At 9:52 AM -0800 1/14/02, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> 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.
>
>randy
Hopefully, we won't preclude the use of routing as an input to more
automated provisioning.
In addition, things get blurred, admittedly when we talk about things
we can today, when we start talking about systems of tunnels
overlaying the actual circuits. Augmented routing protocols may very
well be the signaling mechanisms for such systems.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT