a few comments on TLI's
Deborah Estrin <estrin@usc.edu> Sat, 11 April 1992 22:42 UTC
Received: from nri.nri.reston.va.us by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00588;
11 Apr 92 18:42 EDT
Received: from nri.reston.va.us by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16839;
11 Apr 92 18:45 EDT
Received: from PARK-STREET.BBN.COM by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16833;
11 Apr 92 18:45 EDT
Received: from park-street by PARK-STREET.bbn.COM id aa23325;
11 Apr 92 18:30 EDT
Received: from BBN.COM by PARK-STREET.BBN.COM id aa23321; 11 Apr 92 18:28 EDT
Received: from usc.edu by BBN.COM id aa14535; 11 Apr 92 18:32 EDT
Received: from caldera.usc.edu by usc.edu (5.64+/SMI-3.0DEV3) id AA12850;
Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:31:52 PDT
Received: by caldera.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3) id AA11161;
Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:31:10 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 15:31:10 PDT
Message-Id: <9204112231.AA11161@caldera.usc.edu>
From: Deborah Estrin <estrin@usc.edu>
Sender: estrin%caldera.usc.edu@usc.edu
To: idpr-wg@bbn.com
Subject: a few comments on TLI's
Reply-To: estrin@usc.edu
1. why do we have to upgrade all routers when a new policy is added? just route servers that compute routes, and just BRs or PGs of the domain that needs to put new policy info in its update... 2. I dont see the consistancy problem that you rae alluding to, but need to discuss it more. 3. I hear you re. the risk of leading to deployment of an immature protocol and am leaning more and more in that direction. Can someone who disagrees convince me otherwise? My one question re. what your claim re. going to experimental protocol is that I dont see VMTP as something thatkcreated a problem in this sense so is it really the cas ethat experimetnal protocol status introduces a problem?
- a few comments on TLI's Deborah Estrin
- a few comments on TLI's Tony Li