RE: [EFM-P2MP] unicast/multicast MACs in Clause 65
Ben,
> At the last meeting, there was much discussion around the
> names "unicast" and "multicast" when describing the MACs
> in the OLT associated with a single LLID.
I think we should not tie the mode of operation with MAC.
MAC operation remains the same no matter what the mode bit
is. "unicast" and "multicast" are attributes of the logical
(virtual) links.
Here are some naming options:
Unicast logical link
multicast logical link
point-to-point logical link
shared logical link
private logical link
shared logical link
Finally when we talk about LLID filtering in the RS we can
distinguish "positive filtering" (accept if LLID matched)
vs. "negative filtering" (accept if not matched).
> The RS has no mechanism to differentiate packets from a
> single MAC in order to apply different values of the
> MODE bit to them.
I don't think I can follow the logic why we should change
the mode bit for different packets coming from the same MAC.
I believe every MAC should be associated with one and only
one LLID (including the mode bit). This LLID can be either
unicast or multicast. But the mode remains the same for all
the packets sent by the MAC attached to it.
Is my understanding wrong?
Regards,
Glen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@majordomo.ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of ΓcY
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:55 PM
> To: stds-802-3-efm-p2mp@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [EFM-P2MP] unicast/multicast MACs in Clause
> 65
>
>
> Dear Mr.Brown,
>
> I have an idea for new name of "unicast MAC" and
> "multicast MAC".
> It is "point to point emulation MAC(P2PE MAC)" and
> "shared emulation
> MAC(SE MAC)".
>
> They seem to be familiar technical terms in this draft.
> I can submit a comment about this idea.
>
> Truly yours.
>
> ===
>
> >If someone has ideas for new names, please respond to
> this email
> >so we can get some agreement before the meeing. If you
> want me
> >to submit the comment, please tell me or I'll expect that
> you will be
> >doing it.