Re: Weekly Routing Table Report

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

Valdis Kletnieks wrote:

> > Read the first three paragraphs of abstract of the draft:
>
> And it doesn't actually explain why it's better.

        multihoming is supported by transport (TCP) or application
        layer (UDP etc.) of end systems and does not introduce any
        problem in the network does not introduce any problem in
        the network

is the reason.

> The Architecture of End to End Multihoming
>
> However, the draft is lacking in any description of an actual architecture.

That is a very convincing argument made by a person who haven't read
title or abstract of the draft at all.

Thank you very much.

> Read RFC1518, which *does* describe an architecture, and ask yourself
> what's in that RFC that isn't in your draft.

*YOU* should read rfc1518. Then, you could have noticed that the rfc,
despite its title, says:

   Status of this Memo

   This RFC specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community

though, with modern terminology, the rfc is rather a BCP than
on standard track.

                                                        Masataka Ohta