Robert,
Is documentation of problems the thrust of the document in question?
--Tom
On Dec 3, 2013:7:20 AM, at 7:20 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Wim,
>
> I am not questioning that things can break. I am just asking that it would be
> great to document those stating specific reasons or given's app design
> assumptions.
>
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert, I got surprised recently how many things break in such environment
> and this is why I am reluctant to standardise this work. I also don’t believe
> the people who have to fix the applications will even read this work.
>
> From: Robert Raszuk <[email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday 3 December 2013 10:54
> To: Wim Henderickx <[email protected]>
> Cc: Pedro Roque Marques <[email protected]>, Thomas Morin
> <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: on limitations of draft-xu-l3vpn-virtual-subnet
>
> Hi Wim,
>
> I think you are right that perhaps some Ethernet based applications may
> break. But perhaps it is worth to observe that wast majority of other
> applications may happily work on virtual subnet too.
>
> So maybe rather then stopping adoption those who are worried about some
> specific applications not working in any of today's L2 emulations to document
> those in a draft.
>
> For one it could be nice deployment guideline document to the operators and
> for the second it may give hints to application developers to fix their code
> :)
>
> Best,
> R.
>
>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
