Dow Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mar 6, 2008, at 10:11 AM, Bengt Ahlgren wrote: > >> "William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Loose and strict source routing existed in IPv4 for a reason. There >>> were some security issues, some performance issues and the network >>> got >>> wider than they could support but they weren't fundamentally a bad >>> idea. Indeed, if loose source routing was still valid, our map-encap >>> schemes might not need the encap part at all. >> >> This is IMO an important point. You can get the same function as a >> tunnel, but without requiring the other end to decap. In NIIA we call >> it routing hint, but it has basically the same function. > > You can also avoid certain path MTU issues of tunnels, all while > making the underlying intentions for the packet more visible / > explicit.
Yes, but not necessarily, if a router in the middle needs to insert a new source route. > I think some folks may equate tunnel endpoints with "a small number > of specifically configured routers", and source routing with "no > control because any router could be a source routing way-point". > This is really a question of the usage model, though, not an inherent > property of tunneling vs. source routing mechanisms. I think you > could use source routing in a controlled way as well, where only a > small number of specifically configured nodes are configured to act > as way-points. Yes, but that is more a configuration issue, not an intrinsic part or requirement of the mechanism. And that is exactly why I advocate source routing before tunneling: the flexibility it gives. Bengt -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
