Re: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Wed, 09 July 2008 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05053A6913; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8E63A68E8 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Geh6bTgOYO7F for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.brookfield.occnc.com (unknown [69.37.59.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E239C3A67CF for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harbor.brookfield.occnc.com (harbor.brookfield.occnc.com [69.37.59.172]) by harbor.brookfield.occnc.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m69F4fd8037686; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 11:04:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@harbor.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200807091504.m69F4fd8037686@harbor.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net>
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:25:29 BST." <487378D9.3010707@uk.clara.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:04:41 -0400
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

In message <487378D9.3010707@uk.clara.net>
David Freedman writes:
>  
> > 
> > There is nothing stopping a vendor from providing a knob to accomplish
> > this very feature.  
>  
> Other than the RFC is now explicit about this behaviour (where RFC3065
> was not previously).

That is the difference between SHOULD NOT and MUST NOT.  The RFC says
SHOULD NOT.

> > The language thus was written to heavily favor interoperability over
> > flexibility.  This avoids having to discuss the picky issues of
> > consistent route selection across the AS within a specific extension.
>  
> Thanks, I do indeed understand but believe it makes it harder now to
> convince vendors to "enhance" implementations now that there is an
> explicit "SHOULD NOT"
>  
> Dave.
>  
> > -- Jeff

That hasn't been the case in the past.  It only dictates the default
setting of the control knob.  It will depend on the vendor clue level.

Curtis
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr