Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 05 July 2017 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE2512EAFF for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Em0G-UNnUCZ8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DCC1243FE for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 19:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 529021E333; Tue, 4 Jul 2017 22:56:39 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=bM_GoFHaRuWtPjp_14i+nTgwwR0iqEN5Pq+wevHUpJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 22:47:23 -0400
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B2685E35-3B5F-44EA-ACCA-90F2A1863209@pfrc.org>
References: <m2van9z3jp.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC8tPVD20SJ60h-=NGbPMG3Fae2a0TY5rMFb=EnN7H-C6Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2o9t1z1hj.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC_bQitHeR9tHc5tPsXmoSDDLQH764equTAHrP854fYh-A@mail.gmail.com> <BF65C4DC-D2F5-41AF-8454-D43B403E328B@juniper.net> <CACWOCC9cmz7ARnWNowCCEu3Rt_NiyuWgJMZ3pWfmxZ_BO8Ovjw@mail.gmail.com> <292534ED-98BC-49A0-82A2-45B6688F851D@juniper.net> <CACWOCC_KTzJLQAJf_j4ZqM1oJSFq9JcyT7aAPLGf3+2Ess7BBA@mail.gmail.com> <09BFF794-6899-4DA5-8EF5-DDF86513BFBA@pfrc.org> <20170704104840.mg5bflnmmjlv4jbi@Vurt.local> <20170704175334.GO2289@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ER=bM_GoFHaRuWtPjp_14i+nTgwwR0iqEN5Pq+wevHUpJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/NWzAEks7zrUhygMmZu8-RSWx3cs>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 02:47:26 -0000

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Running add paths for common policy paths vs per client best path are orders of magnitude more work.
> 
> I can not believe why you would think otherwise ...

At no point did I state add-paths would be per client.