[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [DNA-BOF] Replacement term for L3 Link?
Hi Greg,
This already sounds more convenient...
Eric Njedjou
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Greg Daley [mailto:greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au]
> Envoyé : vendredi 9 janvier 2004 02:01
> À : NJEDJOU Eric FTRD/DMR/REN
> Cc : Spencer Dawkins; dna@eng.monash.edu.au; JinHyeock Choi
> Objet : [DNA-BOF] Replacement term for L3 Link?
>
>
> Hi Eric, JinHyeock and Spencer,
>
> There's some difficulty in finding an appropriate term,
> especially because of the usage of link as an L2
> designator.
>
> As you know, the term link is already used in IPv6,
> for on-link determination for router discovery. Also,
> it is the boundary for the link-local scope.
>
> So essentially, we have already got ambiguity.
>
> I believe that as Spencer says, we're trying to
> get to a point where we can describe the reachable
> nodes which can be reached without forwarding or
> hopping.
>
> However, I think also that it may be awkward to use
> the term 'hop' since most IP configuration messaging
> never 'hops' at all.
>
> Since we're talking about the domain where local delivery
> works, there was a suggestion here that we call it
> an 'IP neighbourhood'.
>
> Essentially, this would be the range where link-local
> traffic is delivered, and consequently (since ND/RD is
> based on link-local packets), the range where the
> configuration is valid.
>
> Change of neighbourhood therefore entails IP
> configuration change.
>
> Please tell me what you think.
>
>
> At this stage, we've submitted the charter to the ADs
> for pre-circulation to internet area WG chairs, so
> we really have to get the charter nailed down (today?
> yesterday?)
>
> Of course, I've got a couple of (previously planned)
> amendments to put in as indicated by Eric and JinHyeock.
>
> We're getting ready for the next IESG conference call,
> so the charter has to be ready, approved by the ADs,
> checked by the WG chairs and available to the IESG
> for inspection at least week before the call
> (call is on the 22 Jan).
>
> So if we can live with L3 Link in the charter as it stands
> (with the minor amendments) then that would be easiest.
>
> In that case, any terminology we agree on would go into
> the first round of charter amendments when the group
> next re-charters (Charter issue #1).
>
> Since this may not be acceptable, I'll create a new
> charter to show how this term could be used as a drop-in
> replacement for L3 Link.
>
> I'll post this shortly.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> NJEDJOU Eric FTRD/DMR/REN wrote:
> > I agree with keeping the term "link" for L2. Even if people
> are not obliged to using the charter terminology, i think the
> charter is a place where terms should not carry any form of
> ambiguity.
> >
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@mcsr-labs.org]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 8 janvier 2004 13:39
> > À : dna@eng.monash.edu.au
> > Objet : Re: [DNA-BOF] Modified Charter available.
> >
> >
> > Yes, please pick terms now, otherwise you'll spend time explaining
> > ideas to confused people later.
> >
> > My suggestion is "link" for level two/link layer links, and "IP hop"
> > for level three/network layer links - if you decrement
> TTL/hop limit,
> > it's an IP link, if you don't, it's something else. "IP hop" seems
> > silly, but isn't that what the IP hop limit is limiting?
> >
> > Please insert your suggestions for better names here, of course!
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "NJEDJOU Eric FTRD/DMR/REN" <eric.njedjou@francetelecom.com>
> > To: <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>; <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 4:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: [DNA-BOF] Modified Charter available.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hello folks,
> >>
> >>
> >>>Description of Working Group:
> >>
> >>>For the purposes of detecting network attachment, an
> >>>L3 link is defined by the range within which IP
> >>>packets may be sent without resorting to forwarding.
> >>>In other words, a link is the range where a given IP
> >>>configuration is valid.
> >>
> >>In my opinion talking about "L3 link" is not a good idea at all.
> >
> > People
> >
> >>will very soon get confused between L2 link and L3 link. The
> >
> > traditional
> >
> >>"network layer" or "IP layer" expression was very convenient.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>