Re the AR draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fair-ipdvb-ar-00.txt)

[borderlt <border@hns.com>]

Gorry,

    I don't know, but I missed the announced re the AR draft.  So, I had not
read it prior to this afternoon's meeting.  But, I have read it now...

    I think the unicast problem to be solved needs to be illustrated more
clearly in the draft.  Address resolution has different purposes for unicast
and multicast.  For multicast, it relates to determining an address to receive
on.  The requirements for this seem covered by the draft.  But, for unicast,
address resolution means figuring out the address you need to send to.  With a
DVB broadcast, I see three possibilities:

    (1) A host at the DVB broadcast receiver needs to resolve an address that
is at the DVB broadcast sender;
    (2) A host at the DVB broadcast receiver needs to resolve an address that
is at another DVB broadcast receiver;
    (3) A host at the DVB broadcast sender needs to resolve an address that is
at a DVB broadcast receiver.

Unless you are assuming mesh (which is really not DVB broadcast, and therefore
is a different scope), (1) and (2) are really the same in that the host at the
DVB receiver doesn't know the difference.  In either case, the address which
needs to be determined is the MAC address of the device at the DVB sender to
which the IP packet should be forwarded (probably a router).  Even if it is
not a router, some device at the DVB sender has to relay the IP packet back to
the DVB broadcast channel and this is really the device which then needs to
resolve the specific DVB receiver MAC address.  This is basically (3).  So, it
seems like (3) is the problem which needs to be solved.  But, the draft
doesn't come across that way...

    Of course, it is possible that I am thinking about the wrong problem. 
Hence my first statement re needing to more clearly define the problem being
addressed...


John