Re: draft-heath-ppp-v44-02.txt

jheath@xxxxxxx writes:
> thanks for your comments.  I will change the ID to include the same type 
> of sequence and recovery mechanisms used in other RFC's.
> 
> It seems like you are also saying that no one will use what I describe as 
> "Individual Link Mode" which is multiple histories over a PPP link.  If 
> that is true, do you think I should I just remove that mode. 

Thanks for pointing that out; I'd missed that on the first read of the
draft because I'd incorrectly assumed that this was just a
redocumenting of RFC 1962 "Individual Link" mode operation.  It's
apparently not.

For RFC 1962 individual link compression, each link is independent,
and the peers need to negotiate CCP 80FB independently on each link.

The mechanism described in this draft appears to be different.  If I
understand it correctly, CCP using 80FB is being negotiated once at
the bundle level (meaning that all links must then use it), and the
multiple dictionaries feature is used to separate out the traffic.

Why does this draft redefine CCP operation in this way?  How does the
initial negotiator predict how many dictionaries might be needed?
What happens if the allocated number of dictionaries is exceeded when
MP link N+1 joins the bundle?

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking         <james.d.carlson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677