <283f04e35585.47263880@sunlabs.com> <34BDD2A93E5FD84594BB230DD6C18EA202590558@nuova-ex1.hq.nuovaimpresa.com> <18215.42006.843620.853514@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <34BDD2A93E5FD84594BB230DD6C18EA20260671F@nuova-ex1.hq.nuovaimpresa.com> <18216.31931.91042.199304@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBED@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: carlsonj@phorcys.east.sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:52:29 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1719 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 writes: > @@@ This is not some new change just coming from Silvano. For some time > now the base protocol specification has assumed that all the islands of > a VLAN seen by an Rbridge get glued together. Bridges can keep them > apart because they are myopic. Rbridges have a global view and it would > add significant complexity to the protocol to somehow defeat the > automatic connection of station on a VLAN by Rbridges. This was > discussed extensively on the list including such ideas as adding a > further qualifying "island-ID" or something to the VLANID+Address that > are the current basis for TRILL routing. There was no support for such > added complexity. I'm asking about how Silvano Gai's diagram agrees with the current spec. According to the current spec, you have to configure any outer VLAN ID number that's present. It's in the realm of manual configuration and thus doesn't violate anything the administrator has specifically set up. If I read Silvano Gai's diagram correctly, that configuration isn't present. Instead, the RBridges _automatically_ discover the non-default connections amongst themselves, and use them as they see fit. (At a guess, they do so by sending Hello messages on all 4094 VLAN ID numbers.) I'm not asking to have islands supported. I agree that it'd be a mess. I'm asking whether he's assuming they'll always be automatically glued together without manual configuration, even if there are restricted outer VLANs. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA5FkokV024367 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 07:46:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from dm-east-01.east.sun.com ([129.148.9.192]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id lA5FknXU001303 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:46:49 GMT Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (phorcys.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.143]) by dm-east-01.east.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id lA5FkngM041217 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from phorcys.east.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lA5FG9DT021528; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from carlsonj@localhost) by phorcys.east.sun.com (8.14.1+Sun/8.14.1/Submit) id lA5FFwM7021525; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:15:58 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18223.13230.626187.543062@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:15:58 -0500 From: James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> In-Reply-To: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBEC@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> References: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E92036D@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <18442502.671741193799238499.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900332B1E3@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <18216.36269.214404.179226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBEC@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.01 under Emacs 21.3.1 X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: carlsonj@phorcys.east.sun.com Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:47:59 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 3091 Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 writes: > From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] [...] > Eric Gray writes: [...] > > 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > > to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > > VID, or [...] > @@@ Well, I am Donald and I meant something like (2) but a bit narrower. > I would have said "all TRILL frames" because "all frames" is way too > inclusive. What about control frames like 802.1AB? Furthermore, in the > case of point-to-point links between two Rbridges (i.e., no bridges or > end station connections in between), as far as I can see there is no > particular utility in considering the TRILL frames to have any external > VLAN coloring and certainly no need for them to be outer tagged with a > VLAN ID or priority. I mostly agree with that. In fact, I think that's a desirable end state for TRILL, when all other bridges are obsolete. Having no VLAN tag on the outside makes a lot of sense there. (I think omitting the priority makes a bit less sense to me, though. Wouldn't you want the priority value set on an 802.1q header with VLAN ID 0 in this case?) I think the question is how to get there when there are networks that are half-TRILL and half-otherwise. > @@@ Well, your version of (3) above is, as I recall, roughly how things > were in draft -04. Yes. > However, by -05 posted in July of this year (except > in the pseudo code which is clearly labeled as still being that from > -04), in order to actually provide the promised optimal pair-wise > routing, the Outer and Inner VLANs are completely decoupled. See, for > example, Section 4.1.2 of -05. And some recent proposals suggest using a > single Outer VLAN ID on a link. As long as these things are manually configured, as described in 4.1.2, I don't see a problem. As I understood Silvano Gai's discussion, it seemed he didn't want to have those things be manually configured, so the RBridges would somehow "find" each other on whatever underlying outer VLAN IDs might be available and then forward packets without regard to the restrictions placed on those other VLANs. Perhaps I've misunderstood *that* part of it, but it's that part that I wanted to clarify. > The distinction with (2) in your list is that (2) appears to rule out > the use of so-called "tagged" or leaf or ingress ports, forcing all > ports to carry VLAN tags. > > @@@ I find your above statement a bit confusing. Item (2) seems to be > talking about TRILL frames between Rbridges which doesn't have anything > to do with ingressing native frames. The original statement said this: 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same VID [...] Packets that don't have VLAN tags (such as those on "tagged" ports) don't have ID numbers. