Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)
Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com> Mon, 13 November 1995 23:35 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25389;
13 Nov 95 18:35 EST
Received: from guelah.nexen.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25385;
13 Nov 95 18:35 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 SAA00604;
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:04:01 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id
SAA15077 for rolc-out; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:14:28 -0500
Received: from nexen.nexen.com (nexen.nexen.com [204.249.96.18]) by
maelstrom.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA15068 for
<rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:14:26 -0500
Received: from lightning.synoptics.com (lightning.synoptics.com
[134.177.3.18]) by nexen.nexen.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA27076 for
<rolc@nexen.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:12:02 -0500
Received: from pobox.synoptics.com ([134.177.1.95]) by lightning.synoptics.com
(4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03484; Mon, 13 Nov 95 15:08:12 PST
Received: from milliways-le0.engwest (milliways-le0.synoptics.com) by
pobox.synoptics.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AB03369; Mon, 13 Nov 95 15:09:03 PST
Received: by milliways-le0.engwest (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA07639; Mon, 13 Nov 95 15:09:02 PST
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 15:09:02 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
Message-Id: <9511132309.AA07639@milliways-le0.engwest>
To: rolc@nexen.com, ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com, james@ca.newbridge.com
Subject: Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)
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,
a) Yes this is desireable for the first NHRP RFC, the first IPmc RFC and
for the next ClassicalV2 RFC.
b) I think that we should lock the chairpeople in a room and let them
decide which way they want the coin to fall.
Andrew
********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith TEL: +1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy Unit FAX: +1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc. E-m: asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************
> From atmpost@matmos.hpl.hp.com Mon Nov 13 08:16:26 1995
> From: James Watt <james@ca.newbridge.com>
> Subject: Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)
> To: rolc@nexen.com, ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:49:08 -0500 (EST)
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Length: 1349
>
> Folks:
> I sent the note below a week or so ago. I believe that we need to converge
> 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
> and
> b) how we should get to a single format.
>
> Regards,
> -james
>
> +---------
> |>>Since we are in last call, can someone just summarise for the
> |>>list the arguments that lead to MARS extending the control packet
> |>>formats from ATM-ARP in RFC 1577, rather than those proposed for use in
> |>>NHRP.
> +---------
> All:
> As one person who has also wondered this, I would venture that:
> a) I have no attachment to either packet format
> BUT
> b) as the "end game" would appear to be NHRP and IP-MC (*), I would suggest
> that having both formats is a big loss.
>
> A couple of questions:
> 1) is there anyone that believes we need 2 packet formats ?
> 2) what is the most expedient way to converge on a single packet format ?
>
> Regards,
> -james
>
> (*) As a gross over-simplification, in both cases the client says "please
> Mr. Server, tell me what NBMA destinations should receive packets with this
> destination."
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
- 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