In the context of the argument whether sub-IP provisioning is or is
not within scope, would it be useful to agree at least on terminology?
Frank,
Am I correct that you use "route" and "path" interchangeably in the draft?
To the group,
Would it be useful to use "route" for what I'll loosely call
"end-to-end", where one end is a point of aggregation or
deaggregation, and "path" for a (perhaps abstract) sequence or set of
routers? Route and path can map 1:1 or not.
I think this is consistent with the goals stated in 3.16 on abstraction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT