evb protocol alternatives. Bob Sultan ( firstname.lastname@example.org ). Two models for evb protocols. Server Control or Bridge Control. Discover capabilities of physical link peers eg., I support ‘Multichannel’ / I see you support ‘Multichannel’. Channel Binding
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
evb protocol alternatives Bob Sultan ( email@example.com )
Two models for evb protocols Server Control or Bridge Control Discover capabilities of physical link peerseg., I support ‘Multichannel’ / I see you support ‘Multichannel’. Channel Binding Server requests use of channel (eg., of type RR or NRR) / Bridge supplies SVID of granted channel or denies request. VSI-to-Profile Binding Server requests binding between VSI and Profile / Bridge indicates whether binding granted or failed. LLDP (with new TLV or extension of existing TLV carrying capabilities such as ‘Multichannel’) Binding Control Protocol (BCP) contains generic binding management state machines Channel Binding Protocol contains specific channel binding management state machines VSI-to-Profile Binding Protocol contains specific VSI-to-Profile binding management state machines LLDP LLDP-like (different Ethertype) T3P(R) LLDP-like with transport capabilities) transport areas of agreement three transport alternatives model 1 (register individual bindings; generic binding protocol; no transport needed) model 2 (synchronize full binding database; type-specific binding protocol; transport needed)
Notes • There is agreement on the three types of information conveyed by the evb protocols: physical link capabilities, Channel bindings, VSI-to-Profile bindings (top layer in figure); • There is agreement that physical link capabilities requires only a straightforward application of classic LLDP; • There are two general models for the management of channel bindings (when capabilities indicates that channels are present) and VSI-to-Profile bindings: • generic Binding Control Protocol: assumes that bindings can be established/released independent of one another (e.g., in the case of establishing a new VSI-to-Profile binding, it is not necessary to communicate the entire VSI-to-Profile database); does not require a transport protocol; • type-specific Binding Protocols with a generic transport protocol; assumes that the complete set of bindings must be communicated every time a binding is established/released; requires the use of a transport protocol; • Several transport alternatives have been proposed (red boxes with various patterns);