List Info

Thread: Re: DHCP
Re: DHCP
country flaguser name
United States		 2007-03-21 17:21:11 

  


  

    
Hi Richard,
  No I did not mean the DT solution, I did mean draft-akbar. The solution there is an application layer solution using UDP transport and application level reliability. This is certainly not L3 transport.
  Yes, I believe L3/L4 distinction is important as MIPSHOP is in internet area and it would normally be interested in L3 solution. I would like to leave the details to the DT as I am not a DT member.
  Regards,

--behcet

----- Original Message ----
From: Robert Hancock <robert.hancockroke.co.uk>
To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikayaieee.org&gt;; Stefano Faccin <smfaccinmarvell.com>
Cc:
 STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:06:07 AM
Subject: RE: [Mipshop] DHCP

hi all, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:behcetsarikayayahoo.com] 
> Sent: 21 March 2007 15:52
> To: Stefano Faccin
>; Cc: STDS-802-21listserv.ieee.org; mipshopietf.org
&gt; Subject: Re: [Mipshop] DHCP
> 
> I discussed this with Juan Carlos. The solution they are 
> proposing is not even L3, it is L4.
> 
> --behcet

please be clear who you mean by 'they'. if you mean the DT,
there is no solution 'they' are proposing (at the moment).

as a data point, all three solutions that I am aware of 
having been discussed so far in mipshop involve udp and/or tcp. 
but that's not a prediction of the future.

personally I believe that any would be consistent with the 
PS as it currently stands. if people think that the L3/L4
 
distinction is somehow important, they should work out how 
to phrase the issue for inclusion in the PS document.

robert h.



  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )