dst-src-routing & introduction-to-semantic-routing

Hi all, just to relay Adrian Farrel's mic comment, that was regarding https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-irtf-introduction-to-semantic-routing/ and indeed adding a source lookup is a specific instance of additional routing semantics. Having become aware of that draft only a few

Re: draft-llsyang-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-00

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:02:18AM -0700, Tony Li wrote: > Thank you for re-opening this. > > I will point out that what you’re really hitting on is the known > architectural deficiency of IP: how does a multi-homed network deal > with multiple locators? We’ve discussed this to death previously

WGLC on draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing?

Hi all, the rtgwg-dst-src-routing draft has been whacked and beaten to death and it seems we've run low on complaints on it, so I think I should ask for WGLC on it. I'm unaware of open issues/comments on it, if you have any I'd appreciate a pointer or retransmission. CPEs doing SADR have been

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:55:01PM +, Chris Bowers wrote: > With the proposed generalization of rule #3, together with a clarification > that the source-prefix-scoped > forwarding table should be chosen based on longest source prefix match with > the source address of the packet, > I think

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:12:02AM +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote: > Hi David, > > > It's already there > > I was speaking about rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming. ;-) Oh, sorry, I jumped over because the section numbers were so similar ;-D -David > Thanks by the way for your explanations in

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:42:59PM +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote: [snip] > Perhaps having something like the following(?): > > 3. Forwarding tables representations > 3.1. Source Address Dependant Forwarding tables > -> this is just a dump of the announces > 3.2.

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:23:46PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Matthieu Boutier wrote: > > > > Did you agree that: > > > > 1. destination first give the correct behaviour as-is. > > > > 2. source first needs extra mechanism and route

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

... I should step away from electronical devices, for some reason I'm missing Chris Bowers and Fred Baker again... ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

Gah, forgot Cc:s, resending to list so replies will inherit Cc:s (please reply on this one to get the Cc:s) On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 07:29:13PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote: Hello again, rtgwg, Unfortunately (and possibly contradicting earlier statements I may have made to the opposite

Implications of default-only SADR (was: Re: multi-homing for provider-assigned IPv6 addresses)

TL;DR: note at end about "abort as unreachable" as alternative way to get rid of complicated backtracking. (Jump to second/last - line.) Hi all, here is another shot at my somewhat confusing (sorry) in-room comment on the policy aspect of limiting to D=::/0. The scenario I'm thinking of

Re: dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:56:59PM +, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: On 10/20/14, 4:40 PM, David Lamparter equi...@diac24.net wrote: Last but not least, I'd like to request a slot at the IETF 91 rtgwg meeting to present these drafts. David: How much time do you want? Hm. 5 min

Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:52:18AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 29/10/2014 02:06, Ole Troan wrote: Fred, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1

Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

[plucking a paragraph from the middle] On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:09:15PM +, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: I suspect the company you are discussing might have a number of small offices in as many cities, and as many PA prefixes as it takes. The company might also have a PI prefix, but I would be

Re: dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:40:33PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1 rtgwg homenet: So, these drafts describe

Re: [homenet] draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases-00 in the rtgwg today

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:19:27PM -0800, Teco Boot wrote: Op 6 nov. 2013, om 15:26 heeft Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net het volgende geschreven: o The routing protocol or mechanism includes a destination prefix, which may be a default route (::/0) or any more specific prefix up