Subject: Interest in the workgroup...

From: [email-masked] (Scott Adams)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 14:36:41 -0400 (EDT)

Hello there!

Yes, I am very interested in loop prevention.  Unfortunately, I'm also
very interested in starting up at my new position here are Cayman
(with all the necessary things to do), and with what's happening in
the other (very active) workgroups.  So, I expect to participate more
within the next couple of weeks, as these other things quiet down a
little.

Some thoughts that I've had (stimulated/initiated by the little
traffic that has already flowed)...

Loop prevention is clearly not a priority for most vendors interested
in DLS, so proposing something that would require a significant
investment in development will probably not play very well in Peoria.
The capabilities exchange workgroup had seen some traffic about the
issue of identifying what would be considered base level DLS, with
everything else being optional (and negotiating use of these options
during capabilities exchange).  I'd say loop prevention definitely
falls into the category of optional.

As far as an implementation proposal...  There seems to be a leaning
towards implementing a spanning tree algorithm.  Is there some other
way that this could be accomplished?  A spanning tree 'discovery'
process isn't a trivial piece of coding to add to DLS.  What about
internally (to DLS) keeping track of queries (TESTs and NetBIOS name
queries), and not propogating duplicates?  I'm probably broadcasting
my minimal knowlege of SNA here (my primary focus, contrary to
everyone else, is NetBIOS), but hey, nothing ventured nothing
gained...

If a spanning tree technique is the only way to handle this (other
than the configuration commandment "Thou Shalt Not Configure Loops in
DLS Mesh Networks"), then please tell me why...

In the meantime, is anyone willing to put out a straw-man proposal, or
have any other ideas?

Scott

---

From: Choon Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 10:48:35 -0700

>> falls into the category of optional.
Yes, I agree. I'll (if you hanve not already) raise that with the capability
exchange siglet.

>> everyone else, is NetBIOS), but hey, nothing ventured nothing
Whether spanning tree is used or not, the decision of which DLSw link to
block will probably have to be made before a TEST or NETBIOS name query is
sent out.

>> DLS Mesh Networks"), then please tell me why...
I hope we do not have to rely on configuration commandment.

>> In the meantime, is anyone willing to put out a straw-man proposal, or

Regards,

Choon Lee
3Com Corp