Re: Question on RFC1577.

[Mark Laubach <[e-mail]>]

> used (IMHO).  I think this is just a layering issue, and using LLC/SNAP 
> encapsulation implies that the peer LLC entities send packets to each other 
> and they then demultiplex them to the LLC users (ARP, IP, etc).  I don't think
> there's a problem as long as you use null encapsulation on the ATMARP
> VC, but as soon as you default to LLC/SNAP encapsulation then you introduce
> another peer-to-peer layer under ARP/IP.  Introducing LLC means that you
> differentiate between IP and ARP at the LLC layer rather than at the ATM
> (VC) layer and make them reachable via the same LLC entity.  Yes?  No?

Having a multiprotocol encapsulation does not imply that you are 
supporting all layered (demux'd) protocols above that encapsulation.

> > What am I missing in this picture? (he says, hoping for a deluge of
> > points....)
> 
> I think there is general confusion about using LLC VCs simply because the
> use of the LLC layer for ATM is not well defined (and I too may be greatly
> confused here).  I hope we get a deluge of comments too, since this will
> help us all resolve any potential interoperability problems sooner than later.
> I'm always open to a deluge of contructive comments ;-)

Our decision process selected LLC/SNAP and that's what we'll work with.
I think the wealth of experience that we're accumulating here will 
be key to driving the definition of how to use the LLC layer in ATM.

Mark