IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: (sipp) are you doing IPX mapping?

Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch> Tue, 02 August 1994 02:00 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12955; 1 Aug 94 22:00 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12951; 1 Aug 94 22:00 EDT
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22366; 1 Aug 94 22:00 EDT
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag.Eng.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA10084; Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:00:12 PDT
Received: from sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22670; Mon, 1 Aug 94 10:01:11 PDT
Received: by sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02536; Mon, 1 Aug 94 10:03:11 PDT
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engnews1) by sunroof2.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02530; Mon, 1 Aug 94 10:02:50 PDT
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26028; Mon, 1 Aug 94 10:00:24 PDT
Received: from dxmint.cern.ch by Sun.COM (sun-barr.Sun.COM) id AA20470; Mon, 1 Aug 94 09:59:39 PDT
Received: from dxcoms.cern.ch by dxmint.cern.ch (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA21791; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 17:49:43 +0200
Received: by dxcoms.cern.ch (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA20136; Mon, 1 Aug 1994 17:49:12 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>
Message-Id: <9408011549.AA20136@dxcoms.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: (sipp) are you doing IPX mapping?
To: sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 17:49:12 +0200
In-Reply-To: <199408011519.AA11680@mitsou.inria.fr> from "Christian Huitema" at Aug 1, 94 05:19:48 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1032
X-Orig-Sender: owner-sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: sipp@sunroof.eng.sun.com

Christian,

I was fooled by a Reply-To field : I actually meant that for Greg
alone. Never mind, there is nothing libellous. I'll leave this thread
on the list anyway.

I am not at all happy about the G bit. In fact I meant to add a reference
to the I-D by Dave Marlow that defines CLNP group addressing, and say
that the G bit was the way to map CLNP group addresses. I agree it would
be a pain, and probably pointless. I stand ready to take it out,
depending on other comments.

  Brian

>--------- Text sent by Christian Huitema follows:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> You should seriously consider removing the "G" bit and fitting multicast NSAP
> within the generic multicast prefix. Handling that "G" bit would be a major
> pain.
> 
> Christian Huitema
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email