On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
So, indeed, those who market layer 2 solutions relying on layer
violation will have to update their products when a new layer 3 arrives.
That is perfectly understandable and that's not something anyone is
opposing as far as I can see.
--
Mikael
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So my question was how would you solve it (architecturally)?
Layer 2 devices inspecting traffic isn't architecturally acceptable
because it's a layer violation,
+1 on what Steinar Haug wrote.
Serious disconnect between map and reality here, Mark.
--
Mi
On 2010-09-12 15:22, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
How would you solve the problem? If you give end-nodes the ability to
>>> Exactly the way it has been done for IPv4 with the mechanisms I've given
>>> examples of before.
>> Your criticisms seemed to be architectural ones - that the IETF hadn't
>>
> > > How would you solve the problem? If you give end-nodes the ability to
> >
> > Exactly the way it has been done for IPv4 with the mechanisms I've given
> > examples of before.
>
> Your criticisms seemed to be architectural ones - that the IETF hadn't
> designed a protocol that addressed the
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:06:39 +0200 (CEST)
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > How would you solve the problem? If you give end-nodes the ability to
>
> Exactly the way it has been done for IPv4 with the mechanisms I've given
> examples of before.
Your crit
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Is there a writeup of the model as a whole? If not, it would be
immensely useful (and maybe this discussion belongs on v6ops or opsawg).
I've asked Fred if he knows of a write-up/whitepaper, Cisco has customers
with extensive deployments of this.
Mikael,
> The reason why I get so frustrated is that here I'm sitting with a deployment
> model with millions of customers, in a country that is at the top of the
> broadband penetration and bw list, and the feeling I'm getting from people
> here is not even an acceptance that this is a valid d
Le 10 sept. 2010 à 21:02, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> Hi, Rémi,
>
>>> As for keeping track of flows, as I've just noted to Steven, this
>>> is a refinement. But you could probably live assuming that all
>>> flows terminate in a period equal to the duration of the flow label
>>> space (i.e., when
Le 10 sept. 2010 à 22:35, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> On 2010-09-10 20:21, Rémi Després wrote:
>> Le 9 sept. 2010 à 23:51, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
>>
>>> Rémi,
>>>
>>> This is quite similar to one possible version of
>>> draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-04 that is spinning
>>> around on m
Doug,
But it's not. ... We _really_ want to get this right NOW. Adding more
kludges so that we can "Just get it deployed" is actually going to
make life (and future deployment) harder down the road, not easier.
Agreed so far.
Suresh wants to support a particular type of a deployment, and it
10 matches
Mail list logo
