Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Folks,
  Thanks Joe for starting a good discussion on the
Charter (not Chapter) statement that I had posted.
  I had left the chairs open and so far no volunteers
appeared to lead this activity. I approached some
people but they did not seem to be interested in.
  If anyone interested in leading please come forward
so that some action can be put forward for IETF 54 or
IETF 55.
  Regards,
--- Phil Neumiller <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > Right, but many routing systems are built ON IP
> and below transport.
> > > Take MIP, any MANET protocol, ICMP itself, OSPF,
> BGP4, etc.  All of
> > > these systems that reside at the IP layer in
> routers CAN INDEED make
> > > extremely good use of this information.
> > 
> > Which of these operates on millisecond decisions?
> 
> Oh, this is a trick question....  NONE because they
> CAN'T.  YOU can NOT
> convince me that they WOULD NOT if they COULD!!!!
> 
> 
> > 
> > What I'm asserting is:
> > 
> > if it's within two links of the same type, a
> meta-link can do it
> 
> Yeah, and where is this defined in ANY commercial IP
> stack???
> 
> 
> > if it's between two different links, IP routing
> has to do it,
> > and that doesn't care about millisecond events
> 
> Baloney!  Policy based routing most certainly does. 
> Especially with respect to
> wireless handovers which is the MAIN purpose of this
> discussion.  When users
> are paying for mobile services they expect SERVICE.
> 
> > TCP reacts on RTTs, usually multiple RTTs. Even
> then, what would TCP do 
> > that it doesn't already to? I.e., you don't need
> an L2 trigger to 
> > program a box to send TCP ECN data back.
> 
> You are missing the point.  Most of us are talking
> about wireless systems and the
> L2 being able to convey its highly variable state to
> stacks that CAN react to
> it.
> 
> > Again, if you want to do this on a single box, you
> don't need an L2 
> > trigger. It's not that you're talking to IP in
> general, but that you're 
> > talking to a particular stack implementation.
> 
> Wrong.  We absolutely NEED IP to change so that
> there is a standard 
> mechanism for ALL future L2s to communicate with IP
> from the bottom up.
> Imagine yourself as an L2.  How on earth are you
> going to send any kind
> of link quality assesment to IP?  THERE IS NO
> STANDARD MECHANISM
> CURRENTLY.  That is the reason we need the BOF, WG,
> and the standard
> track RFC for specifying the underspecified IP
> underbelly.  The PILC WG has
> taken an Ivory tower position and said all kinds of
> things about what L2s
> should and should not do.  I am representing L2s and
> pushing back on what
> I believe IP needs to do!!!  Its silly for the PILC
> group to come up with all kinds
> of recommendations for standards they can't control
> when they CAN control
> the safe harber that IP can provide for wireless and
> other L2s.
> 
> -Phil Neumiller
> 
> 
> 
--behcet

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/