On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:51:00 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > Quick sanity check on the hypothesis: Does Windows ship with an IGP enabled > > by > > default?
> Sanity check with Windows? Are you sure? It's a quick sanity check to this statment: >> According to the end to end argument, the only possible solution >> to the problem, with no complete or correct alternatives, is to >> let hosts directly participate in IGP activities. If it's the "only possible spolution", how come 99.8% of the end nodes do just fine without it? Oh yeah.. > Note that the end to end argument has the following > statement I omitted to quote: > (Sometimes an incomplete version of the function provided > by the communication system may be useful as a performance > enhancement.) > That is, there are incomplete solutions by intermediate systems > which sometimes work. For "sometimes" == 99.8% of the net. > If you are saying SLAAC is not enough in your case with > complicated manual management, I don't think I have to > argue against you on how to simplify it. It got simplfied with a handful of static routes and no IGP and no SLAAC and no DHCP of any flavor. ;)
pgpiwXdenhdbx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
