On Aug 11, 2015, at 7:25 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> It sounds to me like using multiple paths (ECMP or otherwise) is something
> that hasn't been clearly nailed down in the requirements?
Putting ECMP in the requirements seems like a terrible idea. I don’t think
there’s a need for it, for two re
(This response was delayed by the unplanned obsolescence of my dear departed
mail server, but I think it’s still vaguely relevant…)
On Aug 12, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote:
> Not sure whether 'community wifi' belongs to this alias but anyway, there
> ar
> IGP based multicast protocol is suggested, pls refer to
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree-02.
That's similar to MOSPF, but done in IS-IS, right?
-- Juliusz
___
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.
On 20.8.2015, at 0.35, Juliusz Chroboczek
wrote:
>> Some sort of review seems advisable. In RFC5226 terms, I'd go for
>> Expert Review at least.
> That would be fine with me.
I am not big fan of expert review, as it can potentially bias what gets
allocated or not.
Tinfoil hat guy in me conside
