[75299] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Wed Nov 10 22:59:33 2004
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:58:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <4192E0E2.5040700@ttec.com>
To: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >>That's odd, I didn't think routing to Null0 (or equivalent) was all that
> >>taxing, I don't want an ACL, I want it gone in the cheapest, fastest way
> >>possible.
> >
> >that's odd... routing is a DESTINATION based problem, not a SOURCE based
> >one.
> >
> Routing has always been more than a destination based decision. Even in
> the beggining IP had LSRR/SSRR.
Sure, ip-options bits were/are allowed for LSRR/SSRR, which as you said
below is disabled for a multitude of reasons on many/most/all (?) large
parts of the Internet for many reasons, not the least of which is
performance penalties. So, aside from the 2 examples routing ip has been a
hop-by-hop destination based problem, source addresses (even with
LSRR/SSRR I believe) has little to do with the equation.
I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :
