The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

[fong@ipsilon.com (Fong-Ching Liaw)]

>> 
>> Last year, I thought we agreed that our "long-term intention" was (as an opti
>> on)
>> null encapsulation. 

As I recall, this was true when RFC1483 is still in its draft stage.
RFC1577 "changed" that intension (by picking LLC/SNAP as the
default).  I do not recall any decision from last year though.

And Grenville is right, null encapsulation is always an option. The catch
is that very few (if any) RFC1577 implemenations will do signaling negotiation
and set the encapsulation according to the signaling. Just to get 
a feel for how many implementations can negotiate encapsulation 
(i.e. if one can take more than one B-LLI and select the one it supports,
return the selected B-LLI in CONNECT message and set its Data 
encapsulation accordingly.) Can we do a poll on how many vendors have
done this in current RFC1577/RFC1755 implementations ? 

-Fong