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

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:02:58 -0300

Guillermo,

	I am not sure where you get the statement "the goal now is
to get rid of IP address dependencies."  You assert this, but that
does not make it true.  As far as I know, the goal has been - and
yet remains - to make the solution as near "zero configuration" as
possible, including actual "zero configuration" in at least some
(possibly simplistic) deployment scenarios.

	If we look back over previous discussion(s), it seems clear
that one of the reasons for undertaking this effort is to merge
the at least near-zero configuration of bridges with efficient
link utilization typical of shortest path routing.

	Do people think that has changed?

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
--> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]On
--> Behalf Of Guillermo Ib??ez
--> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:29 AM
--> To: Developing a hybrid router/bridge.
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] R-Bridge Routing Requirements draft is now
--> availabl e
--> 
--> 
--> Eric,
--> 
--> Gray, Eric wrote:
--> 
--> >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.  
--> >
--> Agree
--> 
--> >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 was just trying to be precise, the goal  now is  get rid of IP 
--> addresses dependencies.
--> 
--> > 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...
--> >
--> >  
--> >
--> 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.
--> 
--> >--
--> >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
--> >_______________________________________________
--> >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
-->