Subject: interoperability related issues in ip over 1394

From: BHAVESH R PATHAK <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:33:38 -0530

Dear everyone,
while going through the draft-ietf-ip1394-ipv4-12.txt, I got following
doubt, which could create interoperability issues between various
implementations.

 1. Asynchronous-Block write,
 2. Isochronous-Stream packet,
 3. Asynchronous-Stream packet

 When we a implementation decides to send the IP unicast packet,
 using method-2 and method-3, there is no well defined way for the
 originator to communicate to the intended receiver about allocated
 isochronous channel number.

 If we use some proprietary method for the communication between
 two end-points, it can create interoperability problems between two
 implementations.

 To resolve this problem it seems to me that, there should be some entity
 similar to "CAM" described in the draft-ietf-ip1394-mcap-00.txt

 If I have misunderstood something, or any thing is not clear please
 let me know.

 with regards,
 bhavesh

---

From: Venkata Tanikella <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:54:36 -0800

> isochronous channel number.

I haven't had a look at the draft 12, but I guess the following is valid;

I think the document is clear about not specifying anythingh about Isoch
Streams;

For Unicast streams is not the specified way of transmission; one should use
only Async Write; It's that for Unicast you use Async Write only; So no
question of informing about a channel;

If you are talking about the broadcast channel, there is a well defined way
on how to notify that channel : NPM ;

> two end-points, it can create interoperability problems between two

That is true if you have an Ip   over Isoch streams; But actually there is
no quesdtion of interoperability, as the RFC doesn't say anything about it?

> If I have misunderstood something, or any thing is not clear please

regards,
Venkat