Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > > That's odd, I didn't think routing to Null0 (or equivalent) was all that
> > > taxing, I don't want an ACL, I want it gone in the cheapest, fastest way
> > > possible.
> >
> > that's odd... routing is a DESTINATION based problem, not a SOURCE based
> > one.
> Routing has always been more than a destination based decision. Even in
> the beggining IP had LSRR/SSRR.

Sure, ip-options bits were/are allowed for LSRR/SSRR, which as you said
below is disabled for a multitude of reasons on many/most/all (?) large
parts of the Internet for many reasons, not the least of which is
performance penalties. So, aside from the 2 examples routing ip has been a
hop-by-hop destination based problem, source addresses (even with
LSRR/SSRR I believe) has little to do with the equation.

I could be wrong, I am just a chemical engineer. If this was a
distillation column or a raction vessel I might be more sure :