RE: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

> 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.

Got to agree with Phil here.  Looking up from layer 2 (my current
perspective) this is clear and obvious.

> 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.  

The question in my mind is where to draw the line?

I agree with Phil in principle.  Pushing a standardized set of L2 signals up
to IP, and letting IP decide what it wants to do across a plethora a link
layers is the ideal approach.  However, these triggers need to be
*normalized* (i.e. have the *same* meaning across all link layers), for
example, as SIR values in one link layer are not comparable to those in
another.  Developing this understanding will take time.

A more timid, tentative step would be support for simple link UP/DOWN
triggers.  Standardization of behavior at this coarse granularity would be a
good start, and allow experience with wireless dynamics to be gained.  This
approach allows the link layer to decide when a link is good or bad, and
then make this decision known to IP.  IP can do what it likes, react as it
likes (or not) on its own timescale as appropriate.  The IP underbelly API
can evolve over time.

Thoughts?

-Scott

_______________________________________________
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/