Randy Bush wrote:
I.e., layering is, IMO at least, a model. Fine for describing things, but
not necessarily a good blueprint for an implementation.
compilation systems can be constructed which will procuce efficient inlined
code for nicely modularized (layered) source. just not for
Also seems to be a good electric fence - you can cross layers, but very
carefully.
Randy Bush wrote:
I.e., layering is, IMO at least, a model. Fine for describing things, but
not necessarily a good blueprint for an implementation.
compilation systems can be constructed which will
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 17 13:21:47 2001
* Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:58:35 -0500 (CDT)
* From: Timothy J. Salo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: [Hist Trivia] IP Protocol Layers
* X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Can anyone point me to an early
/Current/msg12223.html
- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mahadevan Iyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Hist Trivia] IP Protocol Layers
Interestingly enough, when we wrote RFC 1958 Architectural
Jon Crowcroft wrote:
In message v04220802b77bde136984@[10.83.97.216], Steve Deering typed:
We used to use gateway instead of router (and a few still do), and
i lik the fact that if you type getaway by mistake you get what people
are trying to do when they are routed ...
i also like
Interestingly enough, when we wrote RFC 1958 Architectural principles
of the Internet, nobody suggested layer violation is evil as a
principle. The arguments against layer violation tend to be pragmatic -
certain types of layer violation (such as content based routing)
could lead to complex
And if the terminology really is the most important contribution of OSI -
I think that this is amusing, ironic, and instructive all at the same
time.
It's amusing and ironic because of the huge amount of effort that went to
developing and promoting OSI. It's instructive because it
