IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

"NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala@att.com> Thu, 23 October 2008 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l3vpn-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l3vpn-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FAA3A6B1B; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E513A6B17 for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 H--f09vRzFPs for <l3vpn@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02BC33A6B04 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: mnapierala@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-2.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1224776108!19030039!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54]
Received: (qmail 24640 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2008 15:35:09 -0000
Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-2.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Oct 2008 15:35:09 -0000
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9NFZ6rF028702; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:35:07 -0400
Received: from misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com (misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com [144.155.43.107]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id m9NFYxvm028628; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:34:59 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:34:59 -0400
Message-ID: <2F1DE4DFCFF32144B771BD2C246E6A20A5F3A9@misout7msgusr7e.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <2B7BA8FF-2819-451D-B018-5EB9DFFE764B@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts
Thread-Index: Ack0VD1jbm+REXhnQgS5ATPp1Q8+wAA0CP2A
References: <0E3033029745FB4C8BE6F1A3752FAE59E791DF@misout7msgusr7b.ugd.att.com><1224680522.20832.74.camel@l-at11168.FTRD> <2B7BA8FF-2819-451D-B018-5EB9DFFE764B@cisco.com>
From: "NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <mnapierala@att.com>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>, Thomas Morin <thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com>
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, L3VPN <l3vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l3vpn-bounces@ietf.org

> create 2 drafts, one documenting a PIM based solutions set, and an
> other based on BGP. Both moving forward on standards track. These

I agree.

> documents don't need to make comparisons between BGP and PIM (as is
> done in the Morin draft), because this creates endless discussions
> and don't get us anywhere. It just needs to document how the
> different modules work together so that vendors can be interoperable.
> Each customer can choose the preferred approach and talk to the
> vendor for an implementation.

I agree with this statement.
Comparing protocols is not productive, especially when comparing a
protocol which has a significant deployment with one that doesn't.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status