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA3HNhSK021665 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1194110216!28608393!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 4384 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2007 17:16:57 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2007 17:16:57 -0000 Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA3HGuAd010010 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 10:16:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142]) by il06exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA3HGu7l017655 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:16:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by il06exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA3HGt9w017649 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:16:55 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:16:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBEE@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E920442@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Thread-Index: Acgb48G1MhOQV4+OTEqyts4Xo9TpTwAAC0pgAJYqIxA= References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se><22446679.673821193851046308.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E920442@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "Zhi-Hern Loh" <zloh@fulcrummicro.com> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA3HNhSK021665 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:24:06 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 6571 Hern, Your question is the same as my question in point 2 of my mail at http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/2007-October/002584.html. The way things are described in the text of draft -05, I think you would indeed have to send some TRILL data frames multiple times. That is why there is currently discussion of ways to avoid this problem while maintaining our charter goal of optional pairwise routing. Donald -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:33 PM To: Zhi-Hern Loh; Eric Gray Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Hern, That's one of the problems that we're trying to avoid by forcing all RBridges on a bridged LAN to be configured such that they are all reachable and see one another on a single VLAN. Anoop > -----Original Message----- > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Zhi-Hern Loh > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:17 AM > To: Eric Gray > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > Donald, > > In addition to Eric's questions, could you (or anyone else) > explain what would happen in the following scenario? > > Toplogy: > > RBa > / > VID a > / > RBn-link X-----VID b------RBb > > Problem: > > RBn is connected to 2 VLANs on link/port X. Connectivity to > RBa is via VLAN a, and connectivity to RBb is via VLAN b. > > Suppose that RBa and RBb are in the multi-destination > distribution tree from RBn. For a multi-destination frame > going out link/port X on RBn to RBa and RBb, what is the VID > on the outer VLAN tag? Or could there be need to send 2 > frames, one with VID a and another with VID b? > > > > Thanks, > Hern > Fulcrum Microsystems > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> > To: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" > <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "Zhi-Hern Loh" <zloh@fulcrummicro.com> > Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:16:33 AM (GMT-0800) > America/Los_Angeles > Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > Donald, > > When you say "would all have the same Outer [VID]" > - do you mean: > > 1) all frames MUST have the same VID within the an RBridge > campus, > 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > VID, or > 3) something else? > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III > > Donald-LDE008 > > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:22 AM > > To: Zhi-Hern Loh > > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > > > Hi, > > > > Yes, as noted in protocol draft -05, the pseudo code was unchanged > > from > > -04 and is out of date. > > > > As currently being discussed, the TRILL encapsulated data being > > forwarded out a particular physical port would all have the > same Outer > > VLAN ID. > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Zhi-Hern Loh > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:54 PM > > To: Anoop Ghanwani > > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia Perlman; James Carlson > > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > > > > > ----- "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > > > > [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of James Carlson > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:37 PM > > > > To: Silvano Gai > > > > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM > > > > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > > > > > > > > Silvano Gai writes: > > > > > Radia, > > > > > > > > > > I have added few slides to the example and I suggest that > > > > we use it as > > > > > a possible case of study for TRILL (of course, not the > > only one). > > > > > > > > > > Let's see if the solutions we have discussed work on this > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > The complete case of study is at: > > > > > > > > > > http://www.ip6.com/acme-example-v1.ppt > > > > > > > > I have a few narrow questions that I think might help me > > > > understand this picture a bit better. (I probably have more > > > > questions once I know the narrow answers. ;-}) > > > > > > Let me take a shot at answering these. > > > > > > > 1. After the proposed fix, should VLAN 3 on Cloud L > be bridged > > > > together with VLAN 3 on Cloud R, even though the backbone > > > itself > > > > doesn't directly carry VLAN 3? (I.e., are TRILL > > packets with > > > > outer VLAN ID 7 or 8 and with inner VLAN 3 present on the > > > > backbone?) > > > > > > Yes, that's pretty much what ends up happening. > > > We have effectively extended the bridged LAN. > > > > > > > Anoop, I'm reading the RBridge protocol specification > version 5 and it > > seems to me that your comment is inconsistent with the spec. > > In section, > > 5.2.2.3, the spec says that the outer VLAN tag of TRILL data > > frames has > > the same VID as the inner tag. Is this section going to be changed? > > > > Futhermore, if we were to use different VIDs on outer VLAN > > tags then we > > would need to handle the multi-destination case where one > > would need to > > send a multi-destination frame per outer VID to communicate > > with the RBs > > in the distribution tree which are using different VIDs. Is this > > correct? > > > > Thanks, > > Hern > > Fulcrum Microsystems > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > > > _______________________________________________ > rbridge mailing list > rbridge@postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA3GoAbp010100 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:50:10 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1194108608!38663126!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.103] Received: (qmail 881 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2007 16:50:09 -0000 Received: from motgate3.mot.com (HELO motgate3.mot.com) (144.189.100.103) by server-13.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2007 16:50:09 -0000 Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com [10.64.251.234]) by motgate3.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA3Go8U5028621 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:50:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts02.mot.com (az10vts02.mot.com [10.64.251.243]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA3Go7uw026593 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:50:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA3Go64C026579 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:50:06 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:50:04 -0400 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBED@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <18216.31931.91042.199304@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Thread-Index: AcgbwLw2KmM1SDUrSoGtu1W4Ky6JogCDqsog References: <283f04e35585.47263880@sunlabs.com><34BDD2A93E5FD84594BB230DD6C18EA202590558@nuova-ex1.hq.nuovaimpresa.com><18215.42006.843620.853514@gargle.gargle.HOWL><34BDD2A93E5FD84594BB230DD6C18EA20260671F@nuova-ex1.hq.nuovaimpresa.com> <18216.31931.91042.199304@gargle.gargle.HOWL> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "James Carlson" <james.d.carlson@Sun.COM> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA3GoAbp010100 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:50:31 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 4507 Hi, See below at @@@ -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of James Carlson Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:02 AM To: Silvano Gai Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Silvano Gai writes: > James, > > -- snip -- > > > > > 3. Suppose we were to configure VLAN 7 within Cloud L. Would you > > expect H1 to be able to access nodes within the backbone Cloud G > > at that point? (I'm trying to figure out whether the "X" and > > "Y" interfaces are of fundamentally different types or if the > > RBridges are just bridges. I suspect they're different.) > > > > I have produced an updated drawing to cover the case of "hybrid ports". > > http://www.ip6.com/example-v2.ppt > > In this drawing I assume that H5 is able to talk with H6. That new diagram still does not show the confusing situation that I was referring to above. In fact, it shows a situation that is essentially _identical_ to the previous one you showed in terms of added bridge functionality. To replicate the confusing functionality, consider what happens when adding a host (call it H7) attached to Cloud P. Without VLAN 7 in Cloud P, H7 will not be able to participate in VLAN 7 even though all attached RBridges are in fact transiting VLAN 7 traffic on that network. If VLAN 7 is provisioned onto Cloud P (exactly how does this happen?), then H7 can play. I see no functionality comparable to this in the existing draft. The core change that I think you're asserting here is that when the user deploys RBridges, the network automatically discovers all of the far-flung and disjoint islands of VLAN ID usage, and glues those together by tunneling over whatever VLANs might be in the way between them. It no longer matters what configuration separates them. @@@ This is not some new change just coming from Silvano. For some time now the base protocol specification has assumed that all the islands of a VLAN seen by an Rbridge get glued together. Bridges can keep them apart because they are myopic. Rbridges have a global view and it would add significant complexity to the protocol to somehow defeat the automatic connection of station on a VLAN by Rbridges. This was discussed extensively on the list including such ideas as adding a further qualifying "island-ID" or something to the VLANID+Address that are the current basis for TRILL routing. There was no support for such added complexity. This is quite a departure from traditional bridging, and I think it's likely to be both confusing and dangerous, so I'm not sure it ought to be the default behavior. In today's