> Then it shall compare these routing requirements to
> candidate routing protocols and examine the gaps in each. For each
> highly plausible candidate routing protocol, the design team will
> estimate the work and actions needed, the resources at hand
> or reasonably available, and the associated timeline to get
> an acceptable, full, standardized solution using each protocol.
I don't see the word "proven" or the words "implementation experience".
My (perhaps mistaken) feeling is that whenever I mention an important
feature of Babel, there's a chorus of "that could be done in IS-IS, we
just haven't done it yet". I've tried to explain that many of the things
that Babel is doing are difficult or outright impossible[1] in IS-IS, but
I don't feel like I've been heard.
Can the charter please make sure that the design team will only consider
features that have been implemented and proven to work?
-- Juliusz
[1] Dijkstra, next-hop routing, non-distributive metric. Pick any two,
but you can't have all three.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
