Is this for one operator (still important, but not necessarily for
standardization) or are there several operators who have expressed
interest in this?
Yes, we do proactive standards. But the IDR group, for example, tends
to be very careful to see if interest is reflected in implementation.
Dear Tianran Zhou,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
opsawg Session 1 (2:00:00)
Monday, Afternoon Session I 1330-1530
Room Name: Blenheim size: 200
-
Hi Zhenqiang and the coauthors,
First of all I have to congratulate to this draft. I share the opinion that BGP
communities are a very powerful information element. Correlated to the
forwarding plane it gives a more detailed and granular view of the network
usage then AS numbers or paths.
Look
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
wrote:
> Hi, Benoit,
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>
>> The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever.
>
>
> Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down
> vote can change af
Dear all,
When: 15:50-17:20 Monday Afternoon session II
Where: TBD - this will shortly be posted in the Agenda.
Please come to talk to us on any WG or OPS area items, about new
proposals, or about any other IETF-related business.
Also, come and meet Ignas, who will be taking over the Management
Dear OpsArea,
Once again we will be holding a joint OpsArea session with the OpsAWG meeting (
13:30-15:30 Monday Afternoon session I)
Please let us (ops-...@ietf.org) know if you have any agenda items.
W
--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first pl
