Weekly Routing Table Report

Sun Sep 1 01:42:06 UTC 2019

On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 09:04:03 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:

> > All I see there is some handwaving about separating something from
> > something else, without even a description of why it was better than
> > what was available when you wrote the draft.
>
> Read the first three paragraphs of abstract of the draft:

And it doesn't actually explain why it's better. It says it's different, but
doesn't give reasons to do it other than "it's different".

> Read the title of the draft. The draft is not intended to describe
> protocol details.

In other words, you have a wish list, not a workable idea.

> > Try attaching an actual protocol specification
>
> Read the title of the draft.

The Architecture of End to End Multihoming

However, the draft is lacking in any description of an actual architecture.

Read RFC1518, which *does* describe an architecture, and ask yourself
what's in that RFC that isn't in your draft.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190831/cd265dec/attachment.sig>