Fred and Curtis,
Many thx for your emails. Indeed perhaps my example of MPLS-TE hack was
a bit unreal for this alias - you are right. However I intended
(apparently quite poorly) to express two points which while following
from time to time this group I keep struggle myself with.
Point #1:
If we are dealing with "zero configuration" network why do I need
routing protocols ? Why do I need in fact more then one gateway or two
in the case of multi-homed Grandma ? If I want to build some subnets
inside I will get an extra router or two, but I see no magic how those
routers even if coming from the most brilliant vendor will be able to
guess out of the box my intentions.
Point #2:
If I need more then reliable exit to the internet and need to have few
subnets at home (like I do today) Fred can call me UFO, but I fail to
see how difficult is to type two lines to establish a loopback address
(which I will use from time to time to ssh to the box to check why it is
not working) or to type 4 more lines to enable any IGP - if ever needed.
So if there is any document already written which I may have missed
which has the answer to the above I appreciate sharing a pointer.
Automation is great we should have it where needed .. it is just that I
am completely not convinced that it is needed here.
Best regards,
R.
In message<[email protected]>
Robert Raszuk writes:
Hi Fred,
I think the point is that in your algorithm you stated this step:
> (3) It has to change its RID and start from the beginning.
I would say (perhaps in line with Curtis comment) that this step is
unrealistic. RID for many reasons (for example mpls-te) is hard
configured in link state IGPs.
If it is hard configured, then is has to be configured correctly.
Otherwise you have a conflict among two configured RID, then you have
a persistent non-working network.
If a autoconfig guy comes along and stomps on it, then only the
autoconfig guy backs off.
Worse - some vendors - do base on this their very cool hack to forward
v6 traffic over v4 TE LSPs.
So I think statement that router has to change it's RID is
operationally non starter.
So you are saying that a vendor has a hack (private undocumented
extension might be the market-speak) that is not backwards compatible
to other implementations *of a full standard* and we can't create a
backwards compatible extension because it would interfere with the
hack? (which you think is a very cool extension?)
Cheers,
R.
On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
All adjacencies have to go down to change router-id. The other end of
the adjacency will withdraw its side of the adjacency.
well, yes, and if I change my routerid, all adjacencies will go
down. Not sure what the point here is...
Curtis
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
