Jeff, > Part of the motivation I had for suggesting the use of an existing sub-code > is we have *not* changed the semantics in a machine-readable format. > It's still "administrative shutdown". Today, you'd have zero extra information > what it's about.
My interpretation of 4271 does not prohibit one to send more then one cease notification message. One would be subcode 2 as today .. the other would be subcode 9 INFO. > The shutdown draft requires no changes for any useful backward compatibility. If you add length as proposed by Job it does. > But in order to signal such other information, the routers in question would need to support Advisory. Advisory is also not structured. > Although, personally, I'd rather just get an email to my noc@ address than have to scrape > my syslog that maintenance is about to occur unexpectedly. Indeed !!! Is the problem here that one side does not know the email of the other side and syslog will be the communicator ? Thx, R.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
