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

Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I don't understand why you say that. Seem to me that TRILL over PPP
> just involves the formats, code points, and PPP procedures. Anyway, it
> isn't clear to me that anyone will build a practical RBridge that
> doesn't have a MAC address Ethernet interface even if it is just a
> virtual internal interface for a virtual internal end station. If that
> doesn't exist, you can't really address the RBridge for management or
> maintenance.

Sure, you could.  It would just have to be addressed via IP (e.g., via
SNMP, ssh, or even TELNET) rather than by something locked into Ethernet.

One could imagine a large TRILL bridge designed for telecom applications
exclusively on the interior of the cloud, where the only possible links
are point-to-point; no Ethernet need apply.

Whether anyone ever builds that beast -- and, if so, whether it lacks
any built-in mechanism for automatic System ID assignment -- is a
different question.

What we're really discussing is whether failing to cover this case with
some sort of automatic resolution is a hole in the specification (as I
think Mr. Simpson is contending), or whether it's just an unlikely
corner that implementors should be warned away from (as I believe).

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext