[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt
- To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
- Subject: RE: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt
- From: Ina Minei <ina@juniper.net>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:19:26 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>, "Tewg (E-mail)" <te-wg@ops.ietf.org>
- In-reply-to: <20031229130056.T25343@garnet.juniper.net>
- References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155033D2EA3@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> <20031229130056.T25343@garnet.juniper.net>
Bert,
So can we just agree on 32 "experimental/vendor private"
numbers starting at 255 and down?
Thank you,
Ina
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ina Minei wrote:
>
>
> Bert,
>
> I think we both agree :). and in the end it all boils down to
> experimental vs vendor-private. What I am thinking of
> is vendor-private numbers, and what you are thinking of is experimental.
> We are both right. How we decide to solve it is a different issue.
>
> We can either: 1) allocate two spaces, one for experimental and
> one for vendor-private. In that case, 3 should be enough for experimental,
> but as for vendor-private more than 3 would be required, for the reason I
> was mentioning in the original mail or 2) allocate one bigger space for
> both experimental and vendor-private. I prefer (2).
>
> Let's just pick one of the options, and carry it forward. Let me
> know what you prefer.
>
> Ina
>