North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
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 :
|