Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)
Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Tue, 14 November 1995 17:03 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15495;
14 Nov 95 12:03 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15491;
14 Nov 95 12:03 EST
Received: from maelstrom.nexen.com (maelstrom.nexen.com [204.249.99.5]) by
guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03147;
Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:52:49 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
JAA21357 for rolc-out; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:59:20 -0500
Received: from guelah.nexen.com (guelah.nexen.com [204.249.96.19]) by
maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21348 for
<rolc@nexen.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:59:16 -0500
Received: from hubbub.cisco.com (hubbub.cisco.com [198.92.30.32]) by
guelah.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03084 for <rolc@nexen.com>;
Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:44:12 -0500
Received: from puli.cisco.com (puli.cisco.com [171.69.1.174]) by
hubbub.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.GATE.1.1) with SMTP id GAA12739;
Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:53:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199511141453.GAA12739@hubbub.cisco.com>
To: James Watt <james@ca.newbridge.com>
cc: rolc@nexen.com, ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
Subject: Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Nov 95 10:49:08 EST."
<199511131549.KAA26099@thor.ca.newbridge.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 06:53:41 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
X-Orig-Sender: owner-rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk
X-Info: Submissions to rolc@nexen.com
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to rolc-request@nexen.com
X-Info: Archives for rolc via
ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/ietf-mail-archive/rolc/
James, > on a single packet format for both NHRP and IP-MC. I would welcome more > comments from the group as to: > > a) whether or not this is desireable and It certainly would be nice to have this as a goal. > b) how we should get to a single format. IMHO as a first step we should settle on a single format for the Registration message. If other folks think this is a reasonable first step, then I'd like to get some feedback on whether it would be reasonable to use the IP-MC packet format for registering both multicast and unicast addresses. Yakov.
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats James Watt
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats Grenville Armitage
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats Andrew Smith
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) James Watt
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) George Swallow
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) James Luciani
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) Andrew Smith
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) Yakov Rekhter
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) James Luciani
- Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd) Joel Halpern