AD request / L2 Views Problem Statement
"Phil Neumiller" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pilc |
|---|---|
| Organization | MeshNetworks, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Eric, I am reluctant to carry on discussions on the pilc list, since I would like confirmation from an AD whether they want this discussion here or someplace else. I assume they do, since they relocated the L2 triggers BOF to PILC. I believe at this point we are discussing things within the scope of that planned BOF. AD Request, Scott and/or Allison can probably provide clarity here. I want to express that my desired "perspective" is to position ourselves as link layer designers that want to see some standardization on the IP underbelly, i.e. an API if you will, to IPs darker side, and a standardized way for IP to send events (at the millisecond time scale) "up" to the IP layer. This means adding standardization to IP, not link layers. It means we want to standardize the way link layers "talk to" IP in the upward direction. The first proposal is a high performance queue for event notification offered by the IP layer to bound link layers. The simplest use of this queue is simply to buffer the notifications and forward them to the transport layer if not "hooked" by the IP layer. With respect to your question Eric, several people have sent comments on the problem statement and everything at this point is work-in-progress and everybody is welcome to contribute whatever they whenever they can. Before getting to a formal problem statement, it may prove fruitful to first entertain some philosophical discussions regarding the under-specified IP underbelly. Perhaps many feel that the current underbelly mechanisms of arp, rarp, icmp, etc are sufficient for wireless devices??? Maybe the definition of a host/gateway just needs some sprucing up (RFC 1122 / RFC 1123)? Best Regards, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Whitehill" <[email protected]> > Phil, > > Perhaps I didn't see it, but did everyone agree to the problem statement > that you included in > your 4/30 e-mail? > > Eric > _______________________________________________ pilc mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc