Andy, and Alex, Yes. I think we need to say more about this aspect. It's clear that a technology boundary is a kind of "natural" domain boundary, but on the other hand we've been overcoming such boundaries for many years (anybody remember Ethernets bridged together over FDDI?). And of course VLANs create limited domains at layer 2. However, implicitly we're talking about limited domains at layer 3. Maybe we need to be explicit about that (but see Tom Herbert's message, which I'll reply to next).
Regards Brian On 2018-09-13 04:16, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Alex and Brian, > > Any time you have a limited domain layer 2 network (such as a campus > Ethernet, or more application-specific networks like Alex was mentioning), > one thing that commonly occurs is that people want to use tunnels to > interconnect such networks either over the Internet, or alternatively over > an enterprise's managed L3 network from a WAN service provider if they want > to be able to maintain SLA parameters. In that case, tunneling > technologies such as pseudowires, L2TPv3, or GRE are commonly used. I think > that this is a different case than the gateways mentioned by Alex, since in > some cases there may be no IP involved except as an outer tunnel wrapper, > or MPLS may be the outer wrapper, in which case there's no IP at all. > > Brian, you started to touch on this in your draft with mentions of > interconnections between limited domains, but you might want to add more > detail for the reader. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Alexandre Petrescu < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I read the draft. I find it describes well a state of matters in >> networking along a Limited Domain paradigm. >> >> Maybe some call IP-enabled Limited Domains 'walled gardens'. >> >> 4. Examples of Limited Domain Solutions >>> >>> This section lists various examples of specific limited domain >>> solutions that have been proposed or defined. It intentionally does >>> not include Layer 2 technology solutions, which by definition apply >>> to limited domains. >>> >> >> But there are so many new layer 2 technology solutions that could well >> apply to be Limited Domains. I was just shown HDMI datagrams over Ethernet >> without IP headers, to cite an example outside the typical Bluetooth or USB >> network. >> >> I think this is a tendency that will continue: more application-specific >> layer 2 technologies will be developped to manage more Limited Domains, >> which will all need to be connected to the Internet in one way or another. >> >> At first, the connection to the Internet will be with a Gateway, and only >> then IP will blend in. But it's always a two-step operation. Never people >> start make new application-specific Limited Domains networks with IP. >> >> Alex >> >> >> Le 12/09/2018 à 05:30, Brian E Carpenter a écrit : >> >>> New version, with a first draft of a taxonomy added. >>> >>> Discussion welcome. >>> >>> Brian + Bing >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-limited-domains-03.txt >>> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:18:56 -0700 >>> From: [email protected] >>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>> directories. >>> >>> >>> Title : Limited Domains and Internet Protocols >>> Authors : Brian Carpenter >>> Bing Liu >>> Filename : draft-carpenter-limited-domains-03.txt >>> Pages : 19 >>> Date : 2018-09-11 >>> >>> Abstract: >>> There is a noticeable trend towards network requirements, behaviours >>> and semantics that are specific to a limited region of the Internet >>> and a particular set of requirements. Policies, default parameters, >>> the options supported, the style of network management and security >>> requirements may vary. This document reviews examples of such >>> limited domains and emerging solutions, and develops a related >>> taxonomy. It shows the needs for a precise definition of a limited >>> domain boundary and for a corresponding protocol to allow nodes to >>> discover where such a boundary exists. >>> >>> >>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-limited-domains/ >>> >>> There are also htmlized versions available at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-limited-domains-03 >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-carpenter-limited-domains-03 >>> >>> A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-carpenter-limited-domains-03 >>> >>> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>> submission >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-D-Announce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Int-area mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
