Subject: [rbridge] R-Bridge Routing Requirements draft is now available

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:55:37 -0300

The draft "Routing Requirements in Support of R-Bridges" - submitted last 
Friday - is now available at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gray-rbridge-routing-reqs-00.txt

This draft borrows heavily from the earlier draft-perlman-rbridge-03.txt
and is very preliminary.  I am looking for input for the various sections
- particularly those that currently only contain "TBD" :-)

This was one of the drafts that the working group felt would be required
at the last meeting.

--
Eric Gray

---

From: gibanez at it.uc3m.es (Guillermo Ibáñez)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:48:15 +0200

Eric,
Some comments on draft,
- When mentioning Spanning Tree Protocol (STP), is convenient to 
distinguish and/or mention both spanning tree protocols : legacy STP and 
Rapid Spanning Tree Protocol RSTP (802.1D). In general, I  recommend to 
use the term RSTP for clarity whenever possible and add a sentence like: 
"...The current IEEE standard specifies RSTP, although both STP and RSTP 
bridges will exist and must be supported....
- In the abstract,  "zero configuration" is mentioned. If VLANs must be 
configured, I do not think real zero configuration can be claimed. May 
be it should say "zero IP addresses/subnets configuration" or something 
like that.
- Some name or acronym for the spanning trees between Rbridges would 
help to reduce the confusion created by two types of spanning trees 
coexisting :  STP(RSTP) and between Rbridges.  A possibility is to call 
them  *RBSTs* or RBTs ..(Routing Bridges [Spanning] Trees).

Guillermo

Gray, Eric wrote:

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

---

From: harald at alvestrand.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:00:23 -0700

--On 24. oktober 2005 12:48 +0200 Guillermo Ib??ez <gibanez at it.uc3m.es> 
wrote:

> them  *RBSTs* or RBTs ..(Routing Bridges [Spanning] Trees)

why not name them for their function, and call them multicast distribution 
trees?

It's after all an essential point of the design that the unicast packets do 
NOT have to follow the spanning trees; the unicast routing tables will form 
a directed acyclic graph (DAG), not a tree.

                  Harald

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/rbridge/attachments/20051024/ab2fa1c3/attachment.bin