Re: [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID

[James Carlson <[e-mail]>]

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Therefore, James is also wrong.  This is not an operator issue.  You
> should *NOT* put this burden on operators.  It would really help for
> anybody with aspirations of designing protocols to have actually been an
> operator, and pay attention to discussions on the NANOG list!

It's worth noting that I said "implementor" not "operator."  Perhaps the
language I'm using isn't clear.  By "implementor," I mean the person who
designs the hardware and software components that will be sold as a
product claiming to support TRILL.  I do not mean the person who buys
these products and installs them in a network.

Like you, I do not believe that it's appropriate or reasonable for
general-purpose TRILL implementations to require any sort of action on
the part of the person installing and using the equipment -- that is,
the "operator."  I've never suggested that as a solution, so the straw
man doesn't work here.  Nor do the ad-hominem jibes.

However, unlike you, I do not believe that the IETF must resolve this
potential system-level design issue.  Instead, I still strongly prefer
to leave it up to the people designing and building systems.  If they
can't resolve this relatively simple problem in a reasonable way then,
frankly, I have no faith that they can get any of the other million or
so complex system design decisions right.

Most importantly, I don't want to be dictating anything about IS-IS
design issues from within the PPP Extensions working group.  It's just
not appropriate or even feasible.  That's why I agree with the ideas
behind Stewart Bryant's text.

All that said, I don't really care.  This is a tempest in a teapot.  I
can mash together both texts if the Routing ADs are willing to accept a
passing reference here to a draft that, in their words, hasn't even been
considered by the IS-IS community.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[e-mail]>