On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > |Can you clarify? What if the intentions stated by the end user are > |only advisory? > > If they are advisory, then the ISP may ignore them. It was previously > asserted that this would be unacceptable.
Tony, If I want to send a package from New York to Chicago, I can hand it to UPS and they'll get it there. I won't be able to discuss the routes the drivers take. I can also hand the package to a courier, in which case I can probably discuss the general route he'll take. Finally, I can carry it myself in which case the package will take exactly the route I choose. Why should these routing decisions be mutually exclusive? Why must a protocol require that all packets follow a top-down routing strategy? Loose and strict source routing existed in IPv4 for a reason. There were some security issues, some performance issues and the network got wider than they could support but they weren't fundamentally a bad idea. Indeed, if loose source routing was still valid, our map-encap schemes might not need the encap part at all. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
