On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:05 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>
wrote:

> ...
>
> I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus that the IGPs should be
> extended to address the problem.
>

AFAI the process for that is an adoption call. And with a quick look I see
you on

Sun, Jun 21, 2020
supporting the adoption of @ least the reflection draft and working on the
problem space so what I read here is wildly inconsistent in my eyes. I
think I also responded with a detailed answer then why the "hierarchical
isis" draft will likely not scratch the itch I am asked to scratch. That
seemed to close the thread to your satisfaction.



> I don’t believe the WG has reached consensus as to which solution is
> “better”.
>
> I don’t believe the WG has even discussed whether a single solution or
> multiple solutions are required.
>
> If multiple solutions are required, there has been no discussion as to
> when each of the solutions should be used. Are there some deployment
> scenarios where flood-reflection is a better fit and some where area proxy
> is a better fit?
>
> Is there a need for additional solutions i.e., deployments where neither
> of the current candidates are suitable?
>

Drafts have been there for 2 years more or less & I don't remember you
showing particular interest in it on the 50 odds threads regarding
reflection at least that I find on mailing list in addition to all the
private reviews/comments I got ... At least from my side the progress was
well documented and co-authorship of other vendors was invited more than
once.

So, frankly, I acknowledge your current feelings and opinions without any
hard technical input but the world needed the problem solved, things had to
move in a timely manner & so the world now deploys the solution that meets
the requirements and was converged on technically in IETF and having an RFC
has really as always just the function of having a "stable snapshot" and
facilitate RFPs ...

so, ?

-- tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Reply via email to