Hi Eric,
Eric Gray (LO/EUS) wrote:
- "Inefficient inter-bridge connection usage". What do you
mean by this phrase?
I guess my issue is the choice of words "inter-bridge connection usage".
"connection" is undefined and not sure if it is the right word.
If traffic is demonstrably required to traverse more links
than some theoretical minimum, than link utilization is -
by definition - less efficient than it theoretically can
be.
If this what you want to say, something along the lines of "Non-optimal
pair-wise forwarding of unicast frames using spanning tree also results
in inefficient usage of links" will be sufficient. However, I think that
merely stating the lack of non-optimal pair-wise forwarding is
sufficient to imply this and many other issues around this style.
What is proposed in the current solution is to run a spanning tree
protocol instance per port which maybe not scalable.
I think something like "It's strongly desirable to minimize the
interaction between the bridges and Rbridges and constrain a
spanning tree" is more appropriate.
Yet it is difficult to imagine how this would translate to a
requirement that would make sense to someone evaluating the
acceptability of a routing protocol for the TRILL problem-space.
Perhaps it would be simpler to omit the offending text?
OK with me.
Dinesh
--
We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by
the depth of our answers. - Carl Sagan
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
