Paul
On 19 Apr 2016, at 15:37, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Lou Berger wrote:
IMO non compliance with requirement behavior of an RFC should be
viewed as a bug and fixed.
I just don't agree. We should what is pragmatic and best for our
users.
I agree with Lou. Non-Compliance of the RFCs should be seen as a bug and
fixed. Only exception I can
see is if various other vendors are non-compliant (by choice or
accident) and we have to derivate
from the RFC to avoid problems.
This does not seem to be the case. In this case, QUAGGA seems to be
different and causes the issues.
No need to “migrate” a 9-year old bug.
Let’s just fix it.
- Martin Winter
The vast majority of the time that may very well mean doing what the
RFC says. However, if users' best interests are served by deviations,
then that's what we should do. Whether it's cause some RFC behaviour
is silly (not common, but not at all unknown either, by any means; be
it just universally silly, or something that seemed a good idea X time
ago but less so now), or whether it's cause we have a historical
deviation and we now have to manage that, or whatever else.
I bet with a bit of digging I could find a behaviour deviation
somewhere in Quagga that people would object to changing. E.g., our
BGP decision process does not comply with RFC4271, for one thing,
AFAIK. The "prefer the older route" step is non-compliant I think, and
causes bgpd to calculate different best routes to the RFC behaviour in
some cases. Shall we remove that then?
Also, on this particular OSPF one, see below...
I'm fine having config support for 'non-standard' modes of operation,
but they shouldn't be default and be clearly be labeled as likely to
break interop (e.g., by introducing routing loops) with standards
complaint implementations.
The OSPF WG has a draft RFC, adopted for it to try progress to
standards track which *standardises the exact same routing loop risks
in mixed environments*.
Even if we change Quagga tomorrow, there will still be old Quagga
routers out there, and even when they get updated, there'll be more
and more routers supporting H-bit (Quagga or not), and operators will
face *the exact same trade-offs* - and completely outwith our control.
So, please, can we keep a sense of perspective on this? :)
The patch I sent leads to these interoperability concerns and this
potential transition plan:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/UwvoWeOv6GS51_sLjMVTdW-A9rY
Which the OSPF WG chair has indicated is reasonable.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Put your Nose to the Grindstone!
-- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
