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 12:09:11 -0500

Silvano,

	There is a difference.  I've been participating in this working
group for some time, and I have not heard anyone suggest using L2 ECMP
is what the charter means by "load-splitting among multiple paths." 

	However, I agree we need to be fair.  Consequently, let's ask 
other people to weigh in on this issue.  You assert that the charter 
means to include L2 ECMP as an explicit requirement of the TRILL work.  
I assert that it does not.

	What do other people say?

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Silvano Gai [mailto:sgai at nuovasystems.com] 
--> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:29 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,
--> 
--> 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
--> > -->
-->