IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 12 November 2014 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7EEC1ACD8D for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:12:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aAHdAB1U91me for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:12:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155541A8831 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:12:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id sAC5CY4B031577; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:12:34 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B149200EB5; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:12:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33373200BEF; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:12:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.19]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id sAC5CD0G025712; Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:12:33 +0100
Message-ID: <5462EC2C.400@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 06:12:12 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
References: <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B449037ECA@nkgeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D0765101.175805%sgundave@cisco.com> <005401cff509$3719eb30$a54dc190$@com> <D0869CBD.177FDF%sgundave@cisco.com> <642BADAF-0E49-4B1E-A2C2-374B1A8FA174@nominum.com> <D086AE73.178045%sgundave@cisco.com> <002c01cffd58$18276ca0$487645e0$@com> <D086FAFB.178092%sgundave@cisco.com> <5462343B.7040705@gmail.com> <D0877F0D.1782C4%sgundave@cisco.com> <A1FC9613-715B-465B-870F-0EEC1B2C4884@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A1FC9613-715B-465B-870F-0EEC1B2C4884@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/ERu4RPqJxsJACzwnRKcJuuBDKgM
Cc: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:12:44 -0000

Le 11/11/2014 21:14, Ted Lemon a écrit :
> On Nov 11, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
> <sgundave@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Can we split a audio flow on satellite access and DSL link and say
>> its an application problem ?

HEre we talk DSL and cellular (not satellite).  The link characteristics 
are very different.

>> Is it not a network design problem and should it not be avoided ?

As long as an IP addressing architecture is designed to deal with it ok 
it is not something to be avoided.

Is multihoming something to be avoided?

> This is precisely why I question whether the proposed architecture
> is actually the right thing.

Well, I dont know which part of the architecture is under doubt, but the 
presentation tomorrow will clarify maybe some parts of it.

Alex

>
>

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status