The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1995-Feb> msg00119



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

ATMARP_NAK format?

  • From: Mark Laubach <laubach@terra.com21.com>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:58:10 -0800 (PST)
  • CC: ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com

> > Well, it is a classical "save space" vs "save time" issue.  Fixed sized
> > fields are very nice for quick packet parsing.
> 
> Is this a "Call For Votes" on this issue..?  Anyway, I support Craig's
> proposal: e.g. to have fixed-sized fields that by default are zero-filled.
> At least that's how I'm coding it...  ;-)

Call it more information gathering for the purposes of gathering rough
consensus since we don't vote in the IETF...<g>

This particular issue and the previous ATMARP_NAK issue will be concluded
(consensus'd?) by the April meeting at Danvers, at the latest.  In the
mean time, I am seeing that we don't have a consistent set of
implementations, so interoperability is an issue.  This is one of the
reasons why the RFC1577 rewrite will role the standard from proposed to
proposed. 

Mark