Barry, On Apr 17, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Barry Raveendran Greene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Apr 18, 2018, at 01:48, Ron Bonica <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Any comments, positive, negative or indifferent would be appreciated. It is difficult to judge consensus in the face of silence. Since you asked. Feasible path was build around the capabilities of Juniper’s FIB structure. Strict Mode, Loose Mode, and VRF Mode all used a more general approach. My question for working group adoption would be if the approach is applicable to vendors outside of Juniper. Is this possible on Cisco, Huawei, Nokia, Arista, and others? If yes, then it is a good for working group adoption. It should be noted that my contribution isn't intended to say "Juniper can support this out the door". Rather, the intent is to start discussion of the framework that addresses the problem space in a way that's more complete. With that done, FIBs that don't have the necessary properties to do the work that eventually comes from this or related documents can eventually be deployed. Now is better obviously. But right now, base BCP 38 (as you note) lives off of useful hacks. :-) -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
