Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!bbn!lf-server-2.bbn.com!jr
From: jr@lf-server-2.BBN.COM (John Robinson)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: TCP requesting ARP flushes and other "layering violations"
Message-ID: <255@lf-jr.BBN.COM>
Date: Tue, 27-Oct-87 17:09:01 EST
Article-I.D.: lf-jr.255
Posted: Tue Oct 27 17:09:01 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Oct-87 04:49:04 EST
Organization: BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

In article  <8710261735.AA02484@uunet.UU.NET> mo@maximo.UUCP writes:
>Currently, this kind of feedback is considered a "layering
>violation" by some.  I suggest that either this notion of layering
>is wrong, or people have a very stilted view of the interaction between
>layers.
>
>	-Mike O'Dell

For what it's worth, ISO (hence ANSI) have a standard called
multi-link which allows two or more point-to-point links to function
as a single data link layer entity, so the notion that there should be
a way to provide backup or parallel paths at layer 2 is not at all
foreign to the layer-conscious.  X.75 and now X.25 incorporate
multi-link as well.  Anyone want to work on the "multi-link"
extensions to 802.2?  (Only half :-)
-- 
/jr
jr@bbn.com or jr@bbn.uucp