[mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous way forward
Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 28 October 2011 12:11 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A0F21F8B48 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kbCZhqNTNozW for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25D8821F8B42 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 05:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p9SCBQMO020720 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:11:26 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9SCBPG8009253 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:11:26 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p9SCBMEW001817 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:11:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4EAA9BEA.1060108@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:11:22 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mif <mif@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous way forward
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:11:28 -0000
WG MIF, Excuse me if I repeat myself. I wanted to share explicitely a possible way forward that I discussed with a number of colleagues, and that looked advantageous on our side: - draft route-option would do all routes except default route. - draft drlo would do only default route and no generic route. This would satisfy the requirement of only one means to achieve one goal. (I have discussed this privately with Tomasz, I think I rememember not agreement; but I would dare now to try ask other opionion from WG members - what do you think?) Yours, Alex
- [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantageous… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantag… Simon Perreault
- Re: [mif] route-option vs drlo, possible advantag… Ted Lemon