Subject: RE: [ipoverib] moving forward with the open Issues

From: "Arvind Murching" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:07:01 -0800

We should settle on whether or not an EtherType field is needed.

- Arvind

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Haviv [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipoverib] moving forward with the open Issues

Hi all

By now it looks to me like the LID issues is going to be resolved
By just dropping the LID from the ARP, and using the one in the LRH
And there is a consensus around it also from Vivek

For the capability bits, I suggested reserving the bits for future use
(in
this RFC)
After we finish with this RFC we could start discussing the bits to be
defined in a separate RFC
This will enable every one to agree at least for the UD RFC on every
thing

Are there any other open issues that are not in consensus right now ?
Does any one want to bring a new topic ?

If these are the last points it would really help close the standard
quickly

Yaron

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib

_______________________________________________
IPoverIB mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib