Sorry for the late answer and for breaking the email thread. (my laptop hard
drive failed during the IETF week).
Please see 2 comments inline [Bruno]
And as already expressed, I support the adoption of this document.
From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net]
Right now, we're arguing
On 4/5/2016 8:05 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Wouldn't it be more flexible to simply define new attribute to carry > the stack within any SAFI as an opaque to BGP data ? That way one
can > easily use it in unicast SAFI or even in FlowSpec.
That can be done with the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute.
> From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:44 PM
>
> On 3/25/2016 7:25 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> >> I'm quite sure you have deployed implementations, from several
> >> prominent vendors, that will not properly handle this case.
> > I'm waiting
Hi Eric,
I have read your proposed draft as well as watched this thread with a bit
of an interest.
To me the best compromise - which is to agree with Bruno's points as well
as address your intentions is simply to request new SAFI for 3107bis.
>From the draft you are really not updating 3107
On 3/25/2016 7:25 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
I'm quite sure you have deployed implementations, from several
prominent vendors, that will not properly handle this case.
I'm waiting for this/these implementation(s) to make a public statement in this
thread / IETF WGs. Then we can
> From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, March 24,
> 2016 7:14 PM
> On 3/24/2016 11:17 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
> > I don't see why the IETF would want to create a bis which is not
> compatible with the original RFC,
>
> It's typical in a bis draft to
On 3/24/2016 11:17 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
I don't see why the IETF would want to create a bis which is not compatible
with the original RFC,
It's typical in a bis draft to remove features that haven't been used.
especially since this incompatibility may be very disruptive in
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your reply. Very much appreciated.
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I wanted more time to think about it.
I'm fine with all your point, except one. Please see inline [Bruno].
> From: Eric C Rosen [mailto:ero...@juniper.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:01 PM
>
