Re: (sipp) are you doing IPX mapping?

Joel Halpern <jhalpern@newbridge.com> Mon, 01 August 1994 22:56 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10951; 1 Aug 94 18:56 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10947; 1 Aug 94 18:56 EDT
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19564; 1 Aug 94 18:56 EDT
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag.Eng.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA29164; Mon, 1 Aug 94 15:54:36 PDT
Received: from sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA08404; Mon, 1 Aug 94 15:54:17 PDT
Received: by sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02876; Mon, 1 Aug 94 15:55:19 PDT
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engnews1) by sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02870; Mon, 1 Aug 94 15:55:10 PDT
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA11026; Mon, 1 Aug 94 15:52:44 PDT
Received: from nbkanata.newbridge.com by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA28601; Mon, 1 Aug 94 15:52:19 PDT
Received: from Newbridge.COM (thor.Newbridge.COM) by nbkanata.newbridge.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01513; Mon, 1 Aug 94 18:47:17 EDT
Received: from mako.newbridge by Newbridge.COM (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA28592; Mon, 1 Aug 94 18:47:13 EDT
Received: from urchin.newbridge by mako.newbridge (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07996; Mon, 1 Aug 94 18:46:38 EDT
Received: by urchin.newbridge (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09372; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 18:48:55 +0500
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 18:48:55 +0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Joel Halpern <jhalpern@newbridge.com>
Message-Id: <9408012248.AA09372@urchin.newbridge>
To: sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: (sipp) are you doing IPX mapping?
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Content-Length: 995
X-Orig-Sender: owner-sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com

I must object to Bill Simpson's assertion.

There may be good reason's to object to the usage of 1/32 of the address
space for a portion of the transition plan.  However, the assertion by
one member of the community that "I object" does not constitute sufficient
reason to force re-drafting of the plan.  The proposal had clear text
indicating the reasons for the support, and the fact that a different
approach was preferred.  However, unless we are going to pretend that
the rest of the world does not exist, it is incumbent upon the objector
to either:
A) Present an alternative strategy which meets the needs,  or
B) Provide stronger reasons than his personal objections to the work
	going forward.

It is true that IP4 uses only 1e-28 of the address space.  That is because
the IP4 address are smaller.  While the NSAPs are arguably badly
designed, they are what they are.  Wishing will not make them different.

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern			jhalpern@newbridge.com
Newbridge Networks Inc.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF SIPP Working Group - Archives:  parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/sipp
Unsubscribe:	unsubscribe sipp		(as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com