Just stick to multicast delivery but use long timeouts, and use (something like) bfd (with unicast) for actual neighbor aliveness.
Still sucks to tweak a routing protocol design for a broken l2 design (only unicast reliability provided for). Sent from my Samsung Captivate Glide on AT&T Dino Farinacci <farina...@gmail.com> 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. Dino > On Aug 5, 2015, at 2:22 AM, Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> 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 > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
