IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Follow up with BBF proposal

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 694421A1ABA for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:16:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594] 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 cdgeZquha5cb for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:15:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 477661A90B5 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 894AFDA01A9 for <mif@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:14:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157E253E07E; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:14:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-8fde.meeting.ietf.org (31.133.143.222) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:14:21 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0877F0D.1782C4%sgundave@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 10:14:14 -1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A1FC9613-715B-465B-870F-0EEC1B2C4884@nominum.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>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [31.133.143.222]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/qFeeccJlpv53nfTUWWiV2S64Arc
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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:16:04 -0000

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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email