Fundamental Design Choices in IDPR
Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> Mon, 04 May 1992 22:39 UTC
Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04918;
4 May 92 18:39 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01347;
4 May 92 18:44 EDT
Received: from PARK-STREET.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id ab01340;
4 May 92 18:44 EDT
Received: from park-street by PARK-STREET.bbn.COM id aa18588;
4 May 92 18:08 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PARK-STREET.BBN.COM id aa18584; 4 May 92 18:07 EDT
Received: from GINGER.LCS.MIT.EDU by BBN.COM id aa20175; 4 May 92 18:04 EDT
Received: by ginger.lcs.mit.edu
id AA25195; Mon, 4 May 92 18:04:05 -0400
Date: Mon, 4 May 92 18:04:05 -0400
From: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9205042204.AA25195@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
To: idpr-wg@bbn.com, yakov@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Fundamental Design Choices in IDPR
Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
Yakov: It seems to me that there are two fundamental choices, and one basic design issue, that are the ones which you may not like. They are: 1) Use of a Link State (as opposed to Destination Vector) scheme 2) Use of Source Routing (as opposed to Hop-by-Hop) scheme A) Given use of SR, to do so via Flow Setup (rather than Per Packet) Which of these do you not like, and why? Noel
- Fundamental Design Choices in IDPR Noel Chiappa
- Re: Fundamental Design Choices in IDPR Noel Chiappa