Re: [RRG] a new (not few) draft towards convergence

[Dan Jen <jenster@cs.ucla.edu>]

On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 09:52 +0200, Luigi Iannone wrote:
> > > > Besides 
> > > >    potentially improved performance, the simultaneous use of
> > > > multiple 
> > > >    paths easily tolerates the loss of any single path, hence it
> > > > becomes 
> > > >    less important to keep track the status of any individual
> > > > paths. 
> 
> 
> .. and this statement sounds like you do not need to keep track of
> individual paths.

Oh, okay, another problem with the writing.  What we meant to say was
that it is less important for TRANSIT NETWORKS to keep track of the
status of any individual paths, since the transport layer can use
multiple paths.  We'll fix it up in later editions. Thanks for calling
us out on it.

We'd still be interested in hearing why you were unconvinced with the
talk Lixia gave about incremental deployment of map&encap schemes(APT in
particular).  


Thanks again,

Dan Jen


--
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