Design for a Routing Bridge
draft-perlman-zerouter-rbridge-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Radia Perlman , Aidan Williams | ||
| Last updated | 2003-06-13 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This design provides the ability to have an entire campus, with multiple physical links, look to IP like a single subnet. This capability is often provided today with bridges. Bridges have the advantage of being plug-and-play. However, they have disadvantages: routing is confined to a spanning tree, the header on which the spanning tree forwards has no hop count, spanning tree forwarding in the presence of loops spawns exponential copies of packets, nodes can have only a single point of attachment, and the spanning tree, in order to avoid temporary loops, is slow to start forwarding on new ports. The design in this paper avoids those disadvantages of bridges. The basic design is layer 3-independent, and is a design for bridging with a shortest-path routing algorithm (instead of spanning tree paths), and with more robust forwarding. Then the design is extended to provide IP-specific optimizations.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)