I think it should include control plane protocols as well. The first focus is RIB-based use-cases, which seem to be easily tied to a forwarding plane. However, the BGP-based policy cases and topology cases do not need to be co-located with a forwarding plane and, if that portion of the routing system is supported by a software entity, I think that I2RS should be able to handle that as well.
I feel that restricting the routing system to only those with an attached forwarding plane (physical or virtual) is unnecessarily restrictive and we already know of cases where it may not be sufficient. Alia On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > This looks good --nice, well defined scope and strong requirements > language. The only question I have is: > > == > A routing system is all or part of a routing network such as an > interface, a collection of interfaces, a router, or a collection of > routers. > == > > Should this include the control plane protocols, as well? The positive > would be to provide a (more) complete description of a routing system, > the negative is this might be seen as bringing interaction with > protocols into the charter. > > Thoughts? > > :-) > > Russ > > -- > <>< > [email protected] > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
