Subject: RE: FW: [seamoby] CT trigger or CT completion? was: proactive an d re active CT definitions

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:24:49 -0500

Thanks for the verification, I thought so too.

I was making the point that, we don't need to consider CT 
for cases where L2 changes but AR doesn't. I hope we agree on this.

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:47 AM
To: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1
Cc: 'Rajeev Koodli'; 'Pat Calhoun'; 'Charles E. Perkins';
[email-masked]'
Subject: Re: FW: [seamoby] CT trigger or CT completion? was: proactive
an d re active CT definitions

back from vacation. Sorry for the latency.

On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 01:52:25PM -0500, Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 wrote:
> Pat, if I misunderstood the scope of CT, please let me know,
> I thought CT is scoped handle AR-AR only.

well, I am not sure that I know the scope more than you do, but
I don't see a reason to restrict its usage to AR-AR only. An AP
implementor could use our protocol to transfer state as well.

Thanks,

PatC

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:24:38 -0700

> for cases where L2 changes but AR doesn't. I hope we agree on this.

Well if the L2 termination is in the same box as the AR, then yes
we do. However, if the L2 (bridge) is a separate entity, I see no
reason why one couldn't make use of CTP to transfer any possible
state. Again, we aren't designing for this case, but shouldn't
specifically restrict it either.

PatC