<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xliff xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:document:1.1" version="1.1">
  <file original="NoName" source-language="en" datatype="plaintext" target-language="fr">
    <body>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="84aa6f93ccfa8bdf">
        <source>Inter-domain routing</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">5</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="1d97688b164b9577">
        <source>Exercises</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">9</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="409f4e61bddb41f8">
        <source>Consider the interdomain topology shown in the figure below.</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">24</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="8f4f2ca0988a712f">
        <source>In this network, what are the paths :</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">56</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="8812872ad63a124a">
        <source>from `AS1` to `AS4`</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">58</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="8527343be4e49a68">
        <source>from `AS4` to `AS2`</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">59</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="c98cab004465b681">
        <source>from `AS4` to `AS1`</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">60</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="e30c656758e596ff">
        <source>Consider the interdomain topology shown in the figure below. Assuming, that `AS1` advertises prefix ``2001:db8:1::/48``,  `AS2` prefix ``2001:db8:2::/48``, ... compute the routing tables of the different ASes.</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">63</context>
        </context-group>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">96</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="4fb597bfdcb92200">
        <source>Are all ASes capable of reaching all the other ASes in this simple Internet ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">93</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="07ca2b4cf8097402">
        <source>In this internet, some ASes cannot reach all other ASes. Can you fix the problem by adding one shared-cost peering link or one customer-provider peering link ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">128</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="7a7b191c0fa73020">
        <source>Consider the network below in which a stub domain, `AS456`, is connected to two providers `AS123` and `AS789`. `AS456` advertises its prefix to both its providers. On the other hand, `AS123` advertises ``2001:db8:dead::/48`` while `AS789` advertises ``2001:db8:beef::/48`` and ``2001:db8:dead:cafe::/63``. Via which provider will the packets destined to ``2001:db8:dead:cafe::1`` will be received by `AS456` ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">133</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="59939203d3f2fb96">
        <source>Should `AS123` change its configuration ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">141</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="10df4058e7ebb2b7">
        <source>Consider that the AS stub (`AS456`) shown in the figure below decides to advertise two ``/48`` prefixes instead of its allocated ``/47`` prefix.</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">143</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="5398fb797fa040f6">
        <source>Via which provider does `AS456` receive the packets destined to ``2001:db8:caff::bb`` and ``2001:db8:cafe::aa`` ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">151</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="0295f2da57798ae0">
        <source>How is the reachability of these addresses affected when link `R1`-`R3` fails ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">153</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="a618b53bbe95cca4">
        <source>Propose a configuration on R1 that achieves the same objective as the one shown in the figure but also preserves the reachability of all IP addresses inside `AS456` if one of `AS456`'s interdomain links fails.</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">155</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="c494d14c02ffc12a">
        <source>Consider the network shown below. In this network, the metric of each link is set to `1` except link `A-B` whose metric is set to `4` in both directions. In this network, there are two paths with the same cost between `D` and `C`. Old routers would randomly select one of these equal cost paths and install it in their forwarding table. Recent routers are able to use up to `N` equal cost paths towards the same destination.</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">157</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="fd59a12d661c781d">
        <source>A simple network</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">163</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="e86473b859666c6d">
        <source>On recent routers, a lookup in the forwarding table for a destination address returns a set of outgoing interfaces. How would you design an algorithm that selects the outgoing interface used for each packet, knowing that to avoid reordering, all segments of a given TCP connection should follow the same path ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">165</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="e4d7dc571fa7e098">
        <source>A ``traceroute6`` towards ``ipv6.google.com`` provides the following output :</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">167</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="7667148a48aaf2a8">
        <source>Can you explain why at the eighth, ninth and tenth hopes several IPv6 addresses are reported in the ``traceroute6`` output ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">191</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="fae76fbd28135f1b">
        <source>`Section 3.3 &lt;https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4443#section-3.3&gt;`_ of :rfc:`4443` explains two different reasons why an IPv6 enabled device could generate an ICMPv6 Time Exceeded message. Explain when a router could generate such a message with ``Code==0`` and when a host could generate such a message with ``Code==1``.</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">193</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="753f71d2a8dbc409">
        <source>`Section 3.1 &lt;https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4443#section-3.1&gt;`_ of :rfc:`4443` seven different Codes for the ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable Message. Under which circumstances would a router generate such an ICMPv6 message with :</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">195</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="862ddb02a00c07bf">
        <source>``Code==0``</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">197</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
      <trans-unit xml:space="preserve" id="c44280943b4abe2d">
        <source>An ICMPv6 error message includes in its message body the beginning of the IPv6 packet that triggered this error. How many bytes of the original packet must be returned to allow the host to recover the original source and destination addresses and source and destination ports of the packet that caused the error ?</source>
        <target></target>
        <context-group name="" purpose="location">
          <context context-type="sourcefile">../../exercises/routing-policies.rst</context>
          <context context-type="linenumber">213</context>
        </context-group>
      </trans-unit>
    </body>
  </file>
</xliff>
