IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2FD01B2AB2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WZVQUNBs6kDk for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C48AD1B2AA9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEC7EDA006F; Tue, 12 May 2015 00:33:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (67.184.177.30) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:33:37 -0700
References: <E1B62D40-18AE-47D6-9D3F-27F9300AE4B9@magma.ca> <555112D8.3000008@gmail.com> <4E8599FE-FF80-4556-9434-4E62BEB8501F@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <4E8599FE-FF80-4556-9434-4E62BEB8501F@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <44120D6A-2F95-4996-8F91-CE5DD890A300@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:33:36 -0400
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Originating-IP: [67.184.177.30]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IOx0hoEVPfsKjLYrtK9-dVi8HDY>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 00:33:39 -0000

On May 11, 2015, at 8:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> How would you characterize Babel? Read the header on page 1 of RFC 6126 before responding. This difference, as near as I can tell, is that the draft made it through the ISE to RFC. That and the fact that a whole lot more people use EIGRP (enough to have it requested during a WGLC discussion) than use Babel.

Babel has two interoperating implementations that were done independently, the first of which produced RFC 6126, and the second of which interoperates with it after being implemented using RFC 6126 as a specification. So from an IETF perspective it is actually farther along, despite the fact that what you say about EIGRP is quite true.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email