bridges, if I configure a trunk port such that VLAN 3 traffic does not traverse the link, then -- quite simply -- no packets with VLAN ID set to 3 go over that link. In the new model, that restriction does not apply. If I say "allow VLAN ID 3," then both an O-RBridge (original RBridge as I understood it) and the new G-RBridge (Silvano Gai modified RBridge) will allow VLAN ID 3 across the link. If I say "disallow VLAN ID 3 and allow only VLAN 7," then the O-RBridge would stop passing VLAN ID 3 traffic, but the G-RBridge would simply switch the outer VLAN ID number and use VLAN 7 effectively as a tunnel to pass VLAN 3. The TRILL-encapsulated packets will have VLAN 3 on the inside and VLAN 7 on the outside. @@@ The only suggestion that was made to preserve VLAN islands was to, in effect, create a bigger VLAN ID or other higher order qualifier on top of the 60 bits of VLAN plus address. There was no support in the working group for this suggestion. @@@ Thanks, @@@ Donald I'm not at all sure that's a good thing. I can see why folks who are struggling with the unkempt nature of VLAN ID provisioning across complex (and politically divided) networks would be excited about a "do what I mean" option -- particularly if it means that I don't have to tell my local IT group to reconfigure switches to allow separated chunks of my new VLAN to connect together -- but the side-effects seem extreme. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.179]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA3Gd0VK007140 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1194107937!33715957!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8] Received: (qmail 23933 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2007 16:38:57 -0000 Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2007 16:38:57 -0000 Received: from il06exr02.mot.com (il06exr02.mot.com [129.188.137.132]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA3GctX5005909 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 09:38:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from il06vts04.mot.com (il06vts04.mot.com [129.188.137.144]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA3Gcs01027608 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:38:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by il06exr02.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA3Gcsxm027603 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:38:54 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:38:52 -0400 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBEC@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <18216.36269.214404.179226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Thread-Index: AcgbzbqlXVjQi+BuRZapUUjeb2wKiACAsmEw References: <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E92036D@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com><18442502.671741193799238499.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com><3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900332B1E3@de01exm64.ds.mot.com><941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <18216.36269.214404.179226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "James Carlson" <james.d.carlson@sun.com> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA3Gd0VK007140 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 16:39:39 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 2679 See below at @@@ -----Original Message----- From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:14 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008; Zhi-Hern Loh; Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Eric Gray writes: > Donald, > > When you say "would all have the same Outer [VID]" > - do you mean: > > 1) all frames MUST have the same VID within the an RBridge > campus, > 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > VID, or > 3) something else? (I'm not Donald, but ...) @@@ Well, I am Donald and I meant something like (2) but a bit narrower. I would have said "all TRILL frames" because "all frames" is way too inclusive. What about control frames like 802.1AB? Furthermore, in the case of point-to-point links between two Rbridges (i.e., no bridges or end station connections in between), as far as I can see there is no particular utility in considering the TRILL frames to have any external VLAN coloring and certainly no need for them to be outer tagged with a VLAN ID or priority. My understanding was more like: 3) Where an outer VLAN tag is present, all frames transmitted by an RBridge must have the same inner and outer VLAN tag numbers. Where an outer VLAN tag is not present, the implicit tag for that port must match or be compatible with the inner tag. ... which would be consistent with "traditional" bridge behavior and would effectively rule out the type of solution that Silvano Gai has been proposing. @@@ Well, your version of (3) above is, as I recall, roughly how things were in draft -04. However, by -05 posted in July of this year (except in the pseudo code which is clearly labeled as still being that from -04), in order to actually provide the promised optimal pair-wise routing, the Outer and Inner VLANs are completely decoupled. See, for example, Section 4.1.2 of -05. And some recent proposals suggest using a single Outer VLAN ID on a link. The distinction with (2) in your list is that (2) appears to rule out the use of so-called "tagged" or leaf or ingress ports, forcing all ports to carry VLAN tags. @@@ I find your above statement a bit confusing. Item (2) seems to be talking about TRILL frames between Rbridges which doesn't have anything to do with ingressing native frames. @@@ Thanks, @@@ Donald -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson@sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 Received: from mail128.messagelabs.com (mail128.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.131]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id lA342rTY007938 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 21:02:53 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-128.messagelabs.com!1194062572!15038720!