Re: [rbridge] working group last call for PPP TRILL protocol control protocol [was Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-pppext-trill-protocol-02.txt]

Hi James,

IMHO there should be no mention of IS-IS in the PPP draft. As IS-IS is
a control plane protocol (we could as well use static Rbridge route
entries - a requirement we have heard from 2 of our customers) and PPP
is the data plane.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:17 AM, James Carlson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I think your position below is reasonable. The System ID of an IS-IS
>> router is certainly not required to be any sort of MAC address, it
>> just has to be a 48-bit quantity unique among the IS-IS routers whose
>> link state entries need to be distinguished.
>>
>> Perhaps Section 3, point 3, should be reworded to something like: "In
>> the case of an RBridge with only PPP links, the practice of using the
>> MAC address of an interface for the IS-IS System ID will not be
>> available. The implementor will have to use other means, such as
>> deriving a System ID from a MAC address allocated to the device as a
>> whole, to assure that it has a campus-wide unique System ID."
>
> That seems quite reasonable to me.  I just want to steer clear of
> writing too much of the IS-IS requirements into this draft, as I think
> the overall system design implications are out of scope.
>
> --
> James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext