[e2e] Layering vs. modularization
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu May 15 19:35:44 PDT 2008
David P. Reed wrote:
> The following argument that you make by dragging in "fate sharing"
> suggests that your mental model is not about layering at all. You are
> discussing dynamic behaviors, and layering has NOTHING to do with
> dynamics of packet transport, and more than modularity in a programming
> language has anything to do with the speed of a CPU's various ALU and
> memory operations.
I gave a specific example below of cases where it's useful for one layer
to expose information (in this cases, groups of V4 addresses within a
single V6 address) to another. That's precisely about layering, and
something that elsewhere has been called layer violation.
>>> stateful packet inspectors *might* need a re-write, but that aside, I
>>> don't see how anything other than a bug would make the outer V6
>>> active units need to read the inner V4 payload, or vice versa
>> Outer V6 would read inner V4 to support path 'fate sharing', i.e.,
>> when doing multipath routing it's useful to ensure that 'flows'
>> traverse similar paths, and in this case the V4 address could be the
>> best cue to a flow.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20080515/d99f10bf/signature.bin
More information about the end2end-interest