 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Jun 25, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Internet-Drafts at ietf.org wrote:
FWIW: Since the hash is the very last thing, I'd prefer that it not be removed since its already there. Rather change it to a "MAY" requirement. I'd hate to see it removed only to find it has to be added back in again. Dense-mode is a problem. If you are really going to do this reform I would like to see advertisement of the dense-mode range however you want to do it. 6.2 You're talking about dense and ssm group ranges. This doesn't mean the RP-type is 'unknown' it means there is no RP. 6.4 talks about being "undefined" doesn't this mean dense-mode? SSM is defined by 232/8 or by statically configuring the ssm-range on each router. Again, if you're going to go down this path, I'd like the BSR to be able to advertise an SSM range. Isn't this the same thing you're talking about in 6.2 6.8, There is no way that you can have BSR and Auto-RP interoperate. After years of trying and always running into dead ends, there is no way I could allow this section to remain. I would prefer that auto-RP be decremented. Specifically trying to have an RP advertised in both BSR and auto-RP really gets confused. I would like to see a decision tree that would more clearly explain the choices. Text-only is too easy to mis-read. |