Chopps gave me the abridge version. I think its a good idea. But I don’t think its applicable in this use-case.
Dino > On Aug 5, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hey Dino, > > On 8/5/15, 1:01 PM, "homenet on behalf of Dino Farinacci" > <homenet-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of 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. > > 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 <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
