[Rstplib-users] RE: Question: 'upstream' handshake in 802.1w

[<al...@nb...>]

Mick,

I don't understand you: what do you mean under "this certainly
works". Yes, in .1w the topology becomes stable, fully and simply connected,
but after only about 6 seconds.

[Apropos, it seems to me, that the same problem is an explanation
for case of http://www.ieee802.org/1/private/email/msg00348.html]

My proposition is devoted to decrease this time.

Why such handshake is critically timer dependent ? Why it is worse
than the handshake, described in the second half of 17.19 and
using variables like 'proposing', 'propose', 'sync', 'synced' and 'agreed' ?

I propose *in addition* to introduce new and similar variables and to
use new bits in the field "Flags" of RSTP BPDU.

Your reply will be accepted with gratitude.

With respect, Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mick Seaman [mailto:mic...@ie...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:06 AM
> To: 'Mick Seaman'; Ar...@op...;
> std...@ie...; rst...@li...;
> bri...@ie...
> Subject: RE: Question: indirect link fail in 802.1w
>
>
>
> This certainly works (subject to accuracies of representation
> in the spec of
> what "this" is) without such a handshake (see you closing
> statement below),
> and as the handshake is critically timer dependent it is
> against the spirit
> of .1w. I was aware of the handshake mechanism well before
> deisgning .1w.
>
> Mick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mick Seaman [mailto:mic...@ie...]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:14 PM
> To: 'Ar...@op...'; 'std...@ie...';
> 'rst...@li...'; 'bri...@ie...'
> Subject: RE: Question: indirect link fail in 802.1w
>
>
> Alex,
>
> I suggest you test this out using the RSTP Visio simulation.
>
> The only case in which any of these ports could be Backup is
> a deficiency in
> the spec or the interpretation of the spec, so extra protocol is not
> required.
>
> Mick
>