Agree Toerless. Resist the urge. :-) Dino
> On Aug 5, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Toerless Eckert (eckert) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 <[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. > > 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
