Subject: RE: Last call on LSP Ping

From: Shahram Davari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:29:58 -0800

Curtis,

> Dave,
> 
> Since you asked, yes I do think the comments by two or more
> individuals are more obstructionist than constructive, but it seems
> particularly clear in this issue.
> 

I am disturbed by this statement. Would you please point out which of my
ignored comments are obstructive rather than constructive? As far as
I can see many of my comments were even echoed by Eric rosen (unless you believe
that he intends to obstruct his own company's proposal).

Regarding the 127/8 issue, many others have the same concern. Besides,
this is not an obstructive comment, because there are many other ways around it.
Obstructive means the draft will fall apart without it.

-Shahram

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 12:23:00 -0500

In message <[email-masked]
>, Shahram Davari writes:

You have not cited any technical reason for avoiding 127/8.  You have
cited documents and tried to manipulate the interpretation to claim
that any use of 127/8 is forbidden.

What alternate did you propose that would have the characteristics of
never being routeable and therefore never have to potential to be
delivered by IP rather than the intended MPLS LSP(s)?  I must have
missed that proposal.

Obstruction means getting in the way (of some sort of progress) for no
other reason than to get in the way.

If you are making a point to steer us toward a better solution, that
certainly hasn't been clear.  If you think some entirely alternate
solution (Y.1711) is a better solution, then you should work on that
solution and stay out of this discussion.  It is like disrupting the
ISIS WG with a constant "OSPF is better" mantra or insisting that ISIS
do everything the OSPF way (or doing the same in the OSPF WG).

Curtis