Les,
> We don’t have to resolve this now.
> One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of
> code points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG
> adoption is achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation
> request – and as one of
Hi Les,
> I am not yet overly enthused about approaches which promote non-hierarchical
> network architectures. But it seems clear that there is interest in deploying
> non-hierarchical solutions and both drafts present solutions
> which merit further evaluation.
I think that there’s some
thanks Les, albeit the authors got already lots of helpful comments from
you and Peter over beers in a bar I hope for further discussions.
Especially your opinion on
a) special case where FR is 1-hop away from the leafs should not need a
tunnel. I think most people would agree it's a good thing
I support WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection .
(I also support the WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ )
I believe the problem space addressed by these two drafts warrants attention.
I am not
I support the WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-lsr-isis-area-proxy/ .
(I also support WG adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-przygienda-lsr-flood-reflection )
I believe the problem space addressed by these two drafts warrants attention.
I am not yet
Tony –
We don’t have to resolve this now.
One of my motivations for sending this was related to Early Allocation of code
points. Since you have already asked once, I am assuming that if WG adoption is
achieved it will be swiftly followed by an early allocation request – and as
one of the
