[e2e] Layering vs. modularization

[Joe Touch]

David,

David P. Reed wrote:
> The following argument that you make by dragging in "fate sharing" 
> suggests that your mental model is not about layering at all.  You are 
> discussing dynamic behaviors, and layering has NOTHING to do with 
> dynamics of packet transport, and more than modularity in a programming 
> language has anything to do with the speed of a CPU's various ALU and 
> memory operations.

I gave a specific example below of cases where it's useful for one layer 
to expose information (in this cases, groups of V4 addresses within a 
single V6 address) to another. That's precisely about layering, and 
something that elsewhere has been called layer violation.

Joe

...
>>> stateful packet inspectors *might* need a re-write, but that aside, I 
>>> don't see  how anything other than a bug would make the outer V6 
>>> active units need to read the inner V4 payload, or vice versa
>>
>> Outer V6 would read inner V4 to support path 'fate sharing', i.e., 
>> when doing multipath routing it's useful to ensure that 'flows' 
>> traverse similar paths, and in this case the V4 address could be the 
>> best cue to a flow.
>>
>> Joe
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20080515/d99f10bf/signature.bin