RE: sr - spring - what's the deal with 2 names

>> Does anyone know the scope on why we have 2 names for this ? > > SPRING is the IETF working group name - Source Packet Routing in Networking > Segment Routing is under SPRING Yeah, sorry, this was my fault. Gotta have a catchy name. As to "SPRINGv4" as others have said, this is not a

RE: GEO IP Updates

the same level of scrutiny. Reviews of drafts on the Independent Stream are always welcome. You can send comments and thoughts direct to the authors or to me as Independent Submissions Editor via rfc-...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> . Thanks, Adrian -- Adrian Farrel In

RE: carping about CARP

Far be it from me to get involved in a private pissing match, but... Owen wrote: Perhaps we should ask IETF/IANA to allocate a group of protocol numbers to the wild west. A protocol-number equivalent of RFC-1918 or private ASNs. You can use these for whatever you want, but so can anyone else

RE: Inter-domain OTN, does it happen in the real world?

Will, I think you also need to consider the case where one operator runs more than one network. This can happen because of acquisition or administrative structure. I regret it might also happen because of vendor equipment compatibility/lock-in issues. Cheers, Adrian -Original Message-

IETF's PIM Working Group conducting deployment survey

Hi, After a snafu, the PIM working group has restarted its survey into PIM sparse mode deployments. Please see the email at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg02479.html for more information. responses will be anonymised. Many thanks to all operators who are able to respond.