On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to be pedantic, my comment was completely serious and not a "hint". >> New implementations almost always suffer from lack of testing of corner >> cases. Same thing with protocol specs. If something exists to exercise >> those cases, that would be good both from an implementation standpoint, and >> to make certain that those cases are sufficiently clear from the spec text. >> > > I have a PDF with hundreds of test cases with red and green boxes for test > cases the Auto-ISIS implementation has passed or failed. It's currently on > par with Cisco IOS when it comes to compliance. > > So making the ISIS code "work" in the FOSS sense of "working" was easy, > making it work according to the standard for all kinds of cases took a lot > more work. > > These are the kinds of tools babel is going to need if we're going to see > multiple implementations of it from vendors and that they're going to > interoperate. No, it is *not* going to need that. IS-IS needs that sort of testing because it is widely used on networks that carry substantial parts of the entire Internet's traffic, in extremely complex configurations like multi-topology, traffic engineering, etc. etc. The reliability required of implementations that carry such a burden is orders of magnitude greater than what is needed in a home network that in most cases will consist of a few devices that can easily be rebooted by the operator. Home gateway routers routinely have broken implementations and crash all the time, and have close to zero testing. What's the point of making the routing protocol they run be 100 times more reliable?
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
