Re: Suggesting Improvements in RFC 1990.

Karl Fox writes:
> If someone were to ask me (which they haven't), I'd say leave RFC  
> 1990 alone unless you fix it.  By "fixing it" I mean combining two  
> links, each with probability of failure p, and providing a combined  
> link with probability of failure p^2 rather than 2p as RFC 1990 does.

If you mean on a packet-by-packet basis, then p^2 sounds like "path
protection" (replication at the sender and discarding duplicates at
the receiver).  That's rather different from what the original goal
seemed to be, and likely wouldn't fit many (if any) of the existing
uses of MP.

If you mean on a link basis, then I don't think such a fix is needed.
It's a matter of implementation.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext