On 2 dec 2008, at 20:31, Ralph Droms wrote:
Iljitsch - I understand the theory behind what you're
describing...in practice, it's a hard problem to know where all the
prefixes are that should be changed; worse yet, it's hard to know
which prefixes in which parts of the configuration should
On 2 dec 2008, at 5:37, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think it's just that the multi-prefix model is unfamiliar.
There's plenty of reason to believe that it won't work well. Static
address selection rules, no way for hosts to know which prefixes will
work better, inability of most existing
At 2:57 AM -0800 12/2/08, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2 dec 2008, at 5:37, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think it's just that the multi-prefix model is unfamiliar.
There's plenty of reason to believe that it won't work well. Static
address selection rules, no way for hosts to know which
On 2 dec 2008, at 18:46, Ted Hardie wrote:
One way to fix that would be multipath transport protocols. Rather
than try to guess what works best, just use all of them (or at least
several) and get better performance without having to make difficult
choices.
It's not clear to me from the above
Excerpts from Iljitsch van Beijnum on Tue, Dec 02, 2008 11:57:07AM +0100:
On 2 dec 2008, at 5:37, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think it's just that the multi-prefix model is unfamiliar.
There's plenty of reason to believe that it won't work well. Static
address selection rules, no way for hosts
On 2 dec 2008, at 20:02, Scott Brim wrote:
One way to fix that would be multipath transport protocols. Rather
than
try to guess what works best, just use all of them (or at least
several)
and get better performance without having to make difficult choices.
This doesn't help with site
Iljitsch - I understand the theory behind what you're describing...in
practice, it's a hard problem to know where all the prefixes are that
should be changed; worse yet, it's hard to know which prefixes in
which parts of the configuration should be replaced with new prefixes,
and which
