[Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-litkowski-idr-bgp-timestamp-02 (6/25 to 7/9)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 25 June 2015 17:54 UTC

From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'idr wg' <idr@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:54:30 -0400
Message-ID: <016b01d0af6f$fd40fdf0$f7c2f9d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016C_01D0AF4E.7630E490"
Thread-Index: AdCvbwj8erEzx9nnRFyPSXDP9diB9Q==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/CNZj7Aw9m2jCFLiCyp98NQngYCw>
Cc: keyupate@cisco.com, jhaas@juniper.net
Subject: [Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-litkowski-idr-bgp-timestamp-02 (6/25 to 7/9)
Precedence: list

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for
draft-litowski-idr-bgp-timestamp-02.txt which you can retrieve at:

 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-litkowski-idr-bgp-timestamp/

 

In responding to this WG adoption call please:

 

1)      Do operators need transport timestamps of a BGP path?  We would like
to hear from operators who wish this feature to indicate how important this
feature is to their daily or monthly operational work. 

2)      Does this solution provide reliable timestamps for BGP path? 

3)      Are there any scaling issues with this feature?  

4)      Is this feature cause problems if  single-homed prefix  becomes a
dual-homed prefix (errors happen!)?  

 

As always in your discussion, please indicate support or no support for this
draft. 

 

Sue Hares

[Idr] 2 week adoption call for draft-litkowski-id… Susan Hares