Dear Authors Why was MT chosen and not MI for VTN underlay network slice underpinning. MT instances has separate topology but not separate LSDB where MI Multi instance RFC 6822 has a separate LSDB for resources isolation and I think would be a better fit for VTN underlay provisioning.
MI https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6822 Thanks Gyan On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 10:34 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Robert ruminated: > >> >> That said I think perhaps we are indeed missing LROW WG (Local Routing >> Operations WG) where just like in GROW WG where mainly (Global) BGP >> operational aspects are discussed there could be good place to discuss >> operational aspects of link state protocols deployment and use cases. In >> fact perhaps it would also free some LSR bandwidth to really focus on >> protocol extensions. >> >> > +1 > > IGPs grew a zoo of horns and bells by now and no'one tells the operators > which spines are poisonous ;-) > > --- tony > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
