Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

> > 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




_______________________________________________
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/