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.189.100.101] Received: (qmail 16252 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2007 04:02:52 -0000 Received: from motgate2.mot.com (HELO motgate2.mot.com) (144.189.100.101) by server-12.tower-128.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2007 04:02:52 -0000 Received: from az33exr04.mot.com (az33exr04.mot.com [10.64.251.234]) by motgate2.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id lA342fE4007151 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 21:02:51 -0700 (MST) Received: from az10vts02.mot.com (az10vts02.mot.com [10.64.251.243]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id lA342eWe012700 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:02:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from de01exm64.ds.mot.com (de01exm64.am.mot.com [10.176.8.15]) by az33exr04.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id lA342dAQ012693 for <rbridge@postel.org>; Fri, 2 Nov 2007 23:02:40 -0500 (CDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 00:02:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3870C46029D1F945B1472F170D2D97900336DBD2@de01exm64.ds.mot.com> In-Reply-To: <47294F89.4050905@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] Separating DRB election from encapsulator/decapsulator Thread-Index: AcgcPhjJyeKosKJWSTiIC76n1it2JQBkC/2A References: <47294F89.4050905@sun.com> From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> To: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: donald.eastlake@motorola.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA342rTY007938 Subject: Re: [rbridge] Separating DRB election from encapsulator/decapsulator X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:03:40 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 1820 That seems like a good idea and should simplify the Hellos. Donald -----Original Message----- From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Radia Perlman Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:01 AM To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. Subject: [rbridge] Separating DRB election from encapsulator/decapsulator When trying to carefully write up all the rules with respect to RBridges and VLANs, it occurs to me that one place in which things can be simplified is to separate the function of the DRB on a layer 2 cloud from the selection of data packet encapsulator/decapsulator for each VLAN. What I mean is that instead of having n different DRB elections with different priorities for different, possibly overlapping sets of VLANs for that cloud, we instead have a single DRB election for that cloud, and as a result, a single pseudonode associated with the cloud that would be visible to any RBridges not on the cloud. The DRB on a cloud has the following duties: a) names the pseudonode associated with the cloud b) reports an LSP on behalf of the pseudonode c) issues IS-IS CSNPs (a way of acknowledging LSPs that have been sent on the cloud) d) specifies, for each VLAN supported on that cloud, which RBridge on the cloud will be doing encapsulation/decapsulation for that VLAN e) chooses a VLAN tag with which all RBridge-RBridge communication on that cloud will be tagged in the outer header (explanation of this will be in a future email). For now, does anyone see any problem with this? It's unfortunately a bit entwined with the other hairy discussion going on, but I think that we're going to converge for that. Radia _______________________________________________ rbridge mailing list rbridge@postel.org http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lA199ZgY015844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rbridge@postel.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 02:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA199YI9005867; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:09:35 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 1 Nov 2007 04:09:34 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 04:09:31 -0500 Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01E0BE88@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4728F8AC.8080506@sun.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study Thread-Index: AcgcCAZhrdJXc76bTRGby8lmIMMrSgAVvImA References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDEC7A@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <22446679.673821193851046308.JavaMail.root@nepenthes.hq.fulcrummicro.com> <4C94DE2070B172459E4F1EE14BD2364E920442@HQ-EXCH-5.corp.brocade.com> <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCF01DDF347@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4728F8AC.8080506@sun.com> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> To: "Radia Perlman" <Radia.Perlman@sun.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2007 09:09:34.0639 (UTC) FILETIME=[EBAE9BF0:01C81C66] X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: eric.gray@ericsson.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by boreas.isi.edu id lA199ZgY015844 Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study X-BeenThere: rbridge@postel.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge.postel.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge> List-Post: <mailto:rbridge@postel.org> List-Help: <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge>, <mailto:rbridge-request@postel.