Jordi, > Jordi wrote: > I see your point, but my feeling is that we can only go to > the last step (of the IETF process) IF it make sense (running > code, and then it means no-brainer), that means that B is > fine, but for the same reason, I can live with C (in theory, > B and C are then the same solution) ;-).
I see your point too; however, The difference between B and C is: - with B, if the solution proves impossible to develop, we have a failure. - with C, if the solution proves possible to develop, we have wasted time. As many things, it's a matter of risk management, speed with a risk or slowness without one. The reason I like C better is because I have the feeling that if there was a no-brainer solution that would make B worth the risk someone would have invented it a long time ago. If we were not able to fix site-locals I wonder where the silver bullet to replace them is. As Tony pointed out, design engineers for large networks do not design on vaporware. If I can't simulate a solution on a 20-router lab, it ain't going in my network design and I stick with site-locals. Which also means that once the design goes to large-scale deployment there is no way back for at least 5 years, which in turn means that router vendor "C" (yes, the one you are thinking about) is going to keep supporting site-locals because they want to keep my business. The question is, do we want to define standards or to we want to encourage the development of proprietary standards? For the record, I use ISL, EIGRP and HSRP; I won't have a problem using vendor "C" site-locals. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
