Re: NPTv6 deals with "packets", not with "datagrams" - to be corrected after draft-14
Fred Baker <fred@...
2011-05-03 15:03:56 GMT
On May 3, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
>> I also am confused by your use of the term "datagram". A datagram is not a transport layer construct,
> Isn't User Datagram Protocol a transport layer protocol?
Yes, and unless the datagram is carried in IP, it's not actually a datagram. I refer you to the definition of
the term. A datagram is self-addressed and contains all of the information necessary to deliver it from
its source to its destination.
>> it's a network layer construct. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/datagram
> To know what a datagram is in IETF, RFC's are IMHO better than an online dictionary
If you want to play that game, so be it. The word "datagram" (along with "catenet", which has largely been
replaced by the term "internet", in lwer case) was common in the 1970's and 1980's, and the definition was
well known to those present. So I don't find a place that says "when I say 'datagram' I mean '...'" in the RFC
series - that was in published conference papers circa 1972 when the datagram model was first being
proposed as an alternative to virtual circuits. What I do find, however, is this in IEN #48. The Internet
Engineering Notes (IENs) were a parallel document track used in the 1970's. IEN #48 is "The Catenet Model
for Internetworking", written by Vint Cerf. It says, among its assumptions, that
it is assumed that the
participating network allows switched access so that any source
computer can quickly enter datagrams for successive and different
destination computers with little or no delay (i.e., on the order
of tens of milliseconds or less switching time).
Under these assumptions, we can readily include networks which
offer "datagram" interfaces to subscribing host computers. That