On Aug 29, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Arnaud Ebalard wrote:
Let's let people that still argue in favor of source-routing prove
- there is a need
I see advertisement of specifics by multi-homed sites as a indication
that they desire more control over how their traffic is routed. If
the architecture does not address that problem directly, I think it
is likely to manifest itself indirectly at some other place (e.g. the
RIB growth problem).
- there is a need at L3
IP seems to be the right place in the stack to deal with issues of
path selection and packet delivery. Do you see a better place in a
different layer?
- there is a need at L3 to blindly process their pkts
Can you clarify what you mean by "blindly"? As others have stated,
including support for source routing in IPv6 does not necessarily
mean that every IPv6 node in the network needs to be configured as a
viable (intermediate) source routing destination. I agree that a
goal of the new draft should be to minimize the cost to uninterested
nodes.
- there is a need at L3 to blindly process their pkts and it's safe
Also, please clarify "safe". Is this a question on the acceptable
range of traffic (trend) variability? Of the issues raised at csw07,
which do you think are unable to be mitigated through a revised RH
specification? In your opinion, which issues are currently
unmitigated in the RH4 draft?
Thanks,
Dow
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
