Re: ULE-01 : Destination Address Field

[alain.ritoux@6wind.com]

Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
> Alain:
> snip/snip
>
> > Now to the question how does the encapsulator know about this, I
> > think it can be solved because there is some address resolution
> > (static, table, whatever) that provides P::/48 --> PID,MAC
>
> I don't want to start too much of a debate here but the problem I think is
> there is not a unique and universally used adress resolution mechanism that
> we can entirely rely on. Or do you have one? I guess you have read the AR
> draft; this is currently also investigated by other people including ETSI.

No I don't have one :-(
But what I had in mind was, not to rely on specific address resolution
mecanism, bur rather on a reserved MAC@ value such as 0:0:0:0:0:0 whose
meaning would be "don't insert the MAC@ and save 6 bytes". This was just
and idea, and I admit the ULE draft shouldn't rely on it.

The only thing I had in mind, was to relax the condition on the MAC@ :

"This field MUST be carried for IP unicast packets destined to ..."

- "Unless explicitly configured for some IP networks, this field MUST be
carried for IP unicast packets destined to ..."
- "Unless explicitly configured, receiving routers MUST discard unicast
IP packets received in SNDU without Destination Address Field"

The rest of the discusionn is more relevant to th AR draft.

Regards.
Alain.
--
Alain RITOUX
Tel +33-1-39-30-92-32
Fax +33-1-39-30-92-11
visit our web http://www.6wind.com