On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:19:42PM -0800, to...@strayalpha.com wrote:
> I disagree; a tunnel (done correctly) is isomorphic to a link. There’s no
> difference between tunnels and what we already rely on as “L2”.
I guess wrt. routing we (Internet Routing Architecture) started out with
alot of simplifying assumptions about the properties of links. Primarily them
being full-mesh-mp2mp or p2p. And then MPLS gave us arbitrary mesh mp2p LSPs,
and then MANET came with arbitrary partial-connectivity meshes. I don't this
we ever formalized any of this so that we could really confidently use
link or tunnels and be clear about what options the reader will assume.
> The flaw is the OSI model assuming layer levels are absolute (they’re
> relative) from all viewpoints (again, relative). There’s a strong equivalence
> between a link, a tunnel, and a router (which, in essence, emulates shared
> link). And, interestingly, forwarding can also be described as recursive
> tunneling.
I thought you just look whats on the wire and you know
the level. If its a frame it's L2, if it's a packet, it's L3. If it's
anything more complicated, it's a tunnel (sorry, couldn't resist ;-))
Is there any IETF RFC that is actually any better than OSI in this respect ?
And yes. I wish there was better material about recursion as the core
fundamental of building networks. Especially because so far we mostly
have re-invented the wheel for every instance of recursion (frame,
packets, tunnel headers..).
Cheers
Toerless
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
