Paul, On 4/20/2016 1:24 PM, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Lou Berger wrote: > >> Given the points above, I think there is strong reason to have the >> default be the interoperable/standard setting and have a config >> parameter to enable the non-standard maintenance mode. > Adding a config option is *exactly* what that patch-set is doing.
I know. That's why I said: > I like the change of being able to work in the standard and non-standard > modes. I think the only part we really are disagreeing on is default > behavior. > To quote from the commit message again: > > " If and when the H-bit is widely recognised, and has been deployed in > Quagga for long enough, we may be able to change the SPF behaviour > default to the standards behaviour of "follow". " > > Step 1 is getting the config option in, and documenting the issue, and > writing out the config explicitly, and getting it in a release. > > Step 2 is to wait for N time and/or M releases. > > Step 3 is to change the default. > > We've had to do this before. The time is easily negotiable. > > How to handle defaults and significant changes in behaviour is also > negotiable. However I'm going to get a bit grumpy if I start to get > personal comments, I can't speak to others, but I certainly hope hope tone hasn't come off as personal - and please let me know if it has and I'll certainly apologize publicly. > just because I've followed precedent on how such > behaviour changes are done in this patch. > If the concern is routing loops, then just flipping the default on the > SPF behaviour *also* causes loops with older Quagga versions. > > Let's calm tfd, stop personalising this, and just manage the problem at > a technical level in a way that minimises issues for users. > > * Flipping the SPF default behaviour will *not* get rid of routing > loops, cause now you get the interoperability problems with new Quagga > and the *old* Quagga. I don't see this. in the case the new routers will need their config flipped to the non-standard mode before setting max met. > * There is at one potential way that will give wider interoperability > than just flipping defaults. can you elaborate on this? > * This has been like this for 9 years, and there's been 1 bug report > AFAIK. > > I can think of lots of technical discussions on this, e.g. whether or > not we can wait for the H-bit. What should the UI be for the "transit" > and "no-transit" cases, etc. > > How about we have those instead? They'd be a lot more interesting. I'm not sure what you're proposing here. Lou > regards, _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
