Hi Acee,

In any case, one will need to update the signaling routers and the routers
> acting on the signal.


I guess this is clear to all.

Additionally, your request for the adoption was that the draft have a
> stronger statement about the mechanism being used for solely for signaling
> for applications (e.g., BGP PIC).


As to the applicability my comment was that either draft should state in
strong normative language that this is applicable only to applications
which data plane uses encapsulation to the next hop.

Said this draft-wang introduces the additional signalling, sort of trying
to assure that all nodes in an area understand the new messages - but I am
not sure if even advertising PUAM capability means that it will be actually
used for all destinations ?

By responding to this Email inline, some may believe you support the
> assertion that we should start the adoption of both drafts. Please be
> clarify this.


Well the way I see this is that adoption call is a bit more formal
opportunity for WG members to express their opinion on any document. But
maybe LSR (for good reasons) have different internal rules to decide which
document should be subject to WG adoption and does sort of pre-filtering.

If adoption call proves document has negative comments or lacks cross
vendor support it simply does not get adopted.

Maybe I am just spoiled looking at how IDR WG process works :-)


> As for your other comment that this could be accomplished with BGP or an
> out-of-bound mechanism, that is true but that could be true of many
> problem. However, the solution under adoption has running code and wide
> vendor support.
>

 Right ... As I wrote to Peter - perhaps this is just a pragmatic approach
and flooding is what link state uses so be it.

As you know I did try in the past to propose BGP Aggregate withdraw but
then feedback of the community was that PEs do not go down that often to
justify the extension.

Best,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to