Joe,
>>>>> I am not ignoring them; I'm claiming that they all have the same inherent >>>>> deployment and implementation limitations. >>>>> >>>>> Just because operators/vendors "want" to do otherwise does not make it >>>>> possible. >>>> >>>> There was IETF consensus behind those documents (A+P). >>> >>> You mean the *experimental* RFCs that describe an approach that doesn't >>> update RFC791? (i.e., RFC6364?) Or something else? >> >> The protocol specifications of A+P are all standards track. >> RFC7596, RFC7597, RFC7599. >> > Thanks for the refs. Note that none of those update RFCs 791 or 1122, so if > frag breaks them, then it's their error. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were disagreements about that interpretation of “updates”. > It also looks like (at first glance at least) these devices work only when > there isn't multipath between the back and front side. The A+P routers are stateless and do support multipath. Including traffic does not need to be symmetric. That’s the main selling point for A+P, that you don’t need per flow state in the core of the network. Cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
