Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:57:49 -0400
From: Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Hosts have routing tables, too.
Yes, but it is the routing protocols where the worst of the extra
mechanism is required I believe, and hosts generally don't, or
shouldn't, be running those.
| I don't think such a requirement will be meaningful because "node" is
| underspecified -- someone will argue that you can meet this
| requirement in a single box running a single OS image by supporting
| two virtual nodes connected by a virtual DMZ, and we're back to where
| we started.
I didn't mention requirement - in general unless there's a good reason,
I don't like requirements, I like flexibility.
If someone wants to set up something like that (or simply support what
we currently define as the way SL's work) then fine - the issue here
remember is the apparent implementation complexity of making all that
work properly. Anyone who can cope with all of that ought to be free
to do so, they're not going to harm anyone else. Whether they do it
using a virtual DMZ, or any other way, shouldn't bother us.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
