[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: req proposal (was Re: [NSIS] NSIS Requirement: Independence ofexisting flow reservations and default routing
- To: <brunner@ccrle.nec.de>, <schneider@tri.sbc.com>, <nsis@ietf.org>
- Subject: RE: req proposal (was Re: [NSIS] NSIS Requirement: Independence ofexisting flow reservations and default routing
- From: john.loughney@nokia.com
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:29:07 +0300
- List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
- Sender: nsis-admin@ietf.org
- Thread-Index: AcIOOYtih7wZI9yHQxqD8PoKwLLagQCSS5Bw
- Thread-Topic: req proposal (was Re: [NSIS] NSIS Requirement: Independence ofexisting flow reservations and default routing
Hi Marco & Marcus,
> We discussed the issue of route pinning and traffic engineering in
> Helsinki. The conclusion during the meeting was that we want to add an
> assuption saying: NSIS assumes normal/standard L3 routing
>
> Plus we add a requirement saying that NSIS protocol should not be broken by
> networks which do non-traditional L3 routing.
>
> Does this cover your concern? Do we really need to add that NSIS must work
> with default routing changes?
I agree with Marcus that this is what we are trying to say. Marco, is this
text OK with you?
John
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis