The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Feb> msg00365



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Expanded ERO draft

  • From: John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:05:59 -0800
  • Cc: mpls@UU.NET, vkompella@JasmineNetworks.com, yakov@juniper.net

Based upon e-mail I've seen, I think we've established that it doesn't
provide any additional functionality or utility.  There's a colloquial New
England expression that covers this - as useful as teats on a boar.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:24 PM
To: akyol@pluris.com; eric.gray@sandburst.com
Cc: kireeti@juniper.net; mpls@UU.NET; vkompella@JasmineNetworks.com;
yakov@juniper.net
Subject: Re: Expanded ERO draft


> Or alternately, one can add the router ID to the unnumbered ERO to 
> remove any ambiguities and also simplify fast reroute.

As Yakov said, no concrete reason for adding the router ID has been
given.  However, we've wasted enough time and bandwidth.  Let's put
this to vote:

Who all think that adding a router ID to the unnumbered ERO subobject
would be beneficial?  A simple yes, no or don't care, please.

Kireeti.