RE: [RPRWG] A question on IP over RPR
In reality, since IEEE defines a MAC, it would make a lot of sense for the
L3 to recognize it as a single routable interface and let the L2 (RPR) make
the decision of selecting the ringlets along with some hints from the upper
layers.
Vinay
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Forster [mailto:forster@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 9:27 AM
To: lcwang@xxxxxxx; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] A question on IP over RPR
Briefly, the L3 (IP) to L2 (RPR) binding is very similar to that on
Ethernet, with an extension. IP on Ethernet uses ARP to determine the MAC
address corresponding to the next-hop IP address. On RPR we need this but
we also need a direction bit, or Ring ID -- which Ring, Inner or Outer to
use. So ARP proceeds pretty much like on Ethernet to determine the next-hop
MAC address. Then RPR topology information is consulted to determine which
ring to use, and the result stored along with the IP-MAC address binding
information.
-- Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of lcwang@xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 1:12 AM
To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [RPRWG] A question on IP over RPR
Importance: High
A question of IP over RPR.
According to IP address, using routing protocol, a data forwarding route can
be selected. On the other hand, RPR may transfer data through
its ring on both direction. How can consistency of L3 and L2 data transfer
be guaranteed?
Can someone explian this? Thanks.
Leo Wang
__________________________________________
全场特价：数码相机、掌上电脑、MP3 http://shopping.263.net/category21.htm
天赢炒股,天生我赢! http://stock19.263.net/download/borntowin.htm