Support.
eric
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:03 AM
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: [i2rs] WG Adoption call for draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-03 from
11/24
Support
Dean
On Dec 8, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Osborne, Eric eric.osbo...@level3.com wrote:
Support.
eric
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:03 AM
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas';
I would go back and ask basic question
What state do we want to change via I2RS?
static route
dynamic routing protocol
stateless firewall filters
xVPN (E/L2/L3)
etc
based on that we can then decide if going through configuration or directly
accessing responsible daemon is better way.
As far I
What state do we want to change via I2RS?
The original intent was specifically state in the routing table, not --
As far I know, we wanted to allow i2rs agent to change any supported state
on the device. If that is still the case, then we need to go through the
Or rather, the only
Then we really have to write up use cases, settle on requirements and decide on
the protocol.
Dean
On Dec 8, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
What state do we want to change via I2RS?
The original intent was specifically state in the routing table, not --
As far I
Then we really have to write up use cases, settle on requirements and
decide on the protocol.
The original use case documents covered this specific situation. We decided
to expand the use cases for future use, I think, which then led to trying to
solve all the problems listed there in the
