On Nov 27, 2012:1:50 PM, at 1:50 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
Good point.
--Tom
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
