Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au<mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>>
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au<mailto:markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>>
Date: Monday, May 11, 2015 at 7:17 PM
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>, Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca<mailto:philip_matthews@magma.ca>>, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

________________________________
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>>
To: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca<mailto:philip_matthews@magma.ca>>; v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015, 6:36
Subject: Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

On 12/05/2015 03:38, Philip Matthews wrote:
> Folks:
>
> 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.

If I'm not mistaken, that's a proprietary protocol that isn't even described in an
RFC (although there seems to be a stalled draft under consideration as an
Independent Submission RFC). While I don't object to describing reality, I think
you need to explain *why* it's appropriate to do this in an IETF stream draft.

<hat off>
IETF documents talk about lots of things that aren’t IETF protocols.  There have been requests in the WG to include consideration of this protocol. So, as you say, let’s describe reality. Why do we need to explain why this protocol is being included, and not explain why all others are (or aren’t) being included?

If you go ahead, I would suggest putting this topic in an appendix.

/ Regardless of whether or not EIGRP makes it into the draft, it could be worth mentioning that the deployment of IPv6 is also an good opportunity to deploy a non-proprietary IGP, and perhaps at a later date migrate IPv4 to using the new IGP too if it supports multiple protocol families.

Please clarify. What makes EIGRP a poor design choice for an IPv6 network?

</hat off>

Lee

    Brian

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.