IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 00:44 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 D1E351B2AE1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:44:57 -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 kU5wmHJWfQk6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:44:56 -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 56FB81A1BE7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-03.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.66]) (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 4C01CDA006F; Tue, 12 May 2015 00:44:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (67.184.177.30) by CAS-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:44:55 -0700
References: <E1B62D40-18AE-47D6-9D3F-27F9300AE4B9@magma.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <E1B62D40-18AE-47D6-9D3F-27F9300AE4B9@magma.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A852D178-CA0B-46EE-AFCD-C915539B9C99@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:44:54 -0400
To: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
X-Originating-IP: [67.184.177.30]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/J862jAU0NqOcOVOqbzpUDA3xaow>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
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 00:44:58 -0000

On May 11, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca> wrote:
> 
> Victor and I have been talking with the chairs about the Design Choices draft, and have convinced us act on a request from Michael Ackermann to extend the Design Choices draft to cover EIGRP.

Based on the conversation thus far, I have to ask: is this the homenet routing design team document, or some other document I hadn't heard of before? If it's for homenet, I think asking about corporate infrastructure choices is a bit off topic.  If it's for something else, then I tend to agree that the question about EIGRP is worth asking, although my observations about its appropriateness as a future IETF standard still stand.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email