Subject: [Ipoverib] encapsulation issues

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 15:56:50 -0800 (PST)

1.      We have been arguing over the inclusion of LID/GID or both for
        a while now. Examples and advantages of including either have
        been espoused often enough. However, there is an agreement, I
        think, on the architecture not forcing a limited solution on
        any set of aspirations.

        As noted earlier the inclusion of both the identifiers does
        not handicap or restrict any solution. 
	
	Let us include both.

2. 	I believe based on the recent set of mails that the consensus no
        longer favours inclusion of the 'ethertype'. Is there a
        disagreement ?

3. 	As many have noted in the last couple of days that using IB
        over non-UD modes or utilising QPNs mapped to specific
        endpoints is desirable. A complete, interoperable solution has
        been presented in
        draft-kashyap-ipoib-advanced-capabilities-00.txt. 

	Please review and comment. 

Vivek

-- 
Vivek Kashyap
Linux Technology Center, IBM
[email-masked] 
[email-masked] 
503 578 3422 (o)

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

---

From: Yaron Haviv <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 03:30:09 +0200

Vivek,

Why not wait with the capability field after we finish with the other more
pressing stuff
For now we could specify reserved capability bits that
must-be-zero on transmit and not checked on receive, and then define
when we get the first draft ready we could move to the next

Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Vivek Kashyap
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 1:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ipoverib] encapsulation issues

        Let us include both.

Vivek