sub-IP is in fact what the IETF, which has little understanding of
things below the internet layer, calls it. If we take the caveat that
the extreme generality of the term is a demonstration of our lack of
competence in the area, it's probably fine.
personally, I see a huge difference between the thing that interprets
ones and zeroes coming off a medium into messages that can be
understood (L2) and anything that uses concatenated L2 links to
communicate among a selection of potentially non-neighboring systems
(L3). Since I am actually able to distinguish them, I personally
prefer to do so.
On Mar 24, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Fred,
OK, I did a search for the term and came up with many millions
of hits so I see your point. But, I'm still not sure this quite
captures it because there could be many things going on beneath
the Internet layer yet above L2. Take for example multiple levels
of IP-in-IP encapsulation, link-specific adaptation (per Daniel's
message), link-specific ARP cache manipulations, etc.
So, what I'm looking for is a single term to refer to everything
that occurs below the IP layer down to and including L2. (The
reason I say "including L2" is that these fuzzy mid-layers may
be NULL in some instances.)
Does "sub-IP layer" work for you?
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 7:36 PM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] the layer below IP
"intranet" or "sublayer"? Certainly not "internet", which is
explicitly used in exactly this way in RFC 791
The internet protocol is specifically limited in scope to
provide the
functions necessary to deliver a package of bits (an internet
datagram) from a source to a destination over an interconnected
system
of networks...
This protocol is called on by host-to-host protocols in an
internet
environment. This protocol calls on local network
protocols to carry
the internet datagram to the next gateway or destination host.
For the record, I have used this concept and called it that since I
worked at CDC in 1978-1983. That was how we drew our pictures of the
network we were building. I have always thought we in fact had it
right and wondered why everyone else seemed to have it wrong. I'll
also refer you to http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~amer/PEL/estelle/pdf/
cpwsce.concordia.2001.pdf (which google just found for me); search
for the word "intranet".
I don't know whose confidence you're concerned about me betraying,
honest. This is the architectural model and terminology I have used
for nearly 30 years.
On Mar 24, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Fred,
from my perspective, it is more useful to consider the network
layer sub-layered into an intranet layer and an internet layer.
You have said a word here that I know well from other contexts (as
I think you know) but did not know we could speak of openly. In
fact, I probably would have suggested these terms if I thought I
could. So, are we both in trouble now?
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