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:10:10 -0000 Status: RO Content-Length: 12490 Radia, I don't think you've quite captured the concern. As a matter of practicality, it is most likely to be the case that the (at least intended) "normal" paths across an RBridge campus will use either point to point, or RBridge exclusive LAN connections. In these cases, what you are saying is correct. However, it may be the case that there are also end stations located on a LAN connecting RBridges that are also (perhaps mostly) used as intermediate RBridges. Simple picture: _____ _____ _____ / \ +---+ / \ +---+ / \ { LAN-A }--+ 1 +--{ LAN-B }--+ 2 +--{ LAN-C } \_____/ +---+ \_____/ +---+ \_____/ | +-+-+ | 3 | +-+-+ __|__ / \ { LAN-D } \_____/ If you consider that LAN-B may have end stations, then part of the "load-sharing" concern has to do with sharing "load" associated with delivering frames to (or from) those local end stations. To do this, the VLAN-based DRB election may require that multiple RBridges (1, 2 and/or 3 in this case) - of course depending on the possibility that there are end stations in LAN-B in more than one VLAN. One could argue that a scenario like this - where the number of end-stations on LAN-B is sufficient to justify a "load sharing" concern - is artificially "constructed" (i.e. - unlikely to occur in a real network). However, it is a good idea to consider that one can arrive at this scenario, or one very like it, as a result of a fault in a deployment where redundancy is provided. For example, this topology - _____ / \ +---+ { LAN-A }--+ 1 +-. \_____/ +---+ \ | \_ _____ +-+-+ / \ | 4 | { LAN-B } +-+-+ _\_____/ __|__ / / \ +---+ / { LAN-C }--+ 2 +-' \_____/ +---+ - fails to this topology (on removing RBridge 4): _____ _____ _____ / \ +---+ / \ +---+ / \ { LAN-A }--+ 1 +--{ LAN-B }--+ 2 +--{ LAN-C } \_____/ +---+ \_____/ +---+ \_____/ The interesting point - in this case - is that it seems likely that a load-sharing election process was needed in the initial (unbroken) topology - and MUST NOT be broken by the "recovery" process associated with remote failure of RBridge 4. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Radia Perlman [mailto:Radia.Perlman@sun.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:51 PM > To: Eric Gray > Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > Importance: High > > Eric....if I understand your concern... > > Having all RBridge-RBridge traffic between neighbor > RBridges (RBridges on a single layer 2 cloud) take place on a > single VLAN > (whether the VLAN used be configurable for that cloud, or > whether it's > always VLAN 1), > does not preclude load splitting. "VLAN 1" as the VLAN tag in > the outer header is just used in order to get a packet from one > RBridge to a neighbor RBridge. Layer 3 techniques for load splitting, > traffic engineering, etc., > can be used for having RBridges choose paths across the campus. When > doing load > splitting, a smart RBridge, just like a router, could choose > anything it > can see in order to decide which > path to send a frame on, or which traffic to drop when there is > congestion, including the inner VLAN tag. And although some might > consider it > architecturally impure, there isn't anything precluding an > RBridge from > looking > even further into the packet and making forwarding/traffic > splitting/traffic dropping decisions based > on things like the diffsrv field in the IP > header, or the TCP ports. > > The outer VLAN tag is just how to wrap up the frame when > forwarding to > the next hop > RBridge that the RBridge forwarding decision has selected for > this frame. > > Radia > > > > Eric Gray wrote: > > Anoop, > > > > This is a generic VLAN bridging problem, commonly > > dealt with using VLAN bridges today. Clearly, it is not > > the case that all VLAN bridges are required to use a > > common VLAN for frame forwarding. > > > > In addition, as I understand it (in part based on > > James' reply), we are NOT saying that the common VLAN > > you mention must be used for all frame forwarding - > > hence it is likely that the existence of a common VLAN > > does not necessarily fix the problem. > > > > Just to be clear, if we were saying that a common > > VLAN must be used for all forwarding between RBridges, > > it quickly becomes obvious that load-sharing based on > > VLAN separation becomes useless in practice. If load > > sharing based on VID is not useful, then MSTP already > > provides L2 forwarding that makes more efficient use of > > links than would be possible using RBridges (unless all > > RBridge-to-RBridge connections are via P2P links). > > > > -- > > Eric Gray > > Principal Engineer > > Ericsson > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@brocade.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:33 PM > >> To: Zhi-Hern Loh; Eric Gray > >> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > >> Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >> Importance: High > >> > >> > >> Hern, > >> > >> That's one of the problems that we're trying to avoid > >> by forcing all RBridges on a bridged LAN to be configured > >> such that they are all reachable and see one another on > >> a single VLAN. > >> > >> Anoop > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Zhi-Hern Loh > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:17 AM > >>> To: Eric Gray > >>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > >>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>> > >>> Donald, > >>> > >>> In addition to Eric's questions, could you (or anyone else) > >>> explain what would happen in the following scenario? > >>> > >>> Toplogy: > >>> > >>> RBa > >>> / > >>> VID a > >>> / > >>> RBn-link X-----VID b------RBb > >>> > >>> Problem: > >>> > >>> RBn is connected to 2 VLANs on link/port X. Connectivity to > >>> RBa is via VLAN a, and connectivity to RBb is via VLAN b. > >>> > >>> Suppose that RBa and RBb are in the multi-destination > >>> distribution tree from RBn. For a multi-destination frame > >>> going out link/port X on RBn to RBa and RBb, what is the VID > >>> on the outer VLAN tag? Or could there be need to send 2 > >>> frames, one with VID a and another with VID b? