Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-requirements-00.txt
Bhuvanesh Rajput <Bhuvanesh.Rajput@tatacommunications.com> Wed, 01 October 2014 15:09 UTC
Return-Path: <Bhuvanesh.Rajput@tatacommunications.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3A71A1A26 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.685
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] autolearn=ham
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 3utAVsLATvOC for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vmx6.tatacommunications.com (vmx6.tatacommunications.com [115.114.148.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067611A1A12 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,632,1406572200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="69018672"
Received: from inp44vcas02.vsnl.co.in ([121.244.253.17]) by mx6-2.tatacommunications.com with ESMTP; 01 Oct 2014 20:39:00 +0530
Received: from INP44VDAG02.vsnl.co.in ([fe80::79c8:e95b:2f43:3d90]) by inp44vcas02.vsnl.co.in ([fe80::98c5:cb52:8d40:d09b%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 20:39:01 +0530
From: Bhuvanesh Rajput <Bhuvanesh.Rajput@tatacommunications.com>
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-requirements-00.txt
Thread-Topic: Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumuganainar-rtgwg-dps-requirements-00.txt
Thread-Index: Ac/dhnJovWcCHIN6RCm1QoJ9CW7aiQ==
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 15:09:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E3DFEE681C8ABF4A8AC076EFF3DDD6DEDBF1169A@inp44vdag02.vsnl.co.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [121.244.253.8]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E3DFEE681C8ABF4A8AC076EFF3DDD6DEDBF1169Ainp44vdag02vsnl_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Wg35CodLFAOIy6lYwEE1vNQQayg
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 15:09:08 -0000
Hi, Dynamic path selections draft is well written to have application based flexibility in the routing. Seek clarification on following - Application based traffic offload/routing requirement most often comes from enterprise segment, never seen from service providers. Since BGP is proposed in the draft to achieve application based routing but BGP is most often used between Autonomous systems (between Service providers and Enterprise and Service Providers), Why widely accepted and deployed IGPs (OSPF and EIGRP) cannot work to achieve proposed functionality? If IGPs are supported to have application based routing it will great value add for large Enterprises segment without any major change in existing routing. - Draft proposes static configuration to define application profile, how to achieve the routing for the applications dynamic in nature and use dynamic port numbers etc. ? Regards Bhuvanesh Rajput
- Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumu… Arun Arumuganainar
- Requesting Comments about the Draft : draft-arumu… Bhuvanesh Rajput