Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote: >> Please, let's draw a line under this whole argument for now. >> >> The Design Team has been tasked with drawing up a brief requirements >> document as soon as possible and we will then try to get WG consensus >> on that.
>> We need *constructive contributions* that will aid the Design Team.
>> Anything else routing-related is off-topic.
> I would like to require the design team
> *to actually install the software*.
I agree, but Dave, in the absense of this, and as someone that I know has run
at least one of the protocols in production (BABEL), can *you* see a reason
why BABEL won't work?
Can you see a reason why ISIS won't work?
Because this is what rough consensus is. Not that X is better than Y,
but whether X or Y is unable to fullfil some requirement.
My conclusion is that both can be configured(in source code)/provisioned to
things correctly, and we should simply flip a coin.
(And I still don't know why we abandonned OSPFv3)
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
