Subject: Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

From: "Wooten, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:47:41 -0500

Tony,

Is it going to have to twiddle ARP and MCAP packets?  I thought is was
agreed that there wasn't going to be an IP spec until the IP devices knew
how to work across bridges (because of the 0x3ff problem) so that bridges
wouldn't have to do the twiddling.  If the bridge is going to have to
twiddle ARP and MCAP, then the formats of those packets is going to have to
change so that the source ID is in the same place for ALL packets that use
the default IP channel.

David Wooten

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Tony Li [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Friday, October 09, 1998 3:39 PM
                To:     Wooten, David
                Cc:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

                |               <<DRW: right now, I think the 1394.1
committee is resigned
                |  to have to get inside CIP headers to adjust the cycle
number.  'Bridge' will
                |  also need to reassign channel numbers as isochronous
packets move between
                |  buses.  It will also have to worry about channel and
bandwidth allocation
                |  after a bus reset.  Will also have to deal with
notification when bandwidth
                |  or channel allocation is lost due to contention.  This is
what is needed for
                |  AV/C and isochronous protocol support.  So, most of the
smarts have little
                |  to do with cracking packets.>>

                And it has to twiddle ARP packets.  And it is going to have
to deal with
                MCAP and twiddle that.

                Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:56:34 -0700

> change so that the source ID is in the same place for ALL packets that use

<WG co-chair hat off>

I certainly did NOT see an agreement that we would not move forward
indefinitely.  Which is good, because IP devices are probably NOT going to
be able to work across bridges, the way things are going.

We are under a great deal of pressure to get this settled and out.

The format of ARP packets is NOT changing at the request of 1394 and it's
certainly going to be the case that we continue to carry around the node id
in the packet body.

Similarly, MCAP is going to continue to carry around channel numbers and
the bridge is going to have to remap them.

Unless, of course, you're ready to conceed that the bridge is indeed an IP
router.

<\WG co-chair hat off>

Tony