On 7/12/2017 5:52 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: > 1/ The IRTF sounds like a good landing point for all the previous > attempts to get the IETF to add path-awareness protocols. > > BTW, this goes back a lot further than SPUD. A good summary of > pre-2007 efforts in this space is in a section of Pasi's draft on this > from 2007: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarolahti-tsvwg-crosslayer-01#section-6 > , which reminds us of TRIGTRAN (2002), INTERSEC (2003), ALIAS (2003) > and TERNLI (2006). IMO, those are less "path" than "link" aware.
I.e., I see "path aware" as knowing the difference in the *path* properties of two different paths, e.g., BW, latency, jitter. I see "link aware" as dealing more with per-hop loss rates, MAC collisiions, etc. So yes, there are a lot of "dead" bodies from past work here, but IMO that's a lesson - I don't think link-transport interactions are a great idea. I sincerely hope that this new effort is doign in a different direction, rather than rehashing these old efforts... Joe
