[rbridge] : Application of RBRidge

Hi,

Please see the TRILL Charter at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/trill-charter.html and the drafts
linked off that page, particularly the problem and applicability
statement draft. TRILL is chartered to specify a solution using
link-state routing technology. There is also an effort to solve the
problem using entirely spanning tree technology in IEEE 802.1aq,
http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1aq.html. (By the way, if you are
interested, these parallel efforts are being pursued by mutual agreement
after discussions at the highest level between the IETF and IEEE 802.)

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
Behalf Of N, Venkatesh
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:00 PM
To: Silvano Gai; Joe Touch
Cc: rbridge at postel.org; Radia Perlman
Subject: [rbridge] : Application of RBRidge

Hello All,

I'm new to this group, can someone point me to application of RBridges?
Sorry to ask some thing very basic.

As per my understanding existing protocols like MSTP would do good job
of load distribution of traffic in l2 network.

Regards,
Venky

-----Original Message-----
From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
Behalf Of Silvano Gai
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:49 PM
To: Joe Touch
Cc: rbridge at postel.org; Radia Perlman
Subject: Re: [rbridge] TTL only - was RE: New fields in shim header?

OK,
Let's restrict the discussion to IEEE 802.1-compliant Ethernet networks.

Today the outer header contains: 

   o  L2 destination = next RBridge, or for flooded frames, a new (to be

      assigned) multicast layer 2 address meaning "all RBridges" 

   o  L2 source = transmitting RBridge (the one that most recently 
      handled this frame)

If we want to avoid carrying the egress RBridge address in the shim
header, we need to put it in the outer header - L2 destination.

Is this what you are proposing?

-- Silvano

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 7:07 AM
To: Silvano Gai
Cc: Radia Perlman; rbridge at postel.org
Subject: Re: TTL only - was RE: [rbridge] New fields in shim header?

Silvano Gai wrote:
> Joe,
> 
> Let me focus on the need of RBridge addresses.
> 
> I didn't propose them; they are in the current WG draft:
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-protocol-00
> .txt
> to achieve scalability at the ISIS level.
> 
> The outer MAC addresses are present only if the frame is sent over 802
> link (section 2.9), but it may not be present on other media;
therefore
> TRILL cannot rely on them.
> 
> If you disagree with these two points, I think you disagree with the
> work that has been done in TRILL till now.

I agree with the charter, which limits us to specifying solutions that
work on 802.1 nets:

---
The TRILL WG will design a solution for shortest-path frame routing in
multi-hop IEEE 802.1-compliant Ethernet networks with arbitrary
topologies, using an existing link-state routing protocol technology.
---

The fact that the architecture discusses other links is OK; it's
informational anyway.

Joe

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge