a fellow researcher wants
to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
(that's true right?). Could you give some examples?
On 5/6/2015 3:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
(that's
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group
The most common place where I have encountered that would involve differing
AUPs on different links.
For example, if one has a link which is built on an amateur radio layer 1, one
cannot carry commercial, pornographic, encrypted, or certain other kinds of
traffic on that link.
I believe
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 5/6/2015 3:56 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't think it is common, but I have a microwave network made up of a
combination of license-free links and amateur radio band links (where no
commercial traffic is permitted).
On 5/6/15 15:56, Randy Bush wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group of links
(that's true
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
a fellow researcher wants
to make the case that in some scenarios it is very important for a
network operator to be able to specify that traffic should *not*
traverse a certain switch/link/group of switches/group
7 matches
Mail list logo
