+grow, they got lost somewhere on the way...
(grow folk interested might want to just go look at the archive:
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16066.html
...which is this thread...

sadly this discussion is spread over at least:
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16102.html
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16066.html
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16034.html
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr/current/msg16009.html
)

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote:

> I am sensing is that if they put -large on the 2016/2017/2018 BGP roadmaps
> next time their PMs will take a look at BGP communities topic will be at
> best 2025+.


I think ops folk understand that given enough thrust (money) vendors will
do all manner of things on-demand. I think it's not productive to really
talk about this here though, what's helpful is:

1) is -large still interesting?
    (seems like lots of 'yes pls' already)
2) is there room for improvement?
    (always, almost anyway)
3) should we try to improve/change -large or move that work to -wide or
-tlv or -other ?
    (seems like today we want -large to progress, and we should gather
requirements/options for -wide or -tlv or -other-thing)

Can we get some requirements discussions/writng going in grow and once
we're not spitballing come back to IDR with a useful set of requirements
and uss-cases?

-chris
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to