|
Re: multihoming, was IPv10
2016-12-31 06:22:31
On 31/12/2016 07:54, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
On 12/30/2016 02:20 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
I wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00
in April 2000 and I know it is stupid to use source routing for
multihoming.
Is source routing bad in general or is it bad only in multihoming scenarios?
Thanks.
When called segment routing it is accepted as a useful technology for
well defined problems of this type.
- Stewart
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, (continued)
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10, Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Octavio Alvarez
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10,
Stewart Bryant <=
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Jeff Tantsura
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John C Klensin
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John R Levine
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt)., Patrik Fältström
|
|
|