Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

> On May 12, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> My point on RFC 6126 is that it’s not an IETF standard either, yet homenet appears to be deciding to standardize on it.
> 
> I did actually speak to that, and notice that you haven't disputed what I said, yet don't seem to agree with my conclusion. That said, if we are talking about homenet, the proponents of Babel there have two really specific reason for preferring babel to EIGRP.

I'm not disputing Babel. I'm not disputing Homenet. The conversation is about neither.

We have a request on the table for a document being developed in v6ops about routing deployment to comment on a routing protocol that is widely used in enterprise networks. Brian is pushing back because the protocol is not on the IETF standards track and is not an RFC. I can tell you that it was posted as an Internet Draft, and that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-savage-eigrp says it is in ISE review. Babel came up because it followed exactly that path to (experimental) RFC publication. Why draft-savage-eigrp is not an RFC is something I don't know. Ask Nevil.

I do know that there is an internet draft, and the multiple implementations of the protocol were done from a book written about it before the draft was written (available from Amazon). To me, that is largely comparable to the Babel experience, which is why I brought it up. I'm questioning the ferocity behind Brian's pushback. I think it is unwarranted.

If we're documenting deployment experience with common routing protocols, it's one of them. Is this about the purity of the RFC series, or the relevance to operational networks? If it is about routing in operational networks, why would we exclude discussion of protocols in current use in operational networks?

As to Brian's suggestion of putting EIGRP into an appendix, I'm not the author, but if I were, I would wonder how he wanted me to do that. The request is to add one or more rows (the current draft mentions "RIP [RFC2080] or non-standardized protocols") to
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   | Option |  IGP   | IGP for |  Known  |    Hard    |    Similar     |
   |        |  for   |   IPv6  | to work | separation | configuration  |
   |        |  IPv4  |         |   well  |            |    possible    |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |        |        |         |         |            |                |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   a    | IS-IS  |  IS-IS  |   YES   |     -      |      YES       |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   b    | IS-IS  |  OSPFv3 |    -    |    YES     |       -        |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |        |        |         |         |            |                |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   c    | OSPFv2 |  IS-IS  |   YES   |    YES     |       -        |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   d    | OSPFv2 |  OSPFv3 |   YES   |    YES     |      YES       |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |        |        |         |         |            |                |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   e    | OSPFv3 |  IS-IS  |    -    |    YES     |       -        |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   f    | OSPFv3 |  OSPFv3 |    -    |     -      |      YES       |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+ .

along the lines of

   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   g    | RIPv2  |  RIPng  |    -    |    YES     |      YES       |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+
   |   h    | EIGRP  |  EIGRP  |   YES   |     -      |      YES       |
   +--------+--------+---------+---------+------------+----------------+ .

and a bibliographic reference (presumably to either the book or the internet draft, if we can’t get it published as an RFC) indicating what the acronym EIGRP stood for.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2080
2080 RIPng for IPv6. G. Malkin, R. Minnear. January 1997. (Format:
     TXT=47534 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2453
2453 RIP Version 2. G. Malkin. November 1998. (Format: TXT=98462
     bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1723) (Updated by RFC4822) (Also STD0056)
     (Status: INTERNET STANDARD)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-savage-eigrp
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savage-eigrp
     Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol. D Savage, 2014-10-13