Hey Dino, On 8/5/15, 1:01 PM, "homenet on behalf of Dino Farinacci" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>There are a lot of things wrong in the IETF. And there are some good >things about the IETF. > >Let’s just keep the discussions technical. We may have to be subjective, >but that is the right of openness. But folks shouldn’t take it personally. > >I want to make one comment about Babel, or more to the point the DUAL >algorithm. I, with one other engineer were the original designers of >EIGRP in the early 90s. We worked with Jose Garcia-Luna from SRI/UCSC on >implementing the DUAL algorithm in EIGRP. > >Just be careful about the claim that DUAL is loop-free. It is loop-free >because the toplogy stays in DUAL acitve-state until it is safe to >change, but during that time, packets are black-holed. > >This is not a strike against Babel or me being opposed to it. > >Also, IS-IS can be made to run in unicast-mode and not link-layer >multicast if the urge is too great to avoid multicast transmission. We >did this with an adjacecny-server model when designing OTV. That is, IIHs >are unicasted to a preconfigured DR (ie adjacency-server), which >replicates IIHs to all other routers that are discovered. All routers >believe they are adjacent to each other just all physical transmission >unicast hair-pins to the adjacency-server. There can be more than one >adjacency-server and they test liveness to each other so one can be the >forwarder. The proposed IS-IS solution for link-layer multicast deficiencies is P2MP operation - https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lamparter-isis-p2mp-00.txt. We’d be interested in your thoughts on this. Note that auto-config is a mandatory requirement. Thanks, Acee > >Dino > >> On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:22 AM, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> All these discussions about the routing protocol are making me >>despair... What the *** is wrong here in the IETF? What happened to >>producing working solutions and specs? All this discussion about which >>routing protocol is capable of doing what, "my protocol is as good as >>yours", bashing each other's ideas, twisting each others words. People, >>this is just pathetic. There are dozens of routing protocols that could >>be made to work in homenet. But we already have one that is working >>today. With time there will always be new ideas and improvements. And if >>we keep waiting for that we never get anything done. Do we want a >>'perfect' protocol in years or do we want a good solution today? We have >>what we need: let's move on... >> >> Cheers, >> Sander >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
