Subject: Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

From: "Wooten, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:58:07 -0500

Be that as it may, people will build 1394-1394 bridges.  I don't believe
that the AV/C community is going to redo all their protocols so that they
become IP compatible.  They will want to connected their devices across
bridges.  So, there will be a need for bridges to support these protocols.
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.

David Wooten

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Tony Li [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Friday, October 09, 1998 3:26 AM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

                [email-masked] (Wooten, David) writes:

                > Might I suggest that people are going to build 1394-1394
bridges. It would
                > be nice if thouse bridges would handle IP between bridges
so that people
                > would not have to also buy a 1394 IP router.

                Given the apparent complexity of 1394 bridges, it is not at
ALL apparent
                that one can build one for significantly less money than
just building a
                1394 based router.

                Further, the router basically has NO issues left to work
out.

                Tony

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 11:19:57 -0700

|  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