Hi Jamal,
>
>-nexthop-address is recognized in the grammar but not used.
>It may need to expand to {ipv4-prefix, ipv6-prefix, IEEE_MAC}
This is lingering from the -02 edit. It will be removed in -03. Thanks for
catching this.
>
>- What is syntax like:
>"<mpls-route-attributes> ::= <>"
>intended to imply?
The intention was to imply that there should be some expansion to these
(as part of this draft or as part of some other draft). For now, we will
remove all such references to <> (since we haven¹t found a good use-case
for the expansions yet).
>
>- <interface-route> ::= <INTERFACE> <INTERFACE_IDENTIFIER>
>What is the difference between INTERFACE and INTERFACE_IDENTIFIER?
>Are both needed? Couldnt tell from the text.
>Same question on occurances of "IEEE_MAC MAC_ADDRESS"
Removed. See previous email to WG.
>
>- somewhere in the structuring do we need to reflect what route in
>what shape has been synced with a FIB?
The notifications are supposed to tell you that. The notification should
tell you if a route is in the FIB or just in the RIB.
>
>- the whole nexthop structuring is quiet funky. I am wondering if someone
>has implemented that?
Yupwe¹ve had folks from Cisco, Juniper & Ericsson go over it. So I¹m
presuming they implement some form of it.
>
>Still section 8: I see that we are asking for fast table dumps, fast
>table writes;
>is there need for fast table deletes?
A ³delete² is nothing but a form of a write.so in short yes.
>
>- Section 11: I think some of the people in the acknowledgements are now
>authors; so it may not make sense to list them there.
Ack.
Thanks
nitin
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
