Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

> > RFC 2460 has an explicit requirement on L2 for IPv6 that it support
path
> > MTU discovery and that layer 2 either handle segmentation and
reassembly
> > itself or that this be done in the driver by a shim. The requirment
is
> > abstract, in that it does not specify how the requirement should be
> > implemented for a particular layer 2..
>
> So what?  It is also silent about many other implementation issues
that
> cannot be detected on the wire or tested for standards conformance.
>

One possible use for L2 triggers may be as a similar set of requirements
on wireless Layer 2 for implementing better performing Mobile IP
handover. Such requirements would not be standards track, but purely
informational. As such, they would not be involved in tests for
standards conformance or detection on the wire, but purely for helping
designing Layer 2s that better fit IP. This would be similar to the
requirement in RFC 2460 for path MTU handling.

Without such a document, it is difficult for standards bodies, such as
3GPP and IEEE, to know what they need to do to make their protocols a
better fit for IP. Of course, this can be handled on a case by case
basis, as it is now, but documenting some IETF concensus on what makes a
good wireless Layer 2 handover would make the task easier.

            jak





_______________________________________________
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/