> On Sep 28, 2026, at 11:15, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ran, > > While I do support adoption of this TE extension for ISIS I do not agree that > current discussion can be named as "odd". > > See IETF rules and guidelines perhaps work decent to define conditions when > this or that draft is proposing an extension which sits already in the > working group charter. > > Here this proposal is defining a completely new technology "power saving by > network auto reconfiguration using TE" and by this alone touches work > residing in number of other working groups in IETF. > > On the other hand we can't and should not extend protocol to only fit one > design/architecture as changing such extension while deployed out in the wild > is very costly - especially for architectures which to work well do requires > a massive almost network wide upgrade.
I believe that you believe that. Based on my ~38 years of IETF experience, and having personal experience with network engineering for a multi-continent broadband ISP, I disagree with your characterization. This is a minor, almost trivial, extension to very well-understood Traffic Engineering (TE) mechanisms. Further, I disagree that this proposal narrowly fits “one design/architecture” and disagree that any uninterested operator would need to upgrade anything. Operators that choose to use the mechanism are perfectly capable of making their own cost/benefit analyses. Further, the operators I’ve spoken with disagree with the claim that any “massive almost network wide upgrade” would be required. Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
