On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:45:33PM +0000, Antoni Przygienda wrote: | 1. I didn't see 'running large datacenters' as something on RTGWG charter and it's also typically something that is first driven by larger set of requirements rather than a single datapoint.
current thinking is that RTGWG is going to be a place where "new" routing approaches not strictly fitting into exisiting WGs can be discussed ... but i hear you - its yet to be seen how much abuse is going to happen on anyone's given definition of "new". | 2. A blueprint of a particular solution is exactly that. It is not a generic protocol specification or guideline that will fit e'one. If you have multi-TS which bring their own existing addresses or need MAC mobility or have to run L2 applications or don't have BGP implementation with necessary twists or other tid-nits which tons of DC happen to carry about then the shoe may not fit. | | > even getting to 10000s of routing nodes is not the end of the world. | > | [Tony said] We know that from a running thing called the 'Internet' ;-P I know I took it out the context but I couldn't resist the tongue-in-cheek pun possible ;-) | | Again, looking fwd' to presentation and discussion on the floor. i found the nanog preso on this matter pretty interesting ... https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/presentations/Monday/Lapukhov.pdf _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
