Hi Eric, On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-05: No Objection > > ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is probably a dumb question but I notice that there's no > filtering here for for example, VLAN IDs which the sending agent > doesn't seem to be relevant for. Can you explain why that's not > needed/desirable?
I'm not 100% sure I understand you question but it seems like you are suggesting that an RBridge RB1 receiving an Address Flush message from RB2 for VLAN X might ignore that message if it thinks VLAN X isn't relevant to the sending RB2. (If VLAN X is not relevant to the receiving RBridge RB1 then there won't be any remembered addresses at RB1 and the flush message will have no effect.) RBridges can in fact indicate the VLANs they are "interested in" but one effect of doing so is that they get sent all the broadcast traffic in that VLAN and all the unicast traffic where the attachment of the destination MAC is unknown, and, except to the extent that multicast pruning is implemented, all the multicast traffic in that VLAN. Assume the sending RB2 is a management station that is participating as an RBridge so that it can get all the link state information. Such a management station might want to be able to issue an address flush message in any VLAN but not want to indicate interest in most VLANs because it does not want to receive multi-destination traffic in those VLANs Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
