Re: Layer 3.5 is actually layer 4

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Iljitsch;

> And yes, there will always be special cases, the world is a complex place.
>
> > that there is no reason to insist on the fallacy.

> Which fallacy?

Layer 3.5 with the definition of:

	it can cover all cases, including ones we have not invented yet.  

> > So, your reduced requirement is merely that:
>
>
> >     The systems level argument for a layer 3.5 solution is
> >     that it can cover a TCP case.

> > which is a TCP specific layer 4 solution.

> I don't see any reason why a solution that sits between IP and upper 
> layers couldn't work with all upper layers, first and foremost TCP, but 
> also UDP and the real-time protocols built on top of UDP.

You are confusing layering of protocols and structure of
implementations.

See below.

> > Note that layer 4 protocols can and will share some function
> > calls to control M6, just as TCP and UDP can share a function
> > call to compute check sum that it is an issue independent of
> > layering. We don't have to make transport layer check summing
> > layer 3.5, only to let TCP and UDP share some function calls.

> If you prefer to look at it this way, I have no problem with that. 
> Different people have different outlooks. One man's waves are another 
> man's particles...

TO enlighten you, quantums are neither waves nor particles
but are distributions. It is not a problem of outlook.

That some implementation share some function calls does not
mean others must also share them.

That you have some function calls in some layer 4 but not in
others means that the functionality is at layer 4.

						Masataka Ohta