Subject: Re: IPv6 over ATM encapsulation

From: Bryan Gleeson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 18:29:14 -0800 (PST)

Andy,

>So, given your discussion, I am mostly interested in removing the use
>of null encapsulation for PVCs.  However, given the restrictions in
>section 3.2.3, do you think it makes sense to support it for SVCs as
>well? 

I don't have a strong opinion on PVCs, but for SVCs I do not see a 
need or benefit to changing the current IPV4/ATM and MPOA behaviour, 
which allows, but does not require, a non-default encapsulation. 

The only restriction in 3.2.3. is that MARS is not allowed to 
negotiate a non-default encapsulation, the rest is observations 
on what happens if the null encapsulation is negotiated according
to the rules in UNI signalling. Even if that MARS restriction is 
introduced, there is no need to prohibit the use of the null 
encapsulation for data flows between other stations. The overhead
of the negotiation to force LLC, if that is all a station supports, 
is trivial, and is needed anyway for IPV4 and MPOA.

I'll admit that the use of the null encapsulation is probably
about the same as the use of esperanto in the real world, but
if two esperanto speakers ever meet, why prohibit them from 
talking esperanto? No one is being forced to learn or speak it!

Bryan

---

From: Engineering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:10:01 -0600 (CST)

FYI, we have IPSEC drivers for Win95/NT which work with ATM adapters on
Win95/NT.

Also, we wrote the NT WAN drivers for ATML and tested it with these
adapters.

I know this is a little off the discussion track, but thought it might be
useful to know.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Goodwin

**  Ashley Laurent,Inc. **  Software Development  **     Consulting          **
*                                   *                                         *
* 707 West Avenue, Suite 201        *     voice: 512-322-0676                 *
* Austin, Texas 78701               *     fax  : 512-322-0680                 *
*                      web: http://www.osgroup.com                            * 
* Microsoft Solution Provider       *  	  Complete Systems Design/Development *
* Novell Professional Developer     *	  Systems Software/Device Drivers     *

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:41:23 -0500 (EST)

Bryan,

> talking esperanto? No one is being forced to learn or speak it!

OK, in the absence of other opinions, we'll remove null encapsulation
for PVCs but retain it as an option for SVCs.

Cheers,
Andy
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew G. Malis  [email-masked]  phone:978 952-7414   fax:978 392-1484
Ascend Communications, Inc.        1 Robbins Road     Westford, MA 01886

---

From: Mohsen Souissi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:24:48 +0100

> for PVCs but retain it as an option for SVCs.

Francis Dupont and I were just discussing the possibility of removing the 
null
encapsulation option from draft-ietf-ion-ipv6-atm-00.txt.
We think that's a good idea for two reasons:
- the null encapsulation is fairly limiting and useless 
- the less options there are, the likelier (and the better) one can 
interoperate

Regards,

Mohsen.