+1 Can’t agree more:
“I deeply think that it’s another item in the FRR toolchest (like LFA, remote LFA …), it will be up to each Service Provider to choose the appropriate technology based on its own use case/constraints.” Regards Eric 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2014年11月21日 17:23 收件人: Alia Atlas; Loa Andersson 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN); [email protected] 主题: RE: maturity of the MRT technology +1 As for all FRR technologies, MRT has pros and cons, and this does not influence the maturity of the technical solutions. We already had multiple discussions online and offline on technical details leading now to documents that are quite detailed and well understood technology (with pros and cons as I mentioned). I’m not a great supporter of MRT implementation in my network, because it does not address correctly my use cases but despite of this, I deeply think that it’s another item in the FRR toolchest (like LFA, remote LFA …), it will be up to each Service Provider to choose the appropriate technology based on its own use case/constraints. Processing of MRT , IMHO, should be done as LFA and other similar technologies so standard track sounds good to me. We already seen much less mature technologies going to standard track and being RFC without any running code after … Best Regards, Stephane From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 19:17 To: Loa Andersson Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN); [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: maturity of the MRT technology Loa, Without any hats on, I would note: a) As far as I'm aware, this has seen two independent prototypes implemented. b) I have not heard any concrete technical concerns. Stewart and I did specificallly discuss MRT this past IETF. I am, of course, quite interested in hearing any concrete technical concerns. c) I'd be happy seeing this question asked of more drafts :-) Regards, Alia On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Loa Andersson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Working Groups, We have don an MPLS-RT of draft-atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt, the reviews has been posted to the mpls wg mailing list. In his MPLS-RT review Stewart Bryant says: "I have concerns about whether or not MRT technology has the maturity expected in the standards track. However that decision needs to be taken in RTGWG and MPLS needs to follow their and lead in determining the fate and track of this draft. This draft should not be published ahead of the drafts that define the technology that it is supporting." He also says that he see no reason not to go ahead and start the poll to see if we have consensus to adopt the document as an mpls wg document. The question Stewart ask is valid, and we'd like input from the rtgwg and rtgwg chairs (copied on this mail). We will also copy both the poll for adoption and the wglc to the rtgwg mailing list. /Loa mpls wg co-chair -- Loa Andersson email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64<tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064> _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
