[pilc] AD request / L2 Views Problem Statement

From: Phil Neumiller (pneumiller@meshnetworks.com)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 11:27:04 EDT

  • Next message: Matt Mathis: "[pilc] Re: How many bytes should a CRC-32 protect?"

    Hi Eric,

    I am reluctant to carry on discussions on the pilc list, since I would like confirmation
    from an AD whether they want this discussion here or someplace else. I assume they
    do, since they relocated the L2 triggers BOF to PILC. I believe at this point we are
    discussing things within the scope of that planned BOF.

    AD Request,

    Scott and/or Allison can probably provide clarity here. I want to express that my
    desired "perspective" is to position ourselves as link layer designers that want to
    see some standardization on the IP underbelly, i.e. an API if you will, to IPs darker
    side, and a standardized way for IP to send events (at the millisecond time scale)
    "up" to the IP layer. This means adding standardization to IP, not link layers. It
    means we want to standardize the way link layers "talk to" IP in the upward
    direction. The first proposal is a high performance queue for event notification offered
    by the IP layer to bound link layers. The simplest use of this queue is simply to buffer
    the notifications and forward them to the transport layer if not "hooked" by the IP
    layer.

    With respect to your question Eric, several people have sent comments on the problem
    statement and everything at this point is work-in-progress and everybody is welcome to
    contribute whatever they whenever they can. Before getting to a formal problem
    statement, it may prove fruitful to first entertain some philosophical discussions regarding
    the under-specified IP underbelly. Perhaps many feel that the current underbelly mechanisms
    of arp, rarp, icmp, etc are sufficient for wireless devices??? Maybe the definition of a
    host/gateway just needs some sprucing up (RFC 1122 / RFC 1123)?

    Best Regards,

    Phil

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Eric Whitehill" <ewhitehill@MeshNetworks.com>

    > Phil,
    >
    > Perhaps I didn't see it, but did everyone agree to the problem statement
    > that you included in
    > your 4/30 e-mail?
    >
    > Eric
    >

    _______________________________________________
    pilc mailing list
    pilc@ietf.org
    https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 11:34:12 EDT