Re: [renum] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-05.txt

"George, Wes" <> Fri, 21 December 2012 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FFD21F84DC for <>; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:43:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.566
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7e3x3QicY-Fn for <>; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:43:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CB621F85E8 for <>; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:43:02 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,329,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="1824904"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 21 Dec 2012 09:42:35 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:42:48 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:42:55 -0500
Thread-Topic: [renum] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-05.txt
Thread-Index: Ac3fgrhWUs1duagESbCzvBeM0ufKIgABY2zg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [renum] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:43:04 -0000

> From: [] On Behalf

> Benoit Claise's review - clarified scope, then
>  "Section 1, paragraph 1
>    However, widespread use of PI might
>    create serious BGP4 scaling problems
>  A reference, or a small explanation, would be welcome "
> It's unfortunate that the RRG did not produce an RFC on BGP scaling
> problems.
[WEG] They didn't? While RRG didn't come to consensus on a *solution*, there was consensus documented about several aspects of the problem space that should serve as the necessary level of background reading to support this assertion.

> We can refer to RFC 4116 but it isn't ideal.
You may find better reference points in RFC4984, 6227, or even 6115.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.