Thanks Toerless. I'm not hearing any disagreement so that will be
in the next version. With your WG Chair hat on, are there any other
changes required?
Regards
Brian
On 14/08/2017 16:47, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Reaffirming my preference for 1.
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 05:17:21PM +1200, Br
Reaffirming my preference for 1.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 05:17:21PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> As a reminder, we have two options in the draft for adding support
> of IPv4 prefix management:
>
> 1. Add a version number flag to the objective
> 2. Add a second objective specific to IPv4
>
>
As a reminder, we have two options in the draft for adding support
of IPv4 prefix management:
1. Add a version number flag to the objective
2. Add a second objective specific to IPv4
So far the preferences I have heard (including my own) are for option 1,
because it's simpler to implement. I thin
