> >> i thought we were doing layer three routing, not layer two switching. if
> >> the latter, then we have to cover frame relay, atm, mpls, ethernet, ...
> >> i think we will have more than enough work if we stick to the internet
> >> protocols and packets.
> > Is the idea of a technology-independent sub-IP control abstraction
> > within scope? It would have such primitives as "create path with
> > constraints".
>
> circuit/path provisioning is an important issue for isps. but it is not
> ip routing.
I think it would be fair to say that there is a difference of opinions
on whether it is IP routing.
Yakov.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT