Subject: [ipoverib] a call for opinions on the Ethertype issue

From: "Yaron Haviv" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 04:16:25 +0200

Currently one of the only debatable issues is do we or don't we include the
Ethertype Field in the payload
Since the latest draft is already out, we MUST conclude that issue fast to
enable closing the spec in the next IETF meetings

Could any of you please express his (Short) view on the topic so we could
get a sense of who/how many want to add this field and for what reasons,
enabling a quick resolution of this topic

Fujitsu clearly stated that in the last emails, could we here few more
voices on that

Thanks, Yaron

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

---

From: "Larsen, Roy K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 09:17:24 -0800

My arguments for including an LSAP in the IPoIB encapsulation header is as
follows:

1. All link protocols are responsible for conveying the node address as well
as the link service access point for the payload.  The LSAP mechanism in IBA
is the QPN.

2. The ARP mechanism agreed to by the working group REQUIRES that ARP and
IPv4 frames MUST use the same QPN.

3. There have been no *technical* justifications for referencing user
payload data over encapsulating an LSAP other than "we don't need to". 

4. Presenting an RFC to the internet community that REQUIRES the
implementation to interrogate service user data to infer the LSAP is
indefensible in the absence of a technical rational.

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Haviv [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:16 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ipoverib] a call for opinions on the Ethertype issue

Thanks, Yaron