New title for "Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)"

Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com> Wed, 15 November 1995 05:58 UTC

Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 21:39:10 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Andrew Smith <asmith@baynetworks.com>
Message-Id: <9511150539.AA09432@milliways-le0.engwest>
To: yakov@cisco.com, luciani@nexen.com
Subject: New title for "Re: MARS last call: packet formats (fwd)"
Cc: rolc@nexen.com
Precedence: bulk

OK, OK, break it up you guys. The party's over: last call finished Monday.
You can't discuss this subject any more unless you change the title. You'll 
have to find a new "Subject:" for this thread.

> Yakov,
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> I disagree.  I do not want to see different packet types

etc. etc. etc.  :-)


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
********************************************************************************

New title for "Re: MARS last call: packet formats… Andrew Smith