IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] Next revision

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 25 February 2010 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6802F3A83F6 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:16:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xHAWhxE-Elc9 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:16:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7973A77D0 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:16:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 64A136BE54A; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:18:53 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20100225171853.64A136BE54A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:18:53 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] Next revision
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:16:44 -0000

    > From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>

    > Here's a revision to the DFZ definition:

I agree we could use a better DFZ definition, but I find your proposed
definition to be too obscure and technical. I would prefer something in
simpler English, like "the set of Internet routers which contain full routing
tables, i.e. contain entries for all available destinations in the Internet".
One could also add something about how "the DFZ does not contain those
routers with a default route, potentially augmented with a limited subset of
the full routing table", or something.

	Noel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email