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Hern > >>> Fulcrum Microsystems > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> > >>> To: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" > >>> <Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com>, "Zhi-Hern Loh" > >>> > >> <zloh@fulcrummicro.com> > >> > >>> Cc: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <rbridge@postel.org> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:16:33 AM (GMT-0800) > >>> America/Los_Angeles > >>> Subject: RE: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>> > >>> Donald, > >>> > >>> When you say "would all have the same Outer [VID]" > >>> - do you mean: > >>> > >>> 1) all frames MUST have the same VID within the an RBridge > >>> campus, > >>> 2) all frames forwarded from a (physical) port on one RBridge > >>> to a (physical) port on another RBridge MUST have the same > >>> VID, or > >>> 3) something else? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Eric Gray > >>> Principal Engineer > >>> Ericsson > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Eastlake III > >>>> Donald-LDE008 > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:22 AM > >>>> To: Zhi-Hern Loh > >>>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge. > >>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Yes, as noted in protocol draft -05, the pseudo code was > >>>> > >> unchanged > >> > >>>> from > >>>> -04 and is out of date. > >>>> > >>>> As currently being discussed, the TRILL encapsulated data being > >>>> forwarded out a particular physical port would all have the > >>>> > >>> same Outer > >>> > >>>> VLAN ID. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Donald > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of Zhi-Hern Loh > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:54 PM > >>>> To: Anoop Ghanwani > >>>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia Perlman; > >>>> > >> James Carlson > >> > >>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ----- "Anoop Ghanwani" <anoop@brocade.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: rbridge-bounces@postel.org > >>>>>> [mailto:rbridge-bounces@postel.org] On Behalf Of James Carlson > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:37 PM > >>>>>> To: Silvano Gai > >>>>>> Cc: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.; Radia.Perlman@Sun.COM > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [rbridge] RBridge: a case of study > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Silvano Gai writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Radia, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have added few slides to the example and I suggest that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> we use it as > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> a possible case of study for TRILL (of course, not the > >>>>>>> > >>>> only one). > >>>> > >>>>>>> Let's see if the solutions we have discussed work on this > >>>>>>> > >>>>> example. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> The complete case of study is at: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.ip6.com/acme-example-v1.ppt > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a few narrow questions that I think might help me > >>>>>> understand this picture a bit better. (I probably have more > >>>>>> questions once I know the narrow answers. ;-}) > >>>>>> > >>>>> Let me take a shot at answering these. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 1. After the proposed fix, should VLAN 3 on Cloud L > >>>>>> > >>> be bridged > >>> > >>>>>> together with VLAN 3 on Cloud R, even though > >>>>>> > >> the backbone > >> > >>>>> itself > >>>>> > >>>>>> doesn't directly carry VLAN 3? (I.e., are TRILL > >>>>>> > >>>> packets with > >>>> > >>>>>> outer VLAN ID 7 or 8 and with inner VLAN 3 > >>>>>> > >> present on the > >> > >>>>>> backbone?) > >>>>>> > >>>>> Yes, that's pretty much what ends up happening. > >>>>> We have effectively extended the bridged LAN. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Anoop, I'm reading the RBridge protocol specification > >>>> > >>> version 5 and it > >>> > >>>> seems to me that your comment is inconsistent with the spec. > >>>> In section, > >>>> 5.2.2.3, the spec says that the outer VLAN tag of TRILL data > >>>> frames has > >>>> the same VID as the inner tag. Is this section going to > >>>> > >> be changed? > >> > >>>> Futhermore, if we were to use different VIDs on outer VLAN > >>>> tags then we > >>>> would need to handle the multi-destination case where one > >>>> would need to > >>>> send a multi-destination frame per outer VID to communicate > >>>> with the RBs > >>>> in the distribution tree which are using different VIDs. Is this > >>>> correct? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Hern > >>>> Fulcrum Microsystems > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rbridge mailing list > >>>> rbridge@postel.org > >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> rbridge mailing list > >>>> rbridge@postel.org > >>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> rbridge mailing list > >>> rbridge@postel.org > >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > >>> > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rbridge mailing list > > rbridge@postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge > > > >
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Anoop Ghanwani
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Caitlin Bestler
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Dinesh G Dutt
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Anoop Ghanwani
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Caitlin Bestler
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Anoop Ghanwani
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eric Gray
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Dinesh G Dutt
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Radia Perlman
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Caitlin Bestler
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Silvano Gai
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Anoop Ghanwani
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Joe Touch
- [rbridge] Consensus Check: Point to Point links Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
- [rbridge] Consensus Withdrawn: Point to Point lin… Eastlake III Donald-LDE008