Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Vendor Command Code resolution

From: "Miguel-Angel Pallares-Lopez (ECE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:00:26 +0200

John,

> 
> As I have understood, one of the reasons the IESG has for moving
> to an experimental command code is to prevent common usage
> of non-standard command codes.  It is because interoperability
> cannot be ensured when non-standard commands are used.  
> 

That is why we have there the Vendor-Id. If two vendors make use of the same command code, the Vendor-Id will allow to distinguish among them. 

The Vendor-Id creates separate namespaces. Where is there an interoperability problem?

BR/Miguel

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:05:31 +0300

Hi Miquel,

> interoperability problem?

There should not be two seperate namespaces.  That is the point.  There
is one Interenet, if there are more than one namespaces, how can
you insure that these namespaces could ever interoperate?

John

---

From: "Daniel Warren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:03:32 +0100

John

Maybe it helps not to think of these as 'separate' but as 'parallel'.
Vendor A might be identified by Vendor-Id 100 and allocate Command Codes 1,
2, 3, 4 to some of it's vendor specific commands.  Vendor B has Vendor-Id
200 and allocates Command Codes 1, 2, 3, 4 to some it's different vendor
specific commands.  The fact that the command codes are the same is not a
problem because the Vendor-Id distinguishes between them.  

If the Vendor-Id doesn't allow for the re-use of command codes for
vendor-specific commands, what is it's purpose at all?  Why include it in
any discussion or anywhere in the specs?  The point is that a private domain
is created - saying that there is 'one internet' and enforcing this argument
across the IETF would ultimately lead to removing private IP address spaces
and mean you couldn't have NAT functions.  It's a different scale but a
similar principle.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 01 July 2002 08:06
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Vendor Command Code resolution

Hi Miquel,

John