Not at all. Heiner
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM, <heinerhum...@aol.com> wrote: > The network layer needs to cater for a two-loose-hops routing. The first > loose hop is the path to the egress-locator. The second loose hop is the > path from there to the destination host. Would it be a problem if we split the routing in three hops? - One from the source host to the egress-locator(router?). - Another form the source egress-locator the destination ingress-locator. - The last from the destination ingress-locator to the destination host. -- DY -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Dae Young KIM <dy...@cnu.ac.kr> An: heinerhum...@aol.com Cc: rja.li...@gmail.com; rrg@irtf.org Verschickt: Fr., 11. Jun. 2010, 13:10 Thema: Re: [rrg] semantic overloading On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:12 PM, <heinerhum...@aol.com> wrote: > The network layer needs to cater for a two-loose-hops routing. The first > loose hop is the path to the egress-locator. The second loose hop is the > path from there to the destination host. Would it be a problem if we split the routing in three hops? - One from the source host to the egress-locator(router?). - Another form the source egress-locator the destination ingress-locator. - The last from the destination ingress-locator to the destination host. -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
