Subject: More DLSw RFC related questions/issuess

From: "David Miller (254-5752)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 15:44:30 EDT

> My guess would be that Information Message header is slapped on to the
> control message header (may be at a later stage as a part of a bug
> fix??).  May be that is why there is also an overlap of data link
> correlator+dlc port id (remote, origin and target, why three??).
>
> Himanshu.

Very close guess Himanshu.  The Info Msg header was added at a later
stage not to fix a bug but for performance reasons.  Most of the
fields within the header are only needed during circuit establishment.
Once the circuit is established fewer fields need to be transferred.
This means less bandwidth on the network is dedicated to overhead
when passing lots of data packets.

David Miller

---

From: "Bernard Brady" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 16:20:34 EDT

>Received: from ibmstandards.cary.ibm.com by BBN.COM id aa17059;
David,

Your comment explains the  reason for the separate Info Msg but not why
there are duplicate fields defined in the control header.  Since the
data is going over a reliable transport it doesn't seem to be needed. 
Are there any plans on removing the redundancy?

Bernie

>          16 Jun 93 15:58 EDT
>Received: by ibmstandards.cary.ibm.com (5.61-AIX-1.2/1.0) from [192.239.48.4] with SMTP
>	id AA114308 (for [email-masked], from [email-masked]/[email-masked]); Wed, 16 Jun 93 15:48:08 -0400
>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>Received: from RALVMA by vnet.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1184;
>   Wed, 16 Jun 93 15:51:35 EDT
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 93 15:44:30 EDT
>From: "David Miller (254-5752)" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: More DLSw RFC related questions/issues
>