On 11/21/14, 6:49 AM, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
[Stewart: Not directing this e-mail specifically at you…but at the WG.] [Took off the draft-atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt alias since this is not a discussion specific to that draft.] [Also took off the mpls alias as I intend to focus the discussion on the rtgwg process/consensus. Left mpls-chairs as an FYI..we can later circle back to the mpls list.] . . . At the end of the day the utility of MRT depends on who is interested in deploying it, and as far as I know, none of the domain wide IPFRR solutions have made it into production networks. If there are operators prepared to deploy MRT in their production networks then obviously it is headed for the standards track. If it is destined to join the ranks of the many "possible" domain wide solutions, then it is clearly still at the informational/ experimental stage of its life. It is true that MRT has been discussed widely in the WG (and offline)..and that no technical issues exist. Just as a reminder, the rtgwg charter (in the description of the work related to FRR) reads: "All work in this area should be specifically evaluated by the WG in terms of practicality and applicability to deployed networks.” Note that this statement doesn’t mean that we need deployments, or even people saying that they want/intend to deploy the technology. It means that the WG should think of whether a proposal is applicable to deployed networks. I would like to hear comments specific to this statement. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
