On 1/26/2015 1:52 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote: > > Hello Joe, > > Follow-up below: > > On 1/26/2015 10:31 AM, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> The whole story for IP (L3) is: >> ..... >> >> (C) - Those subnets can be internetworked using L3 (routers) >> ONLY where they overlap (i.e., share a node). > > This isn't true for routers that route over links that are not > part of a subnet.
That link acts like it's own 2-node L2 subnet that thus overlaps with the two subnets it bridges on each side. I didn't say all the subnets need to be composed of the same technology. > ...................... > >> So far, "your" experience (you, the authors, the MANET community) >> keeps asserting that there's something magic about that environment >> that the Internet architecture and protocols haven't considered. > > It's not magic. That's the point. And we don't say that the problems > have never been considered. From earlier email: > >> ... We are simply trying to point out >> that the effects do matter, and are worthy of consideration when >> designing IP protocols. > > Also from earlier email: > >>> >>> If you have a problem that isn't described above, it is you who need >>> to describe it. The burden of proof is on you to explain what's new. >> >> What's new is collecting together these important matters >> into a document that can be helpful. The lack of such a document >> motivated the writing of the draft under discussion. Our indication >> that it was needed came from experience in other working groups. I'd be glad to see a new version of the ID that accomplishes this. There have been no points raised in email so far that accomplish this, though. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
