On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, David Lamparter wrote:
- for a pure Quagga domain, there already is an easy migration path by
configuring 0xfffe instead, as you've pointed out. The
administrative effort of this is no lower or higher (ensuring proper
configuration on all routers) than the new switch.
I think this is mixing up the signalling side with the SPF side. Yes, new
Quagga can signal "stub, transit OK" in a universally compatible way. No
issue.
However, that has no bearing on receiving and SPF. That's a different
thing. Old Quagga will still use 0xffff. And if old and new Quaggas' SPF
treats 0xffff differently, then it has just created the very
interoperability problem that was meant to be solved, but for another
network.
(Rare as the problem likely is to be).
So, since the proposed new switch adds complexity without providing
any benefit, it should not be implemented.
Would it be possible to tone down the certainty of assertations in future?
That kind of thing tends to come over as slightly aggressive when my brain
parses that kind of thing, and can get my hackles up (which is ungood too,
of course). If you could just leave a little more wiggle room for error,
further possibilities, and/or room for the other person to be able to add
to the discussion without having to flatly contradict you, then that would
help a bit with keeping discussions productive.
Just adding words like "seems", "possibly", "maybe" and such, can help
grease things along.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma, HPE Aruba, Advanced Technology Group
Fortune:
"There... I've run rings 'round you logically"
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
