Thank Acee for clarification, it helps.
-Qin
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2020年7月13日 23:24
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: NetMod WG
主题: Re: Key selection for next hop list in RFC8349
Hi Qin,
From: Qin Wu mailto:bill...@huawei.com>>
Date: Friday, July 10, 2020 at 2:59 AM
To: Acee Lind
Hi Qin,
From: Qin Wu
Date: Friday, July 10, 2020 at 2:59 AM
To: Acee Lindem
Cc: NetMod WG
Subject: Key selection for next hop list in RFC8349
Hi, Acee, Lada, Yingzhen:
In RFC8349, a string type index parameter is defined as the key for next hop
list, this index has no semantics and can be use
Hi, Acee, Lada, Yingzhen:
In RFC8349, a string type index parameter is defined as the key for next hop
list, this index has no semantics and can be used as unique ID for each next
hop entry.
I am wondering why not select next hop address as the key instead of using no
semantic meaning index? Wha
