Re: Self routing

["Thomas 'Dent' Mirlacher" <dent@cosy.sbg.ac.at>]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Dr G Fairhurst wrote:

> 
> 
> Ghassane Aniba wrote:
> > 
> > Patrick Cipiere wrote:
> > >
> > > "Thomas 'Dent' Mirlacher" <dent@cosy.sbg.ac.at> wrote:
> > >
> > > > which set of requirements in mind? MPE probably is not the best solution,
> > > > but it works.
> > >
> > > I completely agree. If we come up with a new design, it must
> > > drastically improve the previous and answer useful ans usable
> > > requirements that can't be currently addressed.
> > >
> > Sur. With MPE encapsulation we couldn't doing a filtring depending on
> > the source adress( for exemple in Multicast SSM). The new encapsulation
> > has to do it.
> > 
> 
> hey... you mean IP SOURCE ADDRESS!!!!!

well - if you're transporting IP. - is that a strict requirement?

> That's level 3 information, not level 2. We shouldn't map this into
> level 2
> simply to allow level 2 filtering - do the filtering at level 3 (using hardware
> if you so desitre).  It is a level 3 function.

see above - it's fine if you restrict yourself to IPv[46]
... and yes, i don't know if filtering on the SOURCE in layer2 needs
to be there - in most of the cases (all?) the destination address
is more useful. (in terms of keeping the load on the receiver low,
as well as really simply (non-)security mechanism)

	++Thomas

-- 
in some way i do, and in some way i don't.