I had intended to bring this up during the session, but we are/were
pressed for time...
On 10/26/15 9:22 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
> I don't understand why you think it needs to be so complicated. It
> seems much simpler than the other prefix coloring approaches I have
> seen being suggested, and
: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:27 PM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
I had intended to bring this up during the session, but we are/were pressed for
time...
On 10/26/15 9:22 PM, Peter McCann wrote:
> I don't understand
@cisco.com>>, John
Kaippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-
n.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
The application should always pre
, October 29, 2015 2:54 PM
To: Peter McCann; John Kaippallimalil; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
Sure. But, if this all boils down to marking a prefix as a local prefix , or a
remove prefix (as in this example), then its more
.
-Pete
From: John Kaippallimalil
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:41 PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Peter McCann; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
It does not have to be as dynamic or complex. Just the topology
;>, John
Kaippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.
t;, John
Kaippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
An
@cisco.com>>, John
Kaippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost
To: Peter McCann; John Kaippallimalil; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
Ok. But, if you send multiple prefixes with different Prefix-Cost values, how
will that be used is still the question ? As you said, Prefix-Cost is local
nd...@cisco.com<mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, John
Kaippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>,
"dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Not
(sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 12:59 AM
To: Peter McCann; John Kaippallimalil; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
I've not payed attention to that discussion on the fixed/sustaining/nomadic
address
PM
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
Hi Sri,
Thanks for the feedback about what worked (and didn't) in prefix coloring .
We could explore about "capabilities" in more detail - if we can do so - th
nd yet the protocol functions by preferring routes with lower values over
higher ones.
-Pete
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 5:38 PM
To: Peter McCann; John Kaippallimalil; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [
> on behalf of John
Kaippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:19 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] FW: New Version Notif
Hi,
We have posted a new version of the Prefix Cost draft (please see submission
below).
The comments addressed include that from the last meeting, as well as
discussions on the reflector regarding how this cost can be provided to the
host:
1. What is the motivation – what costs are being
ippallimalil
<john.kaippallima...@huawei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:19 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draf
@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: RE: [DMM] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-mccann-dmm-prefixcost-02.txt
Hi Sri,
This is a good point –
As we note in the draft wrt policy – different service providers may configure
the ho
18 matches
Mail list logo
