Subject: [Capwap] Issue 115: To MUX or not to MUX

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:01:35 -0800

All,

I believe that we have general agreement on a path forward, and that we
will require separate UDP ports for both the control and data plane. In
our discussions, we've found that a separate header is still necessary
in order to identify DTLS packets from cleartext ones (for both data and
control). I have proposed the actual text today that describes how
packets are identified, which is done through the CAPWAP preamble
header.

I would propose that we close this issue.  

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap