On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> "It is defined exactly for this purpose to clearly indicate the next >>> hop address associated with the right RPO, to avoid any inconsistency >>> arising from sending the two in two different options." >> >> I asked why there were three options defined and how to relate them. >> The above statement said that defining the "Next Hop Address with >> Route Prefix option" can avoid inconsistency arising from sending them >> in different options, NOT answering why RIO defined in 4191 cannot >> solve the problem in the target scenario. > > If you want to argue that the original RIO model cannot cause inconsistency, > that's fine and Behcet can answer you. I was simply pointing out that he > did give a reason. Actually that analysis should be in the draft.
It is important and interesting topic. But I did not find the analysis in the draft. So Hui suggested that the presentation would talked about that. I do want to listen to that. > I also want to say that for a normal host, there is no difference between > "next hop" and "default route(r)", for a given prefix. The draft and RFC 4191 > are a bit hard to read together since the RFC mainly refers to default > route(r) and the draft mainly refers to next hop. If they used the > same terminology, the discussion would be simpler. We had better also include "specific route" Regards, Zhen _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
