Re: RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

Jinhyeock Choi writes:


> James Carlson writes:
> > You're basically describing integrating L2 reachability information
> > into L3 -- so that (say) a failure of a bridge or switch port notifies
> > other hosts on the network so that they can (for example) rip up
> > ARP/ND entries and reroute traffic.
> 
> > That sounds like a great idea, but it's not IP, and not part of the
> > IETF.  I would suggest bringing such a thing up with IEEE or doing it
> > as a special proprietary hack.
> 
> I think it has something to do with IP. The recipient of, for example, L2 reachability 
> information is L3 entity. Hence that information must be represented in IP format in 
> order to be understood by receiving L3 entity. Hence, we should define IP message
> format for that information, for example ICMP or extension header. Moreover, we 
> may need L2 trigger transport protocol, too. 


I think that the (unified) mapping rules are also needed.

That is, the mapping rules include the relation of L2 information to L3 information.

For example, in mobile QoS support, the information for Binding update with QoS parameters has been defined.

Equivalent to the mapping of L2 QoS parameters to L3 parameters, the mapping rules for L2 triggers must be defined to provide fast and QoS mobility.

 
> > You're talking about two things, I think.  802.11 emulates an
> > Ethernet, and 3GPP is using PPP.
> 
> I guess my expression is not clear enough. I mean, it will be nice to provide technical 
> input to other standard bodies just as IETF provided technical input to 3GPP. 
> 

This is the time IETF has to start coworking with the other standard bodies. 


> >> I guess the following questions are to be considered.
> >> 1) Is L2 trigger useful for Internet? 
> >> 2) Can we improve the current work on L2 trigger?
> >> 3) Is it appropriate to work on L2 trigger in IETF WG?
> >> 
> >> IMHO, the answers to all are positive as I wrote above.
> 
> > In my opinion, all of those are negative.
> 
> I don't understand. You agreed that it is useful for the link layer to be able to send 
> event notifications up to IP layer like below. 
> 
> >> Few will doubt that it is useful for the link layer to be able to send event notifications up to IP 
> >> layer,
> 
> >Right; no disagreement there.
> 
> Doesn't above mean that at least you agree to 1)? 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
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/