Subject: Re: Ignore ARP requests from remote buses

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:55:57 -0700

Peter has suggested we add a clause to the following effect:

Have all IP devices ignore ARP requests and responses with
16 bit node IDs, source or target, in which the most 10
significant bits do not match the most 10 significant bits of the
node's NODE_ID register.

Here are three possible next steps:
1) Add the clause suggested by Peter, move forward with the draft.
2) Delay the draft until we have a clear understanding of what coexistences
of IP and bridges requires from both IP devices and bridges.
3) Do not add the clause suggested by Peter and move forward with the draft.

I think the solution revolves around how to best manage the changes
in the IP/1394 spec necessitated by the introduction of 1394-1394 bridges.

Personally, I can live with the clause being in the next draft then
removing the clause in a later version if it becomes necessary. However,
my preference is to leave the clause out (see comments about multi-bus
IP subnets and non-virtual node ID 1394 bridges).

I don't consider delaying the draft as a viable option. I think the
other WG Co-Chair agrees. I look forward to comments from others.

-myron

---

From: Kenji Fujisawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 01:49:18 +0900

> I look forward to comments from others.

Although I can not predict the P1394.1 spec at this moment, it seems
that
the remote-transaction capable node should be aware of the existence of
the
1394 bridge to some extent, such as
- maximum transmission speed,
- maximum packet size,
- split transaction timeout value,
- bus reset behaviour,
- (possibly) virtual node ids,
- and so on.

So, I think option (1) will be the safe way we can choose at this
moment.
As others mention, this clause will not prevent IP routing between 1394
busses.

Kenji Fujisawa
# All opinions are my own and do not reflect my employers