In message <[email protected]> Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > Dear Curtis, > > I've just read through your mail carefully. While you make some good > points, I think that, unless a champion appears, OSPF will not be > reconsidered in time for Dallas. Additionally, many of your changes > merely change the stress of the document, and I'd rather not be making > stylistic changes right now. > > I've made the following changes according to your wishes: > > - changed the stress from "homenets are unadministered" to add "mostly"; > - inserted your note about dedicated homenet protocols. > > Please let me know if there are other points (not related to OSPF) that > you feel strongly about. > > -- Juliusz
Its hard to argue with that installed base of 4 cerowrt users. :-) Please reread. Some of the comments were about how OSPF and ISIS work. For example there is no such thing as an ISIS LSP. It is a Link State Protocol Data Unit (LSPDU) and the fragments are called LSPDU fragments. There are also comments about convergence time and the common use of BFD with ISIS where tight coupling with L2 fault detection is not available. No provider has used the 10sec/30sec timers in about two decades and generally regard the 1sec/3sec setting too slow, so use BFD. If OSPF is rejected on the basis that it is not yet linked into openwrt that is a lame reason to reject a candidate IMHO, but if that is the reason it should be in the document. If that changes, then OSPF should be reconsidered. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
