| RE: RE: [eap] Issue 204: Peer-to-peer operation | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Bernard Aboba (bernard_aboba |
|
| Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:12:12 -0600 (CST) | |
Adding a "EAP demultiplexing layer" somewhere might be more elegant than delivering the frames twice, but personally I could live with the current approach (especially since these state machines specify only externally visible behavior, not implementation).
Exactly. The state machines don't require that an implementation process every packet twice.
_________________________________________________________________
Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the FREE McAfee online computer scan! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
-
RE: RE: [eap] Issue 204: Peer-to-peer operation Bernard Aboba, December 2 2003
- RE: RE: [eap] Issue 204: Peer-to-peer operation CONGDON,PAUL (HP-Roseville,ex1), December 3 2003
- RE: RE: [eap] Issue 204: Peer-to-peer operation Bernard Aboba, December 8 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.