On Mar 26, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> wrote: > For IS-IS, the existence of a small-footprint, source-destination-routing > capable implementation is a blocker for an "acceptable, full" solution. That > requires that either a) someone with knowledge of an existing implementation > extend said existing implementation to meet these requirements, or b) that > someone write a new implementation to meet these requirements.
It's pretty hard to believe that the resources would not be made available to get the work done if IS-IS were chosen. There are some proponents of this choice who have fairly deep pockets. While I will admit to rooting a bit for Babel, and while I certainly can't speak for the proponents of IS-IS, I am not concerned that if the design chose IS-IS after considering all the technical issues, that would lead to the scenario you are concerned about. I am, however, concerned that the working group will simply fail because we can't make a choice. Of the two risks, the second is, to my mind, _far_ more likely. (Bear in mind that I am no longer an AD, so I am saying this completely independent of any hats that might have formerly rested uneasily on my head.) _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
