On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Havard Eidnes wrote:
Instead, my inclination would be to "solve" this problem in a
much simpler manner, simply by declaring it a configuration
error. A site which receives prefixes from more than a single
provider is clearly multihomed, and needs to have its providers
make a
Hi Per,
Regardless of the listed arguments one may also question IETFs role in
the definition of (any) ULA as there is no technical reason why
such an
address-block must be tagged 'special'.
Thanks for raising this point. Others have made a similar argument
in the past, and it should de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Havard Eidnes wrote:
Instead, my inclination would be to "solve" this problem in a much
simpler manner, simply by declaring it a configuration error. A
site which receives prefixes from more than a single provider i
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:40 AM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re:
> draft-baker-6man-multiprefix-default-route-00.txt is a newdraft
>
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, marcelo
Hi Havard,
El 12/11/2007, a las 17:27, Havard Eidnes escribió:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
site, is that correct?
I don't like the term, because I first do a destination lookup and
only look up t
> > AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
> > based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
> > site, is that correct?
>
> I don't like the term, because I first do a destination lookup and
> only look up the source address in certain cases. Kind of l
Hi Fred,
El 12/11/2007, a las 14:39, Fred Baker escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
If that happens (RIRs not having policies for using ULA), then IETF can ask
IANA to create a new registry for that, and IANA need to do it, no choice
against that IETF decision.
However I still think at least some of the RIRs will get that policy in
place, and I think is the best approach.
Regard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
site, is that correct?
I don't like the term, because I fi
Hi Fred,
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address based
routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix site, is
that correct?
Regards, marcelo
El 08/11/2007, a las 18:15, Fred Baker escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is somethin
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 22:46 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> FYI --
>
> I wrote this draft to try to capture the major arguments for and
> against the definition of ULA-Cs. Please let me know if I've gotten
> anything wrong, or if there are any major arguments (in either
> direction) that
11 matches
Mail list logo
