Re: [Idr] RFC5065 - Section 5.3

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr