This is really getting away from the relevant monami issues but I'll give you my last 2 cents.
> > => This is not related to reality in deployed networks. End hosts > > don't use RSVP and hosts hardly ever mark TOS fields. > > Huh? RSVP-related RFCs date of last year, => And that means they're used? recent routers > include COPS, > and end hosts routinely mark Traffic Class. => I didn't say COPS is not used. I'd love to know about the deployment that you're referring to (where hosts are setting the TC routinely)... > > Anyway, your response is not related to what I said > earlier, routers > > do split flows to different links all the time (of course > one flow is > > expected to take the same path in the network under normal > > circumstances). > > Routers split flows based on what specs? I think you agree > we can't say > that because some non-specified flow splitting happens then > we need to > specify a similar thing. It means actually we don't want to > specify a > similar thing. => You seem to think that a product can't implement an algorithm unless it's specified in an RFC. This is obviously wrong. Anyone can do whatever they want, hopefully, provided that they don't break existing specs. And that's the case here. > > > This is a fact > > What RFC number? => Fact != RFC.... > > > and I don't see why an end host has to know which specific > links its > > traffic goes through on every hop. That makes no sense. > > It depends. _If_ the MR decision to choose a different interface is > based on another interface link-down event then it's normal, > it's about > keeping connectivity up for the LFN and the LFN can only be > happy about > it. Core routers do the same when selecting paths. > > If on the other hand, the decision to choose a different interface is > based on application needs, and MR may _think_ the LFN's application > prefers a certain interface - then it's totally different > thing. And I > believe flow bindings fall into this category, because it > has filters on > all possible fields in an application payload. > > Have I got this right? => No. I don't think you understand that routers can select any next hop they think is appropriate. Link down/up events are only one factor in this selection. This is a perfectly acceptable behaviour. Hesham > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
