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

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:11:48 -0300

Guillermo,

	We should talk - possibly off-line - about word-smithing
the text around STP/RSTP.  I would prefer not to try to guess
what people would like me to say about this (or other) issue(s).
For one thing, it would be nice if you could provide detailed
references (organization, authors - if listed - dates, etc.).

	Bearing in mind that this document is aimed at nailing
down what the requirements are for routing protocol - extensions,
compatibility, etc. - we should not spend to much time and energy
on making sure that what this draft says on non-routing related
reuirements.  Instead, I think we should make sure that the set
of drafts/RFCs that the WG develops are consistent.  Admittedly,
since the over-all requirements, framework and architecture IDs
are not out yet, this is the current draft to address such issues
with.  However, the wording in this draft reflects the original
words in the draft cited in the WG charter.

	As for "zero configuration", this is a goal.  If we cannot
achieve it, that is one thing - but I do not think we want to 
start by weasle-wording our goals.  I don't think anyone believes
we're going to get by with zero-configuration in every case, but
then we're not saying that this goal MUST be achieved in every 
case.  So, I think we should not complicate our goals by overly
qualifying them too much.  Down that way is a slippery slope...

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
--> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]On
--> Behalf Of Guillermo Ib??ez
--> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 6:48 AM
--> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] R-Bridge Routing Requirements draft is now
--> available
--> 
--> 
--> 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:
--> 
--> >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-rout
ing-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
>_______________________________________________
>rbridge mailing list
>rbridge at postel.org
>http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org
http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

---

From: gibanez at it.uc3m.es (Guillermo Ibáñez)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:28:50 +0200

Eric,

Gray, Eric wrote:

>reuirements.  
Agree

>Instead, I think we should make sure that the set
>start by weasle-wording our goals. 
>
I was just trying to be precise, the goal  now is  get rid of IP 
addresses dependencies.

> I don't think anyone believes
Well, I think that when zero configuration was stated, only referred to 
IP addresses and subnetting independency.
When VLAN configuration issue has been identified, it has been excluded 
from the WG (assume some external method or tool is used). As VLAN 
configuration is among the most significant efforts, it is misleading to 
continue using the general term
zero-configuration without precision of what is meant.