RE: RoE header and mapper thoughts: EtherType

[Raz Gabe <Raz.Gabe@xxxxxxxx>]

HI Jouni and Marek,
Agreed with Marek that the Ethertype is a scarce resource...but maybe we can use the subtype field for the topic that Jouni asked?

Rgrds
--Raz

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marek Hajduczenia
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 2:41 AM
To: 'Jouni Korhonen'; STDS-1904-3-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: RoE header and mapper thoughts: EtherType

Jouni

I think it is a bad idea. First, Ethertypes are a scarce resource and will not be given away easily. Second, 802.3br should take care of this problem.
I do not believe you need to signal special frame type via Ethertype 

Marek

-----Original Message-----
From: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 5:14 PM
To: STDS-1904-3-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RoE header and mapper thoughts: EtherType

Folks,

Some initial thoughts on reserving EtherType.. this is not topical yet, though. My initial thinking was to have a single new EtherType for everything RoE. However, recently I was thinking whether it would make any sense to have two EtherTypes: one for time critical packets (like AxC flows) and another for less critical packets (like C&M flows etc).

Opinions?

- Jouni

--
Jouni Korhonen, Ph.D, Associate Technical Director CTO Office, Networking, Broadcom Corporation
O: +1-408-922-8135,  M: +1-408-391-7160