Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Some Comments on: draft-kaplan-isis-ext-eth-02.txt

Works for me.
Good summary

At 01:37 PM 8/17/00 -0500, Jim Carlo wrote:

>I will send the following to Scott at the end of this week.
>Scott, it has been difficult to get a consensus response from IEEE 802 on
>this work, since many people are on vacation, and this is a contentious
>issue, although most responses I have received from individuals to-date have
>been negative. The two key people, organizationally, would be Tony Jeffree
>(chair of 802.1) and Geoff Thompson (chair of 802.3). I ask Geoff and Tony
>to further submit comments to Scott if they feel warranted.
>I would like to invite the proponents of this RFC (regardless of what
>decision IETF takes) to the November IEEE 802 plenary meeting and give a
>tutorial on this topic and participate in 802.1. This will serve to
>disseminate this information into IEEE 802 so that appropriate projects,
>actions or non-actions can be taken.
>Summarizing various individual comments and notes on this topic:
>1) The choice of frame size for Ethernet packets is really the domain of
>802.3 (CSMA/CD) and 802.1 (Bridging, VLANs). The last time the frame size
>was modified to increase by four bytes due to VLANs, 802.1 initiated this
>work and 802.3 also modified the Ethernet standard to include these extra
>bytes. The people with the experience dealing with this sort of thing attend
>IEEE 802.  It's easy to define a new ethertype, but it's not too easy to
>figure out what happens when these frames get (sometimes) forwarded by
>bridges.  I would expect discussions of this type to take place in 802.1.
>2) This issue has come up several times in 802.3. It has significant
>problems in terms of compatibility with the installed base. This topic has
>been discussed in the back halls of 802.3, but not brought forward. The
>problem is that it is very easy to do in the standard and hard to do in the
>world. It is just like changing the gauge on railroad tracks. All you have
>to do is change one line in the standard, never mind all of the rails you
>have to move. For this project to be done in 802.3, there would need to be a
>consensus, and this may be difficult. This draft is just meant for carrying
>IS-IS routing protocol frames (the IS-IS working group is the intended
>sponsor of this draft) yet this appears to be a way to get the fox into the
>chicken coop. Those vendors supporting the larger frame will support this,
>those vendors not supporting the larger frame will not support this.
>3) One suggestion is a Recommended Practice, along the lines of 802.1H,
>dealing with protocol encoding of Ethernet Type II frames over arbitrary
>length media.
>4) Most of the gear produced today would be intolerant of greatly longer
>frames. There is no way proposed to distinguish between frame types in the
>network. Bridges and repeaters would drop or truncate (and cause errors
>doing so) frames right and left for uncharacterized reasons. It would be a
>mess. It's all okay for small carefully characterized networks. It would be
>very difficult to do across the standard.
>Jim Carlo( Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
>TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
>Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Scott Bradner []
> >Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 3:47 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: draft-kaplan-isis-ext-eth-02.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >Jim,
> >         What is the status of teh IEEE looking at
> >draft-kaplan-isis-ext-eth-02.txt?  The IESG has bene asked to publish
> >the Internet draft as an Informational RFC.  If the IEEE has
> >comments the IESG needs to get them in the next week or so (we have a
> >teleconference on 8/24 during which we will authorize publication
> >unless the IEEE gives us reason not to.
> >
> >Scott