RE: RoE header and mapper thoughts: EtherType
Jouni,
I believe the agreement was that we do request one Ethertype to identify
this new application type, but I do not believe there is anything that
warrants a separate Ethertype for control traffic within RoE tunnel.
Marek
-----Original Message-----
From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.korhonen@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:50 AM
To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-1904-3-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: RoE header and mapper thoughts: EtherType
Marek,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 4:41 PM
> 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
[Jouni Korhonen]
Do you no RoE EtherType at all or just not for RoE subtypes (like
management)?
- Jouni
>
> 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