Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Hi James,

I had to respond to this...

> All of these define what the bits look like on the wire when you use
> IP over foo.  The bits are slightly different in each case because of
> the vagaries of each L2.
> 
> In contrast, the "triggers" proposal changes *nothing* about the bits
> on the wire.  The bits remain the same; only the internal design
> (perhaps) changes.

Yes, this is the whole point.  To this day, IP as defined by the IETF has
NEVER described how an L2 itself might interface to IP.  That is indeed
what we are struggling with.  I realize its a new concept.  Its the wire(s)
between the link layer and the internet layer that needs specification.
Why *this* was never done escapes me.  The IETF is more than happy to
say here is a dumb L2 with a payload like this and here is how we 
stuff IP bits into it.  The IETF heretofore has NEVER been  interested in 
how an L2 may interpret the TOS field or TTL for instance across an
L2 tunnel.  How can the IETF EVER hope to build QoS if it continues
to limit itself to this limited method of specification?   Perhaps best
effort is the end-all???   Maybe we don't really need to charge for 
mobility, QoS, and security?   This is precisely where IP needs to 
mature.  The bits on the wire may very well be affected (in the 
time or frequency domain) if IP+xport had a mechanism to allow it.
Most wireless interfaces have a variety of speed settings.  Generally the
longer the distance the slower the speed.  When you add mobility and
QoS to this mixture it gets real ugly real fast UNLESS IP matures.

My claim, is that IP IS NOT DONE FOR WIRELESS.  Its only
just begun.  If you shoot me down here in this BOF, other more powerful
wireless Jedi will follow me!!! :-)  


_______________________________________________
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/