Re: [IMRG] Requirements for IMP Checkpoint

[jon bennett <jcrb@yahoo.com>]

> There might be another issue to consider here: it might be possible to extend
> IPMP to switches and other non-IP devices if the TTL match is used only as a
> trigger.  Once triggered, every device (down to the scale of individual line
> cards and switches) could (optionally) record information.  Complicated boxes
> (large routers) could even timestamp more than once if there are multiple
> queues within the box.   This would have to be an optional feature, but if
> you ever talk the likes of Intel and Syskonnect into doing it in standard NIC
> chips, then it will just happen everywhere....
>
> (The hard part of this would be finding the IPMP header in a device that 
> isn't
> really doing IP at all).
I suppose I did ask for this (literally, in my first message :-) ) , but 
this is
of course quite a layering violation. It would be useful I'm sure, since an 
earlier poster mentioned detecting mismatched auto negotiate on ethernet 
links, I imagine the same problem would exist between layer 2 devices. But 
what do the layer 2 (1?) devices stamp for an address? and how do you send 
them an information request?

On a related point I would like to see firewalls, NATs and ALGs stamp the 
packet as well, but they pose the same problem of how do you address an 
info request to them.

jon 

_______________________________________________
IMRG mailing list
IMRG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imrg