[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)

To: ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
From: Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:34:59 -0700
In-reply-to: <> (Charles Lindsey's message of "Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:16:18 GMT")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: The Eyrie
References: <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux)

Charles Lindsey <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Yes, but the path-address (IPv[46]address) is NOT "just diagnopstic
> information" . It is in fairly widespread current use, with the intent
> of avoiding duplicate propagation to the site which inserted it.

Huh, really?  I'm not saying you're wrong, since I've not checked, but
I've not personally seen anyone use an IP address as their actual path
identity (as opposed to having it added by their peers as diagnostic
information).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
  - From: Charles Lindsey

References:
- #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
  - From: Charles Lindsey
- Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
  - From: Charles Lindsey

Prev by Date: Re: required SP
Next by Date: Re: New USEPRO path-identity text
Previous by thread: Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
Next by thread: Re: #1047 Path-identity: A proposal (perhaps)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread