On 2014-11-14 22:52, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > The chairs have asked me to solicit review and commentary on > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases > "Requirements and Use Cases for Source/Destination Routing", Fred > Baker, 2014-10-21 > > There are at least two layers of discussion. One, as a working group, > do we agree that there is a problem to solve here?
Not really as there are lots of people who are getting multiple upstreams and are doing source based routing. As an example: http://blog.altimos.de/2013/07/ipv6-source-address-routing-with-multiple-uplinks-sixxs/ Mostly a 'solved' problem thus. But it depends on your use cases. > I obviously think there is, but I am one voice. I think it might be worthwhile documenting the pro/cons and how to do things. But RFC3178 does a reasonable job at that already, hence maybe you could add to RFC3178 in the form of a 'bis' variant? Greets, Jeroen _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
