Subject: [MEXT] side comment MR-to-MR and CR-to-MR

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:09:35 +0200

Well, I see MR-to-MR RO to be a bit different than CR-to-MR in that 
MR-to-MR suposedly have their egress on same subnet (like car-to-car or 
plane-to-plane are in vicinity), whereas CR-to-MR are separated by 
potentially multiple hops.  This leads to IP solutions working on same 
subnet or across subnets...

Just some note...

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:21:47 +0200

Hi Alex,

	Thanks for the note. I was thinking on a generic MR-to-MR (i.e.
multiple hops between them). IMHO, an MR-to-MR scenario in which the
egress interfaces are on the same subnet would be easier to tackle.

	Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext