Subject: [rbridge] Comments on: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr aft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:48:28 -0500

Russ,

	I agree completely.

--
Eric 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Russ White [mailto:riw at cisco.com] 
--> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:27 AM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: Silvano Gai; rbridge at postel.org
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Comments on: 
--> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr 
--> aft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt
--> 
--> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
--> Hash: SHA1
--> 
--> 
--> > 	The notion of using a L2 version of ECMP is - IMO - in no way
--> > implied
--> > by the text in the charter.  Nor is there any explicit 
--> intention to preclude
--> > this type of activity - with the caveat that anyone doing 
--> so has to assume
--> > responsibility for not "breaking" the interoperability model.
--> 
--> And this is as it should be, IMHO. If you know, for 
--> certain, that your
--> entire network is made up of rbridges, rather than a 
--> mixture of various
--> types of bridging devices, then you could use L2 ECMP. If you don't,
--> then you (probably) can't.
--> 
--> I think this decision is in the hands of network operators and
--> implementors, though, not in the hands of the spec writers. 
--> If we say:
--> "X is dangerous in specific situation Y, therefore we will 
--> never allow
--> X," then we are shutting down possible avenues for 
--> growth--such as the
--> stuff we're talking about with F-Tags.
--> 
--> :-)
--> 
--> Russ
--> 
--> - --
--> riw at cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone
--> 
--> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
--> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
--> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
--> 
--> iD8DBQFFSMq2ER27sUhU9OQRAkrFAJ0cDSgqRhSi5zT6SvbCOO0z4PUCcQCfQJ3l
--> 8omzi9hZhNEBFvKNWeYo1kQ=
--> =eRrz
--> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-->