Les, in your scenario you assume 2 issues on the node. First it advertises an
inconsistent SRGB and 2nd it behaves wrong in the data-plane. My view is that
the reason for agreeing on a consistent behaviour ensures constructing a SRGB
out of the info received to minimise traffic impact.
If the
Les,
Please see inline 1 point below [Bruno]
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 12:41 AM
To: Fedyk, Don; HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim); DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS; Martin Horneffer; spring@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [spring]
Pragmatic and working approach, I support it.
Cheers,
Jeff
From: spring > on
behalf of "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)"
>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 13:06
To:
Wim -
From: HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 10:14 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Fedyk, Don; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: Martin Horneffer; spring@ietf.org; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: Re: [spring]
Wim -
From: HENDERICKX, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderi...@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 1:02 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); Fedyk, Don; bruno.decra...@orange.com
Cc: Martin Horneffer; spring@ietf.org; LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/OINIS
Subject: Re: [spring]
Hi authors,
Please find below two comments:
1) Following the work done in draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution, would
you consider adding a notification to report SRGB block inconsistency?
I think that there is consensus that the network operator need to be warned
about this issue.
2)
Bruno -
From: bruno.decra...@orange.com [mailto:bruno.decra...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:51 AM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: spring@ietf.org; Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Subject: RE: [spring] draft-ginsberg-spring-conflict-resolution: SRGB
INCONSISTENCY
Les,
Please see inline 1