At Thu, 02 May 2002 14:44:52 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > > The reliance on the routing system for a host route IMHO isn't any > different from having a host on a subnet. The router had to be configured > to advertise a route to the subnet. It didn't happen automatically. The > only difference I see from a host route and a subnet route is the length of > the prefix. Reachability to all addresses is dependent on the routing > system. Note: I am not saying that host routes can be used for everything > as they have clear scaling problems. They are a very useful tool if used > appropriately.
I'm not claiming that there's a difference between a host route and a subnet route (a route is a route, the prefix length doesn't matter). I do claim that there's a difference between letting the client make the choice of which servers to talk to and having the routing system decide for the client. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
