On Jun 11, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Saku Ytti wrote: > On (2014-06-11 09:03 +0000), Vitkovský Adam wrote: > >> However to be honest I'd like to see the existing protocols to scale better. >> In my opinion any new IGP protocol would get a cold welcome in carrier grade >> environments even though it could heal all the problems. > > It's quite unfortunate already today how ISIS and OSPF get features at > different times as every feature needs to be specifically encoded to both > protocols via separate RFC. > I think this problem could be abstracted away by having common IGP container, > then per IGP specification how container is encoded to wire in one specific > IGP. Net result would be, that when new feature uses common IGP container > format, it would be standardized for both/all IGPs at the same time.
given that OSPFv3 and IS-IS are now at par from an extensibility POV, above would make a whole lot sense. i mean we do not need to specify each and every bit redundant for both OSPF and IS-IS when all what is need is an application object which is shared across different protocol carriers. - the segment routing extensions are actually an excellent example to demonstrate the IGP dilemma … the application level object is pretty much identical for IS-IS, OSPF and BGP-LS, yet we need to I-D things three times … /hannes _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
