Peretz,
Why do we want to do this way? Does this mean if we have L2 we don't
need L3 for all cases?
regards,
-Subir
Peretz Feder wrote:
and it will always attempt L2 (bridging) first and when R1is not
available
it will attempt to transport its PDU by opening a UDP/TCP socket
On 1/24/2006 9:53 AM, Stefano M. Faccin wrote:
Kalyan,
Thanks for the clarification. I believe we should strive for transparency of the transport protocol, i.e. the MIHF does not know which one is used.
Stefano
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Kalyan Koora [mailto:kalyan.koora@benq.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:25 AM
To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas); STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: AW: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
Hi Stefano,
with #2 I mean, whether the MIHF should know how the transport
protocol is constructed.
If the answer is yes, then we have some sort of dependency.
Example, a change in transport protocol (from its standard)
needs a change in the MIHF, at the minimum from implementation
point of view.
regards,
Kalyan
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stefano M. Faccin [mailto:stefano.faccin@NOKIA.COM]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2006 15:05
An: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: Re: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
Kalyan,
Can you elaborate a bit more on #2?
Stefano
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Kalyan Koora [mailto:kalyan.koora@BENQ.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:23 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
Hi All,
while going through the present draft, couple of questions
arised where I would like to hear to the experts opinions.
Considering: Communication between 2 MIHF peers using MIHF protocol
with an arbitrary transport protocol.
1. Should the MIHF know over which transport protocol messages are
exchanged?
2. Should MIHF be in a position to dissect the transport protocol?
(if yes, then do we have transport protocol dependency?)
3. Is PPP also a possible transport protocol for MIHF communication?
Regards,
Kalyan
|