The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Reply on Semi MAJOR (was Comments on Multicast Draft)
Grenville Armitage writes: +----------- | ... edited version of an exchange between Joel and Grenville ... |>> |>> If we consider that MARS is supposed to be a Multi-Protocol |>> mechanism, then the pkt$pro mechanism seems quite awkward. Any |>> protocol that does not have an Ethertype needs to be "defined" |>> to have some other value. If we used a different ID space, |>> we could avoid this problem. | | ... | |Taking off my artificial "IETF only" blinkers for a moment I could |suggest that one solution would be for the IP-ATM working group |to pre-delegate part of the ar$pro space to a group we know is hoping |to interoperate (and who _will_ attempt to apply this spec to a |non-ethertype protocol of interest): | |e.g. new text: | | 0x0000 to 0x03FF Reserved for future use by the IETF. | 0x0400 to 0x05FF Designated for use by the ATM Forum. | 0x0600 to 0xFFFF Protocols defined by the equivalent Ethertypes. +------ Or what about biting the bullet and using 6 bytes: one for an NLPID and 5 for the rest (e.g. SNAP when the NLPID = 80). This should be enough to cover anything and everything. While I think of it, this applies to NHRP too... Regards, Comments ? -james ____________________________________________________________________________ James W. Watt, james@newbridge.com Ph: +1 613 591-3600 Newbridge Networks 600 March Rd Kanata ON Canada K2K 2E6 FAX:+1 613 591-3680 |
|