On Oct 24, 2013 6:37 PM, "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Right. Routers have forwarding entries that point to N different > interfaces. Sometimes they have the same weight, sometimes flow load > balancing or some other tie breaking internal to the router. And ALTO has > prefixes that are mapped to two different PIDs. Just another day in the > Internet.
Mapping to multiple prefixes in fib has well defined semantics, such as load balancing paths, as you mentioned. It is not clear the use cases for mapping to multiple PIDs, and our current assignment to resolve the case (e.g., 2d or 2e) may not provide the intended semantics (e.g., hash on IP to achieve load balancing). Hence, I am still in the pushing-back mode for simplicity... Richard > > On 10/24/13 2:24 PM, "Sebastian Kiesel" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >But we should not declare multiple > >occurences of one prefix as illegal, >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
