On 08/08/2015 02:44, Weil, Jason wrote:
> Are you suggesting that IEEE and IETF send liaison letters to each other
> when they begin crafting new protocols?
Actually such a mechanism has existed for 15 years or so: the infamous
new-w...@ietf.org list, which I invented. It's a closed list (at this
point I forget why, but I imagine some SDOs have a complex about it)
populated by various liaisons. The theory was for SDOs to notify each
other about possibly overlapping new work in a more simple way than a
formal liaison statement. Because it's closed, I have no idea whether
there's any recent traffic.
> This could possibly be useful
> assuming anyone acted on it. The more likely scenario is for each SDO to
> send an liaison saying ³Hey we just spent x years designing our new
> protocol y, please take a look and see if your protocols both past and
> present will function efficiently over it.²
... with a P.S. apologising for having forgotten to mention it x years
ago on the new-work list. Yes, that's exactly what has happened before
now.
Brian
>
> In my experience there seems to be very little overlap between engineers
> working in the IEEE and those working in the IETF. My company for example
> has exactly zero overlap. IPv6 Multicast over IEEE 802.11 seems to be a
> good example of how more interaction would be immensely useful early on in
> the protocol development process. I¹m not sure there is a fix here, but it
> would definitely be useful for both SDOs to keep in mind each others
> protocols for interoperability purposes instead of just pointing to the
> other to fix their protocols.
>
> Customers
>
> Jason
>
> On 8/7/15, 2:21 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>
>>> It is simply unfair from the IETF to use Wi-Fi as if it was Ethernet
>>> and
>>> then complain to IEEE that in fact it is not.
>>
>> This is an interesting viewpoint. IETF isn't "using wifi as if it was
>> Ethernet". The customers who buy Wifi products buy it and run IP over it,
>> expecting it should work (because that's what the advertising says). IP
>> has been designed for wired ethernet (and Wifi carries ethernet frames).
>> As far as I can tell, 802.11 never told the IETF that it wouldn't support
>> multicast (really).
>>
>> I'd say IETF isn't saying "IP works great over Wifi" (it doesn't really
>> make any claims for any L1 or L2). However, I see producers of Wifi
>> equipment saying that their products are great for using to connect to
>> the
>> Internet, which is saying "Wifi is great for IP".
>>
>>> IPv6 over Ethernet makes heavy use of multicast over Ethernet, which
>>> for
>>> the lack of a highly scalable Multicast service always ends up
>>> broadcasted over the whole fabric.
>>>
>>> When Wi-Fi is confused with Ethernet and the whole multi link becomes a
>>> single layer 2 fabric, we create a crisis that will not be solved by
>>> imputing the responsibility on the other SDO.
>>
>> Which is exactly why I said that both SDOs need to do something. However,
>> since IP was "first" I think that 802.11 should have come to IETF a long
>> time ago and said that it couldn't do multicast. Basically, what I
>> interpret you're saying is that Wifi in its current form isn't suited to
>> carry IP the way IP has been designed, for a long time. That would be
>> news
>> for a lot of people.
>>
>>> My suggestion is to finally recognize that Wi-Fi is not Ethernet, in
>>> particular from the perspective of multicast, and provide the
>>> appropriate L3 mechanisms for IPv6 over Wi-Fi, for which the backbone
>>> router discussed above is one candidate solution.
>>
>> It's not only IPv6, but it's also IPv4 (since it uses broadcast, but less
>> of it).
>>
>> But what I hear here is that your opinion is that 802.11 doesn't need to
>> change, but the IETF needs to change for IP to work over Wifi. I'd really
>> appreciate some kind of official agreement from each SDOs who should do
>> what. If the long-term technical solution is that the IETF should change
>> L3 to basically avoid broadcast and multicast, then that's fine, as long
>> as this is agreed upon by both parties.
>>
>> However, I do think that 802.11 needs to point out to its members that if
>> they don't implement assured multicast replication, IP doesn't work
>> properly. Then they can decide what should be done in the short term,
>> because changing IP will take quite a while.
>>
>> --
>> Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
> the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
> the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
> contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail
> and any printout.
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
