On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 02:39:09PM +, Acee Lindem wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I attended and the majority of the discussion centered on whether the
> problem could be solved with a simpler model such as a FIB per provider.
> Fred pointed out that this would not handle overlapping source subnets and
> t
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:19:27PM -0800, Teco Boot wrote:
> Op 6 nov. 2013, om 15:26 heeft Mark Townsley het volgende
> geschreven:
> >o The routing protocol or mechanism includes a destination prefix,
> > which may be a default route (::/0) or any more specific prefix up
> > to
Hi rtgwg,
freshly submitted & soliciting for feedback are the following drafts:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1
These are distilled version of th
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:40:33PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1
rtgwg & homenet:
So, these draft
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:56:59PM +, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 10/20/14, 4:40 PM, "David Lamparter" wrote:
>
> >Last but not least, I'd like to request a slot at the IETF 91 rtgwg
> >meeting to present these drafts.
>
> David:
>
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:52:18AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 29/10/2014 02:06, Ole Troan wrote:
> > Fred,
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-rout
[plucking a paragraph from the middle]
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 04:09:15PM +, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> I suspect the company you are discussing might have a number of small
> offices in as many cities, and as many PA prefixes as it takes. The
> company might also have a PI prefix, but I would
t on the
"interest"/"need" front of things.
Feedback of course very welcome,
-David
- Forwarded message from internet-dra...@ietf.org -
Delivery-date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:34:23 +0200
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: David Lamparter , David Lamparter
Subject: New
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 06:32:43PM +, Chris Bowers wrote:
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this
> email stating whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response
> needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance
TL;DR: note at end about "abort as unreachable" as alternative way to
get rid of complicated backtracking. (Jump to second/last - line.)
Hi all,
here is another shot at my somewhat confusing (sorry) in-room comment on
the policy aspect of limiting to D=::/0.
The scenario I'm thinking of i
t-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> Title : Destination/Source Routing
> Authors : David Lamparter
> Anton Smirnov
> Filename: draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-05.txt
Unlike -04, this is not a no-change refresh, though it only ext
Hello again, rtgwg,
Unfortunately (and possibly contradicting earlier statements I may have
made to the opposite), the routing system behaviour described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-01#section-3
is not compatible with the behaviour described in
https:
Gah, forgot Cc:s, resending to list so replies will inherit Cc:s
(please reply on this one to get the Cc:s)
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 07:29:13PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote:
Hello again, rtgwg,
Unfortunately (and possibly contradicting earlier statements I may have
made to the opposite), the
... I should step away from electronical devices, for some reason I'm
missing Chris Bowers and Fred Baker
again...
___
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:23:46PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Matthieu Boutier wrote:
> >
> > Did you agree that:
> >
> > 1. destination first give the correct behaviour as-is.
> >
> > 2. source first needs extra mechanism and route duplication.
>
> Actually, I
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:16:17AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> I must admit that I had always thought that the source-routing paradigm in
> draft-troan-homenet-sadr-01.txt was backward with the destination address
> Longest Prefix Match (LPM) being done prior to the source address lookup.
>
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:42:59PM +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps having something like the following(?):
>
> 3. Forwarding tables representations
> 3.1. Source Address Dependant Forwarding tables
> -> this is just a dump of the announces
> 3.2. Source-Prefix-
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:12:02AM +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> > It's already there
>
> I was speaking about rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming. ;-)
Oh, sorry, I jumped over because the section numbers were so similar ;-D
-David
> Thanks by the way for your explanations in your
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:55:01PM +, Chris Bowers wrote:
> With the proposed generalization of rule #3, together with a clarification
> that the source-prefix-scoped
> forwarding table should be chosen based on longest source prefix match with
> the source address of the packet,
> I think we
Hi all,
the rtgwg-dst-src-routing draft has been whacked and beaten to death and
it seems we've run low on complaints on it, so I think I should ask for
WGLC on it.
I'm unaware of open issues/comments on it, if you have any I'd
appreciate a pointer or retransmission. CPEs doing SADR have been o
On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 08:02:18AM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> Thank you for re-opening this.
>
> I will point out that what you’re really hitting on is the known
> architectural deficiency of IP: how does a multi-homed network deal
> with multiple locators? We’ve discussed this to death previously a
Hi all,
just to relay Adrian Farrel's mic comment, that was regarding
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-irtf-introduction-to-semantic-routing/
and indeed adding a source lookup is a specific instance of additional
routing semantics.
Having become aware of that draft only a few minute
Hi RTGWG,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 09:18:20AM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive-01.txt is now
> available. It is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group (RTGWG) WG of
> the IETF.
as it is with "deadline-driven development", I've
23 matches
Mail list logo
