On Aug 10, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Such a thing is just untrue. IP works on any link, it has to. That's why >> we do IP over Foo. > > Agreed, IP is supposed to work on anything from 10Gb/s fiber to carrier > pigeons. The market has chosen, IP has eaten all of the protocols that > required special support from the link layer. If a link layer doesn't > fit, we design an adaptation shim (I'm looking at you, ARCNET). > > However, this doesn't prevent us from giving advice to link layer > designers for best IP performance. RFC 3819 (BCP 89) has the following to > say: > > Subnetworks using shared channels (e.g., radio LANs, Ethernets) are > especially suitable for native multicasting, and their designers > should make every effort to support it. > > Since RFC 3819 is mostly concerned about avoiding receiving unwanted > multicast, I don't know why you would get that impression. I helped write that section (as noted in sec 19). Native L2 multicast should be supported exactly because it's useful to IP, as noted here: --- Multicasting is considerably more efficient when a subnetwork explicitly supports it. --- Joe > it doesn't say anything about the performance of multicast > itself. Is an update needed? > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
