Re: [Idr] Progressing draft-bhatia-bgp-multiple-next-hops-01.txt

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis at occnc.com>]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609010802590.1936 at sheen.jakma.org>
Paul Jakma writes:
>  
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
>  
> > I'd like to suggest that rough consensus has been reached that the 
> > next-hop attribute is not a viable path identifier. Except for the 
> > authors, is there anyone that doesn't consider this to be a "self 
> > evident truth" by now ?
>  
> So which identifier would work?
>  
> You need to pick a stable identifier..


The type of identified used in add-paths (<prefix,path-id> with
path-id unique per sender) should remain in consideration.

The next-hop as an identifier used in multiple-next-hops should no
longer be considered by the WG.

The add-path draft as it stands remains too vague and may be
misinterpreted due to omission of important details.

I suggest that NEITHER internet-draft be considered as a WG item at
this point, multiple-next-hops because it won't work and add-paths
because it is too vague as it stands.

I suggest we revisit the question as to whether to make add-paths a WG
document after the next iteration of the internet-draft.  In the mean
time, perhaps advocates of multiple-next-hops can make constructive
suggestions to improve the clarity of the add-paths draft.

Curtis

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr