Subject: RE: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers")

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:07:39 -0800

Erik Nordmark wrote:
> >  Hosts with embedded gateway
> > functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
> > Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
> > different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.
> 
> That wouldn't be consistent with the definition of router
> in RFC 2460; a node which forwards packets not explicitly addressed
> to itself.
> A host in the weak ES model would still only handle packets destined to
> the addresses assigned to that host; hence it isn't a router per the
> RFC 2460 definition.

What does one call a device that runs an app which acts as an intermediary
to set up or authenticate access to an iSCSI array? Connecting to the app
would imply 'host', but if that is a multi-party app and the node simply
forwards subsequent packets directly to the array, it would fit 'router'. 

We should stop talking about boxes and talk about functions that any
specific node might perform. Some operational environments want to dedicate
a box to a function, and others want to minimize the number of managed
objects so they will run multiple functions on a box.

Tony 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------