IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)

"Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 08 September 2008 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CEA3A68DA for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.245
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.245 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2mblboWxUyWj for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 609C13A6781 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KcUXB-000Nuv-JL for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:23:13 +0000
Received: from [216.9.248.52] (helo=smtp05.bis.na.blackberry.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <SRS0=RdcHzK=ZS=tmo.blackberry.net=louberger@srs.bis.na.blackberry.com>) id 1KcUX7-000NuR-DX for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:23:11 +0000
Received: from bxe123.bisx.prod.on.blackberry (bxe123.bisx.prod.on.blackberry [172.20.225.152]) by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m880BcCo027979; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:23:02 GMT
X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 411669042
Message-ID: <411669042-1220833382-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1877353164-@bxe123.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Reply-To: lberger@labn.net
X-Priority: Normal
References: <199523.75146.qm@web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <199523.75146.qm@web36807.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Sensitivity: Normal
Importance: Normal
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, John Drake <john.e.drake2@boeing.com>, Yakov Reckter <yakov@juniper.net>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd question)
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:23:00 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part128276-boundary-1044013216-1678259618"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>

Hay your the one who asked for opinions. Sorry you didn't like mine.  

Lou

Btw the fundamental agreement that I was refering to was that ospf would be one of the solutions progressed in l1vpn - work that you and I did together!  
-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>

Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:08:05 
To: Lou Berger<lberger@labn.net>; Drake, John E<John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>; Yakov Rekhter<yakov@juniper.net>
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] BGP TE attr last call by softwires WG (2nd  question)


>I do like to hear comments from other people.

IMO this discussion (OSPF and BGP applicability and limitations wrt
L1VPNs) was sufficiently covered in the l1vpn WG, and nothing being
said now changes the fundamental arguments or conclusions of that discussion.

Lou

PS  PLEASE feel free to drop me from the to/cc line of this thread!


Although multi-instance OSPF was enthusiastically discussed and is ongoing work in OSPF WG, it was never discussed in the L1VPN context. Because it potentially can improve the saclability properties of the L1VPN OSPF solution IMO it defenitely deserves more discussions. I am very interested in the discussion and hope others too. You sound like want to shut it down. It is my understanding that anyone can start a discussion in IETF WG, and the discussion can be closed:
a) by a WG chair;
b) because it is out of WG's charter;
c) it distracts WG from more important things.

I don't see much going on in the L1VPN WG, the discussion is surely within the L1VPN WG charter and, unless I've missed the announcement, you are not a WG chair. Sure, I'll drop you from To: Cc: and Bcc lists of all my outgoing messages, but this won't help. So, if the discussion makes you nervous or annoys you in any way
PLEASE feel free to unsubcribe temporarily from the WG lists (;=)!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email