RE: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

["Attila Takacs" <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>]

Hi Igor,

 

But how the separation of VLAN ID space would help in this case? If PBB packets are leaked into PBB-TE they will be immediately dropped because there will be no PBB-TE connections configured for such packets. If PBB-TE packets are leaked into PBB, than, since, PBB knows nothing about PBB-TE anyway the packets will be flooded across the PBB domain.  

 

Unfortunately, leaking from PBB to PBB-TE does not necessarily means immediate discarding of PBB frames. Due to the VLAN separation between PBB and PBB-TE, there is no clear layering here. Hence leaking can essentially mean that the VID of a bridged (PBB) frame is changed to a VID used for explicitly routed connections (PBB-TE). This does not necessarily means that the frame will be dropped. It is a valid assumption that the MAC address of the PBB frame is configured in the PBB-TE region as well and as such leakig PBB traffic will be forwarded as if it would belong to an explicitly routed connection.

Note that what I just wrote is true regardless whether PBB-TE uses specially allocated ranges of VLANIDs or all VLANIDs. Hence there is no architectural need for the VLANID space separation.
  

I think this is not necessary true, if one allocates the whole VLAN space to PBB-TE then there will be no bridged traffic in the network. As a consequence no leaking and no other cross effects is to be expected.

 

Best regards,

Attila