Subject: [rbridge] header rough consensus

From: sgai at nuovasystems.com (Silvano Gai)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 09:26:00 -0700

Trying to summarize the results, my understanding is:

Solution 1
- Silvano
- Dino
- Joe
- Eric

Solution 2
- Donald

Not sure about:
- Dinesh
- Radia

Am I correct?
Did I miss anybody?

-- Silvano

---

From: Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com (Eastlake III Donald-LDE008)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:45:43 -0400

Hi Silvano,

It had not escaped my notice that the three other people posting an
opinion on this topic are thus far unanimously of the opposite opinion
from mine. :-) In fact, I spoke on the telephone with Erik Nordmark, my
co-chair, on this topic last Friday. We are jointly of the opinion that
there may be new arguments on this question or arguments that have not
been fully explained and we should wait some small number of days
further before making a consensus determination.

Thanks,
Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On
Behalf Of Silvano Gai
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 12:26 PM
To: rbridge at postel.org
Subject: [rbridge] header rough consensus

Solution 1
- Silvano
- Dino
- Joe
- Eric

Solution 2
- Donald

Not sure about:
- Dinesh
- Radia

Am I correct?
Did I miss anybody?

-- Silvano

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge at postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

---

From: ddutt at cisco.com (Dinesh G Dutt)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 08:05:30 -0700

I waffled for a bit and ended up with I prefer solution 1,

Dinesh

-- 
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by 
the depth of our answers.                               - Carl Sagan

---

From: jrrivers at nuovasystems.com (J. R. Rivers)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 09:40:37 -0700

I prefer option 1.

JR

> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Dinesh G Dutt
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:06 AM
> To: Silvano Gai
> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] header rough consensus
>

---

From: jrrivers at nuovasystems.com (J. R. Rivers)
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 09:55:06 -0700

I wanted to point out three addition things...

First, since one of TRILL's goals is L2 multi-pathing, I think we'll
find that information from layers other than L2 will be used for
distributing frames (ie. IP addresses, TCP/UDP ports, FC_IDs) as is done
for L2 port channels and IP multipathing today.  This means that
implementations will likely have to parse past the TRILL header in all
cases.

Second, care must be taken surrounding the expectations of the extension
header.  Since it's usage is undefined, there is a good chance that
implementations will evaluate/forward frames with extensions in the slow
path.  I would vote that extensions get evaluated/defined in their own
groups and get real Ethertypes.  Particularly scary is that the
extensibility in the proposal is currently 124B which is roughly twice
the size of a min sized Ethernet frame.

Lastly, TRILL frames traversing legacy L2 networks would likely travel
down a port bundle.  Since TRILL is a new Ethertype, most existing
bundle distribution systems will use a the L2 DA/SA/VLAN to select links
(they won't be able to get to higher level protocols).  We might want to
allow an RBridge to have multiple synonymous MAC addresses that can be
used as the Ethernet SA to facilitate load balancing.  The transmitting
RBridge could select a source address based on a load balancing
algorithm.

JR

> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Silvano Gai
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:26 AM