On 5/6/15 15:56, Randy Bush wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
> to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
> (that's t
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a fellow researcher wants
>
> > to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> > network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> > traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of link
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 5/6/2015 3:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> I don't think it is common, but I have a microwave network made up of a
> combination of license-free links and amateur radio band links (where no
> commercial traffic is permitted). For now the ham-
The most common place where I have encountered that would involve differing
AUPs on different links.
For example, if one has a link which is built on an amateur radio layer 1, one
cannot carry commercial, pornographic, encrypted, or certain other kinds of
traffic on that link.
I believe Intern
On 5/6/2015 3:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
> to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
> (that's
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a fellow researcher wants
>
> > to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
> > network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
> > traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of link
6 matches
Mail list logo
