Return-Path: Received: from newbox.ece.cmu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Cyrus v2.1.12) with LMTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:28 -0400 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from hazard.ece.cmu.edu (HAZARD.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.24]) by newbox.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F355E31EF for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 9DBEF14B; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by hazard.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166EFFB; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id 06E4D89DB; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3CB89D2 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id B07088B; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips-outgoing@ece.cmu.edu Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 7D8159B; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sos.ece.cmu.edu (SOS.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.27]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FACE9A for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 363) id 09E4189DD; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Delivered-To: ips@sos.ece.cmu.edu Received: from bache.ece.cmu.edu (BACHE.ECE.CMU.EDU [128.2.129.23]) by sos.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A49689D2 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:53:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) id B8E489A; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: ips@ece.cmu.edu Received: by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix, from userid 953) id 7D58B8B; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mononoke.wasabisystems.com (unknown [151.199.66.145]) by bache.ece.cmu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9879B for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mononoke.wasabisystems.com (Postfix, from userid 1021) id 186974013A; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:52:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:51:54 -0700 (PDT) From: wrstuden@wasabisystems.com X-X-Sender: wrstuden@neverwinter.home-net.icnt.net To: Eddy Quicksall Cc: Julian Satran , "Robert D. Russell" , ips@ece.cmu.edu Subject: RE: TargetPortalGroupTag for redirection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-36.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,NO_REAL_NAME, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_PINE autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Eddy Quicksall wrote: > I think part of what he is saying is similar to my EMAIL on May 23rd. > > >>I have a question regarding the determination of the Target Portal > >>Group Tag during a discovery session when the TargetName is not supplied. > >> > >>The TargetPortalGroupTag must be reported in the first Login > >>Response for all session types. But without the TargetName, > >>how does the network entity determine which Target Portal > >>Group Tag to report if two different targets in the network > >>entity are using the same IP Address/TCP Port?" Yes, that'd be a problem too. So all in all, it sounds like the TargetPortalGroupTag should be optional for discovery sessions. Take care, Bill