![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Robert,
Sorry about not getting back to you earlier, I went thru your slides and they look very good. Just one suggestion, make sure you present this in a neutral fashion and incorporate any inputs from folks directly involved with this including Weiming, Zsolt. I am sure you will do this anyways…that’s all I had.
Thanks for doing this, Hormuzd
From: Robert Haas [mailto:rha at zurich.ibm.com]
Hi All,
All, Attached is a short presentation for the next IETF that summarizes the three options for LFB-level multicast:- merged (among the current proposal in the draft),- split (among the current proposals in the draft, called VPN, and Zsolt's proposal),- xcat (Weiming's proposal). Also, there is a slide with the issue Jamal raised about unnecessarily repeating the class ID for commands destined to LFBs of the same class. Personally, I think the overhead is minimal. Maybe your view is different ? Please review the slides and let me know if you have comments/suggestions. Depending on the chosen solution(s), we may have to define a TLV for the LFB Instance ID, as this can be a normal ID, a virtual ID (MIID), a list, or a range. Regards,-- Robert HaasIBM Zurich Research LaboratorySäumerstrasse 4CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerlandphone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha |
_______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol