Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> writes:
Hi Chris,
Tony Li (at least) seemed to think that it was useful to be able
to attach TE attributes to a link, not just to prefixes. Perhaps
I've missed this in the thread but what current mechanism (rfc?)
are you referring to, to identify a link and attach TE attributes
to it?
I have two questions which are perhaps more to the WG & Chairs then
authors of this draft.
1. While it is perhaps a good thing to construct better transport
paths in the network this draft puts clients data into the network.
So for me it look like client and application awareness injection is
being mixed with the transport layer. I am not sure if there is
common agreement that IGPs should do that now.
I didn't see any client/app data in this proposal.. There are other drafts out
there that seem to be talking about that, which I also don't like (as wg member
)
2. If we know that proposed solution may work only on a subset of
links and only in specific flat topologies do we still proceed ?
It says "stub-links" right in the title so yeah I guess it's only working with
a subset of links. :) Apparently this is useful to some people.
Thanks,
Chris.
[as wg member]
Thx,
R.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
