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

Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt

To: "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt
From: S Woodside <sbwoodside@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:57:22 -0400
Cc: <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0306181213100.2640-100000@chuegen-w2k04.amer.cisco.com>

I understand what you are saying, however, what about the opposite end, is there a need to /always/ have management of path selection?

simon

On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 01:16 PM, Craig A. Huegen wrote:

Network mechanisms *need* to have visibility into alternate paths for a
particular destination so that the path selection can be chosen via
policy.

--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel

References:
- Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt
  - From: "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt
Next by Date: Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt
Previous by thread: Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt
Next by thread: Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-06.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread