On Sun, 31 May 2015, David Lamparter wrote:
As such, I'd mark the entire field as experimental (i.e. we won't care
about API or CLI breakage for VRFs), and let the bright people on this
list apply their engineering chops to it. If some patchsets are badly
engineered, we can point out those specific engineering issues at that
occasion.
I'm not so sure.
Not so long ago we weren't even able to change the default of the
link-state command to something that'd suit the overwhelming majority of
users, because there might be some (likely small and transient set) of
users with broken setups that might (incorrectly) depend on it.
If we put VRF in in a way that people start depending on aspects of this
particular implementation (or can be argued is possible), my experience
(not just from link-state, but other stuff) is that externally visible
things can be difficult to change once in.
For all we know, we can later chop off the variants that didn't end up
useful much.
Or we just design it right now.
I'm sure no bright engineer would object to having a design discussion,
and ensuring that the proposal meets not just their own requirements but
any wider requirements of the community. That's part of good engineering.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
What kind of sordid business are you on now? I mean, man, whither
goest thou? Whither goest thou, America, in thy shiny car in the night?
-- Jack Kerouac
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
