On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it should include control plane protocols as well. The first focus > is RIB-based use-cases, which seem to be easily tied to a forwarding plane. > However, the BGP-based policy cases and topology cases do not need to be > co-located with a forwarding plane and, if that portion of the routing system > is supported by a software entity, I think that I2RS should be able to handle > that as well. > > I feel that restricting the routing system to only those with an attached > forwarding plane (physical or virtual) is unnecessarily restrictive and we > already know of cases where it may not be sufficient.
+1. -shane > Alia > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > This looks good --nice, well defined scope and strong requirements > language. The only question I have is: > > == > A routing system is all or part of a routing network such as an > interface, a collection of interfaces, a router, or a collection of routers. > == > > Should this include the control plane protocols, as well? The positive > would be to provide a (more) complete description of a routing system, > the negative is this might be seen as bringing interaction with > protocols into the charter. > > Thoughts? > > :-) > > Russ > > -- > <>< > [email protected] > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
