[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-morrow-filter-caps-00 comments
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 19:47:03 +0200 (EET), Pekka Savola <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I think, per discussion in other thread we've concluded that layer 2
> > filtering not done in practice in large network cores for several
> > possible reasons.
> Not in the core, yes -- but I guess enterprise networks was also in
> scope? If so, we for example specifically want to use MAC-address
> based security in our machine rooms (because otherwise the bozos from
> the IT support staff can go an plug in their windows servers without
> telling us), and we want to manage what gets plugged to the network
> and what not.
<waffleing>Hmmm. Your right.</waffling>. Let's discuss @ the WG ?
> > In this context, we're listing capabilities, not requirements (musts...)
> Well, the text says 32-bit as a must and 64-bit as a should. This
> seems to conflict with what you're saying.
Leftover text. Chris started with 3871 text. We (well I) excized most of
the must/should text. I missed this one.
> But if you want it that way, maybe you could list _two_ capabilities.
> One for regular toy counters, and ones for real use. Then folks could
> poit without any possibility of confusion that "yes, we _do_ want
> 64bit counters. Don't talk talk to us if you don't have them".
I could be convinced to just stick with 64.