Agreed. On 11/27/12 10:50 AM, "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. > >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
