I'd be interested in hearing others perspective on the use-cases requiring
multi-headed control and what you see this requirement as meaning. This is
a rather
different requirement, in terms of embedding the policy-enforcement into
the
routing system, from what is currently done for
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.comwrote:
On 1/23/13 5:04 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing others perspective on the use-cases
requiring
multi-headed control and what you see this requirement as meaning. This
is a rather
different
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.comwrote:
On 1/23/13 7:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.com
mailto:jcla...@cisco.com wrote:
On 1/23/13 5:04 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
I'd be interested in
On 1/23/13 7:19 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Yes, I wasn't considering it overlap - just like two routes in the RIB
aren't
overlapping if they're not the same prefix.
Got you. So maybe the use case should make it clear that the DDoS
Service has already deemed a problem is seen (via some
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke jcla...@cisco.comwrote:
On 1/23/13 7:19 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
Yes, I wasn't considering it overlap - just like two routes in the RIB
aren't
overlapping if they're not the same prefix.
Got you. So maybe the use case should make it clear
