On 3/2/16, 4:45 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" wrote:
>On 2/26/2016 1:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Hi Benoit, Lada,
>>
>> On 2/26/16, 3:32 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lada,
>>>
Hi Benoit,
this was discussed a while ago in this thre
dotted-quad is very much suitable to represent the router ID for various
protocols including LDP. This maintains the backward compatibility and is of
uint32 type.
Cheers,
Rajiv
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 5:42 AM, Benoit Claise (bclaise) wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/2016 1:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote
On 2/26/2016 1:13 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Benoit, Lada,
On 2/26/16, 3:32 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)"
wrote:
Hi Lada,
Hi Benoit,
this was discussed a while ago in this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TehrMAboX-cMmmX537rs81DNl3I
tl;dr: Th
Hi Benoit, Lada,
On 2/26/16, 3:32 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)"
wrote:
>Hi Lada,
>
>> Hi Benoit,
>>
>> this was discussed a while ago in this thread:
>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TehrMAboX-cMmmX537rs81DNl3I
>>
>> tl;dr: The WG decision then was to intro
Hi Lada,
Hi Benoit,
this was discussed a while ago in this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TehrMAboX-cMmmX537rs81DNl3I
tl;dr: The WG decision then was to introduce a new type in ietf-inet-types, namely
"dotted-quad", that explicitly does NOT have the semantics of an IPv4
Hi Benoit,
this was discussed a while ago in this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TehrMAboX-cMmmX537rs81DNl3I
tl;dr: The WG decision then was to introduce a new type in ietf-inet-types,
namely "dotted-quad", that explicitly does NOT have the semantics of an IPv4
address -
