RE: [16NG] RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs (IPv6 Overthe IPSpecific part of the Packet Convergence sublayer in802.16 Networks) toProposed Standard

It seems the standardized approach keeps the classification process most
simple and hardware friendly by preventing recursive processing
dependent on the payload content. But for Ethernet this is happening
anyhow (Ethertype/IEEE802.1 SAP field), so I am wondering too.

Bye
Max

-----Original Message-----
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:33 PM
To: James Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; 16ng@ietf.org
Subject: [16NG] RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs (IPv6
Overthe IPSpecific part of the Packet Convergence sublayer in802.16
Networks) toProposed Standard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] 

> I've read through the document as well as (most of) the mailing list
> discussion, and I don't see anything that directly addresses one
> possible issue here.
> 
> That issue is the exclusive use of IPv4 or IPv6 on Packet CS.  Why
> must it be exclusive?  The first four bits of the datagram tell you
> conclusively whether you're looking at IPv4 or IPv6, so why is strict
> segregation needed?
> 
> Can't both run on the same link?

For that matter, why was this same segregation standardized for
Ethernet? I always wondered about that.

Bert

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng