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

From: sgai at nuovasystems.com (Silvano Gai)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:28:34 -0800

Eric,

When I propose something that is not in the charter, it is out of scope
because not in the charter; when I propose something that is in the
charter, it is out of scope because "this is not what the charter is
meant to
describe."

Let's be fair!

IMHO, if TRILL does not support Layer 2 ECMP, it is not interesting at
all for us. All the interest in replacing Spanning Tree is to get Layer
2 ECMP.

-- Silvano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gray, Eric [mailto:Eric.Gray at marconi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:20 AM
> To: Silvano Gai
> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Comments on: http://www.ietf.org/internet-
> drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt
> 
> Silvano,
> 
> 	As I said in my other reply, this is not what the charter is
meant
> to
> describe.
> 
> --
> Eric
> 
> --> -----Original Message-----
> --> From: Silvano Gai [mailto:sgai at nuovasystems.com]
> --> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:08 AM
> --> To: Gray, Eric
> --> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> --> Subject: RE: [rbridge] Comments on:
> --> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge
> --> -arch-01.txt
> -->
> -->
> --> Eric,
> -->
> --> The charter says:
> --> "load-splitting among multiple paths"
> --> The pragmatic way to achieve this is to implement Layer 2 ECMP
> -->
> --> -- Silvano
> -->
> -->
> --> > -----Original Message-----
> --> > From: Gray, Eric [mailto:Eric.Gray at marconi.com]
> --> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 9:25 AM
> --> > To: Silvano Gai
> --> > Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> --> > Subject: RE: [rbridge] Comments on:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-
> --> > drafts/draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-arch-01.txt
> --> >
> --> > Silvano,
> --> >
> --> > 	See below...
> --> >
> --> > --
> --> > Eric
> --> >
> --> > -- [snip] --
> --> > -->
> --> > --> Sgai 2> I think we should explicitly mention layer 2
> --> multipath.
> --> > -->
> --> > -- [snip] --
> --> > -->
> --> >
> --> > What do you mean by layer 2 multipath?
> --> >
> --> > Do you mean "link bundling" or something else?
> --> >
> --> > Are we trying now to apply ECMP to routing advertisements
> --> for layer
> --> > two reachability?  That's a big step, particularly when we need
to
> --> > retain compatibility with existing 802.1 bridges.
> --> >
> --> > I don't recall seeing anything about this in the problem
statement
> --> > document, so I don't know of any reason why we should
> --> include it in
> --> > the architecture.
> --> >
> --> > --
> --> > Eric
> -->