Re: Multicast in draft version 5 comments

Caralyn Brown <cbrown@baynetworks.com> Wed, 03 January 1996 17:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15648; 3 Jan 96 12:27 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15644; 3 Jan 96 12:27 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27670; 3 Jan 96 12:27 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15627; 3 Jan 96 12:27 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15623; 3 Jan 96 12:26 EST
Received: from lobster.corpeast.baynetworks.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27388; 3 Jan 96 12:26 EST
Received: from pobox.BayNetworks.com (pobox.corpeast.baynetworks.com) by lobster.wellfleet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08705; Wed, 3 Jan 96 12:25:37 EST
Received: from godiva.engeast by pobox.BayNetworks.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07773; Wed, 3 Jan 96 12:26:31 EST
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 12:26:31 EST
X-Orig-Sender: iplpdn-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Caralyn Brown <cbrown@baynetworks.com>
Message-Id: <9601031726.AA07773@pobox.BayNetworks.com>
Received: by godiva.engeast (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01951; Wed, 3 Jan 96 12:26:05 EST
To: James Watt <james@ca.newbridge.com>
Cc: Alan Bartky <alan@xylan.com>, omni!baynetworks.com!cbrown@xylan.com, iplpdn@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Multicast in draft version 5 comments
In-Reply-To: <199601031719.MAA25717@thor.ca.newbridge.com>
References: <9601022238.AA04443@irvine.XYLAN.COM> <199601031719.MAA25717@thor.ca.newbridge.com>

Indeed.  This sounds right to me.  I can fix up the Circuit multicast
with no problem.  I guess the daft update has been out there so long, I just
assumed both were in the original.  Thanks for pointing out that this is
not the case.  

I'll fix the multicast thing.  However, I don't have the exact reference
from the forum at the moment so it will take me a while to come up with
the correct reference.  Prepare for rev 6!!!


c

On Wed,  3 January, James Watt (james@ca.newbridge.com) wrote:

> Folks:
>   Dlcmi looks too much like Dlci for my over-rested eyes. Now that I'm
> unconfused:
> 
> 1) frDlcmiMulticast was in RFC 1315 (and was read-write there) and
>    doesn't need any changes.  It basically tells you whether the 
>    attached network can be assumed to be able to do non-unicast VCs.
> 
> 2) frCircuitMulticast was added this time round and is a per-VC
>    object that tells you what the _particular_ VC will do with a frame.
> 
>    Alan's proposal is to make this new object match reality, viz:
> 	a) have values for unicast, p2mp and mp2mp (did I forget one ?) and
>         b) have a MAX-ACCESS of read-write.
> 
>    As Fred pointed out, if a given DTE doesn't want to use anything but
>    unicast, it can use the WRITE-SYNTAX clause to shrink the valid range.
> 
>    I suppose we should add a refeference clause pointing to the appropriate
>    section of the document that defines the FR multicast support so other
>    folks can figure out why this got done.
> 
> Did I miss anything ?  If not, this sounds like a reasonable change.
> 
> Regards,
> -james
> 
> ps I seem to have misplaced Alan's message with the updated object
>    definition ready for Caralyn to cut and paste...
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> James W. Watt,     james@newbridge.com                   Ph: +1 613 591-3600
> Newbridge Networks 600 March Rd Kanata ON Canada K2K 2E6 FAX:+1 613 591-3680
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Caralyn Brown             Voice: 508-436-3835
Bay Networks              Internet: cbrown@baynetworks.com
2 Federal Street
Billerica, MA 01821
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++