nanog mailing list archives
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2019 08:08:04 +0900
Scott Weeks wrote:
I have been reading your posts on IETF and here regarding the above and I'm curious as to your thoughts on John Day's RINA.
As you give no reference, let's rely on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture and restrict scope only for multihoming. Then, it is true that: > 1972. Multi-homing not supported by the ARPANET. which means current specifications do not support multihoming very well. but, the statement > The solution was obvious: as in operating systems, a logical address > space naming the nodes (hosts and routers) was required on top of the > physical interface address space. is wrong, because it is enough to let transport layer identify connections based on a set of physical interface addresses of all the interfaces, which is what draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-* proposes. That is, he misunderstand restrictions by the current specification something inevitably required by layering. > It tosses all this on its head. If you have some text of RINA denying the E2E argument, quote it with URLs please. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report, (continued)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Valdis Klētnieks (Aug 31)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Masataka Ohta (Aug 31)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Wayne Bouchard (Aug 30)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report bzs (Aug 30)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Scott Weeks (Aug 30)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Paul Ebersman (Aug 30)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Valdis Klētnieks (Aug 30)
- RE: Weekly Routing Table Report adamv0025 (Aug 31)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Paul Ebersman (Aug 30)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Wayne Bouchard (Aug 30)
- Re: Weekly Routing Table Report Masataka Ohta (Aug 31)