On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
I've been finding this a really interesting discussion and some of the arguments against adoption have been compelling. This one surprised me a bit - it reads as if you're skeptical about using this mechanism to address scaling issues, but it's the lack of text addressing broadcast/multicast/layer 2 that you find the larger problem. So I have to ask: if they provided text addressing broadcast/multicast/layer 2 would that address your objection, or is it actually to the basic proposal?
I don't see how they would address broadcast/multicast/L2 and make it work, but if they did, I'd take another look at it and re-evaluate. As written currently, I'm against.
Also, putting an additional header/label/whatever on the packet is a much cleaner solution than to try to address per-protocol, looking into L3 and trying to do the right thing, especially since this "look into L3" is different for each L3 protocol.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
