Subject: Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:37:56 -0700

|  Toni,

David...  I'm decidedly male.  Really.

|  I was misusing the term 'bridge' in the 1394.1 context.  In that context,
|  the protocols are 'supported' by routing 1394 packets using 1394 node ID's
|  and channel numbers.  They aren't using IP addresses for routing.

Understood.  However, if they are tampering with L3 packets in an L2
device, they are certainly much more intelligent than one would expect.

|  It might have been better to have used the term 'router' for the things that
|  are used to allow communications between two or more 1394 buses, but that
|  had some scary connotations also.  Maybe we should call these things
|  'gluons'.  I'm sure that the particle physics people wont mind us co-opting
|  one of their terms.

I think that the industry-standard term 'brouter' might as well be used.
Until, of course, the marketeers get hold of it.  ;-)

Tony

---

From: "Wooten, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:33:55 -0500

Toni,

I was misusing the term 'bridge' in the 1394.1 context.  In that context,
the protocols are 'supported' by routing 1394 packets using 1394 node ID's
and channel numbers.  They aren't using IP addresses for routing.

It might have been better to have used the term 'router' for the things that
are used to allow communications between two or more 1394 buses, but that
had some scary connotations also.  Maybe we should call these things
'gluons'.  I'm sure that the particle physics people wont mind us co-opting
one of their terms.

David Wooten

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Tony Li [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Friday, October 09, 1998 1:20 PM
                To:     Wooten, David
                Cc:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

                |  Be that as it may, people will build 1394-1394 bridges.

                People build all sorts of crazy stuff.  ;-)

                |  I don't believe
                |  that the AV/C community is going to redo all their
protocols so that they
                |  become IP compatible.

                Someday they may understand the benefits of global
connectivity.  Until
                then...

                |  They will want to connected their devices across bridges.

                That's fine.  It's not clear that the consumer will want (or
even need) a
                bridge.

                |  So, there will be a need for bridges to support these
protocols.

                If it's a 'bridge' in any of the classical senses, then why
does it have to
                support the protocol?  Suddenly this bridge is doing wierd
and wonderful L2
                routing...  ;-(

                |  The 'requirement' for IP support in home networks is
actually a bit more
                |  dubious especially since it is not clear that IP, as
currently defined, will
                |  work across a 1394 bridge.

                Unless the implementors in this WG get a move on, I would
tend to agree.
                Not because of the bridge issue but because Fast Ethernet
will shortly be
                killing the data side of the market.  And then the AV/C & CE
communities
                get to implement a 'data' standard that may or may not work
well for their
                applications.

                Time to market people....

                Tony