Re: Vendor Private Extension

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

[Catching up on old mail...]

   I thought this mentality died at least a decade ago when users began
   in large number avoiding the purchase of products that didn't
   interoperate with other vendor's products.

Note that interoperability and private extensibility are not
necessarily contradictory concepts.  

   I'd like to point out that there is no provision in any routing
   protocol to date for "vendor proprietary extensions".  The only thing
   resembling a vendor proprietary extensions is an enterprise MIB.
   There are no vendor proprietary IP options, TCP options, etc.

Well, they're not labelled as such, but that's very much what they
effectively are.  They are simply options.  There are implementations
which use unregistered option numbers all over the place.  Usually
such features are a value-add to the protocol.  Of course, if you'd
like to stop folks from innovating....

   I think a field for vendor proprietary extensions should not even
   appear in NHRP at all.  The protocol should be extensible, but
   extensions added with new standard attributes.  If some vendor wants
   to be "better" they can try to build a faster or more stable product
   and be among the first to implement extensions brought forward in the
   standards process.

Sorry, but you are simply ignoring reality here.  If you provide for
extensibility and don't provide a vendor proprietary mechanism, then
vendor proprietary extensions will simply go underground _again_.
Eliminating competition in a free market economy is simply impossible.
And it has proven to be damn difficult even in a totalitarian regime.

Tony

Ob. Disclaimer: No, I am not representing my employer.  And yes, many
vendors follow the above model.