On 2012-06-05 11:44, Owen DeLong wrote: [..] > LISP et. al requires a rather complicated deployment and would be even > more complex to troubleshoot when it fails. > > What I am proposing could, literally, be deployed with the existing system > still running as it does. The difference would be that for packets containing > a dest-as field, we would (initially) have the option of routing to > destination > based on that field and ignoring the prefix.
I would love to see a more formal specification ala a IETF draft about it and/or a short preso style thing along with a comparison of existing proposals and how this is different/better. > What I am proposing, however, requires us to add fields to the packet > header (at the source) Well, we have IPv6 extension headers and the flow-label is still undefined too ;) Greets, Jeroen
