Frank,
[clipped...]
> >10. Section 3.19
> >
> >In addition to comments already made on this section, --
> >what do authors understand under "IP" here? Based on the
> >last paragraph of Section 3.15, one may (erroneously???)
> >conclude that "IP" is a synonym for packet switching...
> >
> >And after all, MUST or MUST NOT "IP" be "agnostic" with
> >respect to any "routing" or "topology" at the "sub-IP"
> >"layers"? (especially when "IP" "routing" "wishes"
> >not to be "agnostic":) (that is, the last paragraph
> >seems to be inconsistent with the first one).
>
> For example,
> One could postulate an architecture built over
> ATM and the method of operation is to establish
> an SVC between the source node and destination
> node when the source tries to send something.
> In this architecture, all topolgy decisions,
> path-selection decisions, policy decisions,
> and so on are delegated to ATM and IP
> routing becomes null. We are saying that
> this is not allowed. The routing and addressing
> architecture must allow for as wide a variety
> of media as possible, and therefore cannot
> demand that the lower layers provide particular
> routing/topology/policy/... services.
I certainly agree with you that the architecture must allow for
"as wide a variety of media as possible". However, I also think
that the architecture should *not* be prohibited from using
routing/topology/policy services from the layer below.
Yakov.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT