> Well, we can blame marketing all we want. All I know is that we, as a > group, failed to come together and present a unified front with > interoperable implementations. That left us in a position where marketing > is pushing rocks up hills and customers are waiting for the dust to settle.
I am not blaming marketing here. Real engineers never listen to marketing. The main issue why BGP won in some MSDCs was that it was much easier (and cheaper) to deploy on OEM white boxes then any alternative scalable IGP (read use open source). So yes - link state IGPs were late for MSDCs. Petr's draft then RFC was like a hammer to this as well. But many use BGP as an underlay without fully realizing the pros and cons. Some run BGP purely from positioning perspective as they can be seen "weaker" as the largest hyperscalers. Many still run BGP services with no hierarchy and clean decoupling. IMHO even for many DCs this is still not the lost battle if positioned IGPs right. So let's progress this as Experimental and clearly explain the benefits if given implementation supports this. Regards, R.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
