RE: sr - spring - what's the deal with 2 names

>> Does anyone know the scope on why we have 2 names for this ? > > SPRING is the IETF working group name - Source Packet Routing in Networking > Segment Routing is under SPRING Yeah, sorry, this was my fault. Gotta have a catchy name. As to "SPRINGv4" as others have said, this is not a recogni

RE: GEO IP Updates

to the same level of scrutiny. Reviews of drafts on the Independent Stream are always welcome. You can send comments and thoughts direct to the authors or to me as Independent Submissions Editor via rfc-...@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> . Thanks, Adrian -- Adrian Farre

RE: carping about CARP

Far be it from me to get involved in a private pissing match, but... Owen wrote: > Perhaps we should ask IETF/IANA to allocate a group of protocol numbers > to "the wild west". A protocol-number equivalent of RFC-1918 or private ASNs. > You can use these for whatever you want, but so can anyone e

RE: What do you have in your datacenters' toolbox?

> > > But really: a power screwdriver, a bag of > > > #2 bits, and a 12" extender> > are 85% of it. ;-) > > > > I mostly get by with just a screwdriver. Powered > screwdrivers annoy the> hell out of me in almost all cases. > > [WEG] The rule of thumb for most places I've worked has been that power

IETF's PIM Working Group conducting deployment survey

Hi, After a snafu, the PIM working group has restarted its survey into PIM sparse mode deployments. Please see the email at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg02479.html for more information. responses will be anonymised. Many thanks to all operators who are able to respond. A

RE: Inter-domain OTN, does it happen in the real world?

Will, I think you also need to consider the case where one operator runs more than one network. This can happen because of acquisition or administrative structure. I regret it might also happen because of vendor equipment compatibility/lock-in issues. Cheers, Adrian > -Original Message- >

RE: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16

FWIW, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 [1] is now at revision 17. But it is complete and totally stable. It was approved for publication as an RFC on March 4th and the document is currently with the RFC Editor in the "final stages of sausage grinding" I would predict that you will have an RFC number t