Hello Chris,
There was a bit more support both on the list and in the meetings for
Route Servers. But it was under different name
draft-jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server. Then IDR/GROW chairs decided to
split the documents and now what is left in GROW is
draft-hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations.
The other draft went to IDR and is an IDR WG doc:
draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server since 26th of March.
Many thx,
R.
we had only 2 notes about it, both positive....
could we have a little more chat about it pls? 2 people is not
necessarily a consensus...
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Robert Raszuk<[email protected]> wrote:
Chairs,
What is the status of route-server-operations draft ? We had some
acceptances in the GROW WG meeting and on the list before, but we never saw
official approvals to resubmit as official GROW WG document.
Many thx,
R.
Hi Chris, GROW,
I'd like to voice my support for this draft's adoption by GROW - it
seems to me that there are particular complexities of operating route
servers at IXPs well, and their stability and functionality is of
particular interest to Internet network operators - making this draft
very relevant for this group.
Kind regards, r.
Sent from my iPad
On 17 Nov 2011, at 07:55, "Christopher
Morrow"<[email protected]> wrote:
Pursuant to the WG meeting discussion, this is a split part of the
original routeservers document, we'd like to poll the group for WG
Adoption at this time.
<http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-hilliard-ix-bgp-route-server-operations>
Please have a read through and let us know on-list about applicability
to this group in particular. Call closes 12/01/2011 (dec 01 2011
for the non-us-based folks)
-Chris (co-chair) _______________________________________________
GROW mailing list [email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
