The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

["Andrew G. Malis" <malis@nexen.com>]

Grenville,

> Interestingly, I only just realized this morning the group's name
> was Internetworking over NBMA, rather than IP over NBMA (something
> about my brain putting in words I assumed would be there rather than
> reading what actually was there :-)
> Is this intended to convey a sense of the group working on other
> protocols over NBMA in addition to IP?

To quote the charter:

This WG will focus on the issues involved in internetworking network
layer protocols over NBMA (non-broadcast multiple access) subnetwork
technologies ... The group will endeavor to make all its solutions
applicable to the entire range of network layer protocols and NBMA
subnetworks.  We recognize, however, that there will be cases where
specific optimizations to IPv4, IPv6, and particular subnetwork
technologies will result in better service to the user.

Does this make it clear? :-)

> >>Meanwhile, the IESG was meeting during the LA IETF, and approved the
> >>principle of a merged group and chose George Swallow as my co-chair.
> Given the superset implications of 'Internetworking over NBMA', and since
> the chair of MPOA is now also a co-chair of ION, the other question I'm
> going to be asked by my clients is "will MPOA have any need to exist?"

The MPOA group has already been working closely with the ipatm and
rolc working groups (after all, many of the same people are doing the
work in both places), and George and I both support the continued
cooperation and coordination between MPOA and ion.  Does MPOA need to
exist?  I certainly think so, given that the ATM Forum and IETF have
different charters and focus.

Cheers,
Andy