Subject: Re: draft 13 issues

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:56:33 -0800

Kenji,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenji Fujisawa [mailto:[email-masked]]
> One more point in draft 13.
>
> As we discussed earlier, I think we should add following rule,
>   The (bridge unaware) recipient SHALL ignore ARP request and response
>   from remote bus (with different source_bus_ID).
> because we don't know how long the (virtual) node_ID is valid
> (limbo time) yet.

There is no definition of bridge awareness or bridge unawareness;
so what does this proposal mean? What are the long term ramifications
to this proposal?

None of us have the answers to either question; therefore, how can
we justify such a restriction in the current document?

> As you know, this is a partial solution.
> If bridge un-aware node ignores ARP packets from remote bus,
> it can not
> send any unicast (Async Write) packets.
> But bridge un-aware nodes will NOT harm other nodes.

I would like to wait on adding restrictions to the current text
until we have some idea of the ramifications of such restrictions.

In addition, I can imagine the case where the bridge does a good job
of not reusing virtual node ids and avoiding the confusion all
to gether. In other words, we may be fixing something that is not
broken.

-myron

---

From: Kenji Fujisawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:54:10 +0900

>so what does this proposal mean?

Bridge is not defined yet, so ALL of the current nodes are bridge
unaware.

>What are the long term ramifications to this proposal?

GASP is one step for the future to hold the compatibility of the
packet format. Once the behavior in the bridged environment is
defined well, this restriction should be removed.

>until we have some idea of the ramifications of such restrictions.

Peter may have an opinion, but he will be out this week
since they have a meeting for P1394b/1212/P1394.1.
I also would like to wait.

Best Regards,

Kenji Fujisawa