Hi Aaron,
Quicky Answer: No.
Long winded answer:
Protocols for the Internet are not to be replaced but MAY surely be improved for
wireless devices right? If you think so, you may agree some of the points A-F
listed below.
If you don't agree; can you explain to me how QoS for wired/wireless links is going
to work properly without L2 trigger events providing feedback to/through IP?
How about fast and seamless handovers for wireless devices to from other wired
and wireless devices.
Some points in order of dimishing IETF support (I think....)
A). Wireless access to the global Internet is only going to grow (by any stretch of the
imagination). [most IETFrs will buy this]
B). The physics of wireless links is different from that of fixed links. It is different
enough to warrant at least some specialized treatment. [probably lose most the pilc
crowd here].
C). To operate with satisfactory performance, in a variety of wireless settings, IP
requires some fundamental improvement in implementation AND in standardization
(probably spread out over quite a few SDOs)
D). IP-over-everything should be qualified as: IP-over-everything wired (at least with
the way things are now).
E). TCP is currently broken for wireless (I know there is work on going). UDP is not
too much help. SCTP improves certain things. L2 triggers are a stepping stone
toward fixing some of the problems by giving transport protocols visibility into
fast changing L2 behavior, like link quality changes, link drops, etc.
F). Wireless L2s share much commonality with each other, but not as much with fixed/
wired links with respect to their real time behavior.
G). L2 triggers are fundamental to fast/seamless/smooth/fluffy/soft IP layer handoffs.
Best regards,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Falk" <falk@isi.edu>
To: "Phil Neumiller" <pneumiller@meshnetworks.com>
Cc: "pilc" <pilc@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement
>
> --Phil Neumiller wrote:
>
> > and one of the first useful steps towards the design of transport
> > protocols that are more useful for wireless
>
> You don't mean Transport layer protocols (as in
> end-to-end-replace-all-the-stacks-in-the-Internet), do you?
>
> --aaron
_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
pilc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 17:11:40 EDT