At 03:42 PM 4/9/00 -0800, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com wrote:
You are confusing topological locality with administrative locality. I was
talking about the latter, and so, I believe, was Valdis.
As my later comment meant to convey, I too was clear about the distinction,
but yes I was definitely confused about the discussion underway.
This would seem to walk down the path of considering this spec as a BASIS
for pursuing a standard?
I would not have a problem with pursuing standards work on protocols for load
balancing within a single administrative area. (This is not to say that
defining a protocol that can span administrations would be useless. It
very useful indeed, but I see so many potential ratholes it isn't funny.)
Sounds like a conveniently healthy constraint, then.
Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA