Re: [mif] WG Review: Multiple InterFaces (mif)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



For what I know at the moment service provider deployment experience,
ICE like solution has been deployed by a dedicate close network, this
is not interact with MIF space we talked here, mif are resolve general issue
with host connections, in that scenario, application is isolated.

thanks.

-Hui.

2009/4/23 Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> At 7:29 AM -0700 4/22/09, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>
>>(1) As I pointed out in my previous message to Christian, address
>>selection is not (today) a transport-layer or application-layer function
>>in most cases.  Given that this is currently an Internet-layer function,
>>I think it makes sense to analyze the issues with address selection (as
>>part of the whole address/interface/router selection process)  in an
>>Internet Area group.  If we find that one of the problems we have is
>>that the Internet layer doesn't have the right information to make these
>>decisions, then possibly some follow-on work might need to be chartered
>>elsewhere.
>
> So this may be simply one of those cases where address selection
> does not fit your model, but at what layer would you describe the ICE
> spec as working?  Clearly, one aim in ICE is to provide a signalling-path
> mechanism for flow endpoint selection, which certainly relates to the question
> of address/interface selection.
>
> There is an old saw that my work is a cross-layer optimization; yours is
> a layer violation, and that guy's is a hideous hack.  However we have arrived
> here, it seems at least reasonable to say that we currently have this
> work muddled across a variety of layers.  If we can focus it and solve it
> at a single layer, the architecture gets easier and the protocol smog
> clear a bit.  But I seem to be hearing that tackling the big problem is
> ocean-boiling; what I am not clear on is whether the end result of piece work
> shifts the pain or actually reduces the smog.
>
> Perhaps it is just me; this is not stuff I am following in any depth.  But the
> impression I'm getting from following the thread is that there is some
> disagreement about how to structure the work to make sure it really
> does reduce pain, rather than just shift it around.
>
>                        regards,
>                                Ted
>                                Ted
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]