Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • 4
    Technically accurate (as far as I can tell), thorough, backed by references, clear, and light-hearted.  I'd give this a handful of upvotes it I could. Commented Oct 22, 2015 at 18:35
  • 2
    The avian example is lucid and hilarious!
    – john
    Commented Nov 11, 2018 at 0:49
  • Hm. I thought the Avian Carriers in RFC 1149 sat under IP, replacing the data link layer (Ethernet vel sim).
    – Mark Reed
    Commented May 17, 2021 at 22:09
  • It's a common misconception that RFC1149 solely specifies the link layer for avian carriers, a misconception reinforced by the title and content. However, later analysis has concluded that RFC1149 specifies both the avian carrier layer and the datagram layer that it encapsulates. Commented May 19, 2021 at 11:33
  • Closer inspection of RFC 1149 reveals evidence of earlier, possibly covert work on avian overlay networks using a centralized hub topology. It is conjectured that the hubs, termed lofts by those versed in the art, used cut-through forwarding to bypass the latency of duct-tape decapsulation, optical scanning, re-printing and re-encapsulation. Further evidence of covert work on avian routers can be found in two leaked mentions in RFC 2549 Commented May 19, 2021 at 12:08