Re: Response to anti-bridge comments


kik (kik%CERNVAX.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu)
6 Apr 87 07:26:02 GMT


   I get the impression that, in the discussion on Bridge functionality,
people are not taking enough trouble to distinguish between the *service*
and the *communications*.

   The service is to filter and forward, based on destination address.
There is no reason for the filtering not to be shared, in a disjoint way,
by any number of devices. In fact, we intend to do this. The load-sharing
and backup algorithms are designed and we plan to implement them on our own
equipment once we get the time.

   The communications can be based on point-to-point links, satellites,
etc. In fact, the choice of communications is limited only by your
networking ability. For example, DEC and Vitalink have "invented" a
spanning-tree approach to provide redundant communcation. This is really
primitive. We, at CERN, use a genuine communications subnet with all of
the build-in advantages (originally designed for inter-computer traffic,
and all the better for that!). The ideal backbone for such purposes would
be a high-speed bus-type network (we're hoping for FDDI).

    I am trying to rewrite the IEEE 802.1 document on MAC-level bridges to
reflect the clear separation between
   a) address resolution and
   b) routing
so that the current confusion can be avoided.

          Cheers

               Crispin PINEY



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:37:47 GMT