Subject: Re: [Capwap] Proposed Resolution for Issue 227/224/89/87 (and part of146)

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:58:12 -0800

oh, and this issue also appears to address issue 87.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] Proposed Resolution for Issue 
> 227/224/89 (and part of146)
> 
> Based on a private note I have received, I would like to 
> change the definition of one of the bits in the CAPWAP 
> preamble header. The new text would look like:
> 
>         0                   1                   2                   3
>         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 
> 7 8 9 0 1
>        
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>        |Version| Type  |                    Reserved          
>          |
>        
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> [...]
> 
>       1 -  DTLS Payload.  The packet is either a DTLS packet 
> and MAY be
>          a data or control packet, based on the UDP port it 
> was received
>          on (see section Section 3.1).
> 
> The reason for this was that it wasn't obvious that any and 
> all DTLS packets would have this bit set.
> 
> 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