Well, we'd need to understand why there might be a change to the very old reluctance to pass any kind of topological knowledge to the host. Up to now, hosts have been strictly address-driven, and treated the network as an opaque cloud with no internal topology. Do you think that will change?
Brian, the tussle of who should select the receiving edge network's ingress link is not limited to host-based solutions. It also exists in network-based ones. In fact, I primarily had network-based solutions in mind when writing my email. But I was unclear because I wrote "sender" rather than "sending edge network". Apologies. Still, your related question of why there is reluctance to give hosts topological knowledge is a related and very interesting one. My believe is that there is no reluctance to let hosts /know/; it is rather a reluctance to let hosts /control/. Because if we give hosts multiple topologically-significant addresses to choose from, at the same time we give them control over selecting (a portion of) the path. Edge network operators don't want to give away control over path selection. This is the old issue with Shim6, which Six/One avoids through its address rewriting capabilities. But whether host-based or network-based path selection, it is widely accepted that the egress link of a sending edge network should be selected by the "sending side". However, it is not so clear who should select the ingress link at the receiving edge network. I don't think this question has ever been answered in due manner... - Christian -- to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg