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 11:20:01 -0500

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
-->