Re: New routing systems (Was: IPv6 day and tunnels)

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

On 2012-06-05 11:44, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
> LISP et. al requires a rather complicated deployment and would be even
> more complex to troubleshoot when it fails.
>
> What I am proposing could, literally, be deployed with the existing system
> still running as it does. The difference would be that for packets containing
> a dest-as field, we would (initially) have the option of routing to destination
> based on that field and ignoring the prefix.

I would love to see a more formal specification ala a IETF draft about
it and/or a short preso style thing along with a comparison of existing
proposals and how this is different/better.

> What I am proposing, however, requires us to add fields to the packet
> header (at the source)

Well, we have IPv6 extension headers and the flow-label is still
undefined too ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen