On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not in fact advocating a 'do nothing' strategy. On the contrary, > I advocate that the RRG makes the best recommendations that it can. > But I suggest that we should neither accept nor reject strategy F; > I think we should just set it aside. It's out of our control anyway.
Hi Brian, My worry is that by retaining strategy F, we signal that the problem isn't ripe yet. If plain BGP is not recommended but is still acceptable, what's the need for working groups or a concerted engineering effort? My thought was that strategy D, E or both should remain as controls while F should be discarded. D involves scaling up how BGP is processed while E involves suppressing BGP growth. Do you want to keep F in addition to D and E, or do D and E provide a sufficient fallback position as methods for expanding and/or controlling BGP? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
