No, I do not think we need to try again to rephrase the problems. I
actually think a compressed repetition might well be harmful, and if not
harmful is unlikely to be helfpul.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
On 10/21/2010 2:46 PM, Tony Li wrote:
Hi Heiner,
[... Discussion on scalability]
This really seems like material for the problem statement, more than the design
goals.
This is true. But a such compressed repetition wouldn't be bad, particularly as
the design goals should respond to these problems. Very easily this or that
problem can slip out of focus ( e.g. the RIB size, e.g. the tighter meshing),
accordingly this or that design goal.
Do other folks feel this way? I have a hard time believing that we need
another restatement here.
For multi-homing, there's already a separate section. I'm not understanding
what changes you're recommending.
1.I can give you an example from my TARA-draft: If you fill the forwarding
table t1 with the alternative next hop, temporarily, you will enable fastest
alternate routing too.
2.Today I received draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-06.txt. If my
BeyondSPF proposal were very poor, then this draft is poorest. Comparably my
BeyondSPF-algorithms are lightyears ahead. My thinking is this:
Why not apply them inter-domain ?!!
Ok, I'm getting your point. I propose the following text at the end of Section
3.1:
If a solution includes support for alternative routes to support faster
convergence, the alternative routes should also factor into control
plane
scalability.
Does that work for you?
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
