Re: [rbridge] Last Call: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs (TRILL RoutingRequirements in Support of RBridges) to Informational RFC

[Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On 20. mars 2007 09:35 -0700 Silvano Gai <sgai at nuovasystems.com> wrote:
>
> >  5) Introduction - Bridging limitation. The first paragraph refers to
> >  Ethernet networks used without Spanning Tree. This is irrelevant, since
> >  Spanning Tree is always deployed in conjunction with Ethernet. The
> >  correct contrast must be between Ethernet with Spanning Tree and
> >  Ethernet with TRILL. The claim of a single broadcast/flooding domain is
> >  incorrect since VLANs have solved this issue many years ago.
>
> "always" is too strong, since most unmanaged bridges (intended for consumers' 
> home networks, but often dangled off the edge of corporate networks as port 
> expanders, without asking for permission) don't seem to be supporting 
> Spanning Tree. However, these are not going to support TRILL either, so for 
> the environments considered here, "always" is probably true.

FWIW, not sure if it matters, but our offices have a relatively 
small Ethernet network (50+ switches) and we halved this issue many years ago.
> =20
> "always" is too strong, since most unmanaged bridges (intended for=20
> consumers' home networks, but often dangled off the edge of corporate=20
> networks as port expanders, without asking for permission)=20
> don't seem to be=20
> supporting Spanning Tree. However, these are not going to=20
> support TRILL=20
> either, so for the environments considered here, "always" is=20
> probably true.
> =20
>                Harald
> =20
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
> =20

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf