+1 AB
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:50 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. > > 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
