> - Freeform performance penalty (points?) - finger in the wind numbers (make > sure to emphasize that it is an estimate) - include things like other > resources used (CAM entries, memory, etc?). Number would only be relative to > the device itself.
I had to leave around this discussion, but I really wasn’t following why this would be better than straight forwarding capacity. That is, an overall “points” value doesn’t necessarily help much since some may care about CAM space and some may care about forwarding capacity, but they don’t know how the points break down. Like Frank, I’d like to stick to something simple and more well-defined like forwarding capacity. > - Informational or Standards track? It’s informational now, and I have no problem with that given the looseness in the draft. As it evolves, it may be better to move it to Standards. I think it should stay where it is for now. Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
