Hi Les, > This makes no sense to me operationally or architecturally.
Fundamentally I fully agree with you. However architecturally: However at least looking at group of folks who claim that it is impossible to get same SRGB block in *any* network between two or more vendors I think Stephane's intention would be to at least get it per one protocol even if platform wide the intersecting pool may be mission impossible. and now operationally: Another reason would be idea of dual overlapping SRGBs perhaps quite useful during migrations between protocols where the exact same SRGB is set on both then just based on admin distance one vs the other protocol is chosen. While a standard practice in protocol migrations not sure if anyone looked at that from SR perspective. Cheers, R. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) < [email protected]> wrote: > Stephane – > > > > What is the requirement to have a per-protocol SRGB config? > > > This makes no sense to me operationally or architecturally. > > > > (I am not talking about what may or may not have been implemented by > vendors – the YANG model should be architecturally correct) > > > > Les > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
