Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca> Tue, 12 May 2015 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
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 A65D11B2B60 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 LPbbLKMZBCv4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tor-smtp-06.primus.ca (mail20.primus.ca [216.254.141.187]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEDA71B2B5F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 19:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bas5-ottawa10-3096711390.dsl.bell.ca ([184.148.16.222] helo=[10.0.1.23]) by tor-smtp-06.primus.ca with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <philip_matthews@magma.ca>) id 1YrzY6-0005yy-Jc; Mon, 11 May 2015 22:03:58 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Philip Matthews <philip_matthews@magma.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5551521E.9070804@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 22:03:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BDE01A3A-F02B-4B05-9F33-54886BF95B65@magma.ca>
References: <555112D8.3000008@gmail.com> <1592568679.113935.1431386263763.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <41D8A9FE-0324-4DDF-8868-5187F122F9A7@nominum.com> <CE02D71F-93AA-4441-85AE-CD0DF1DDD095@cisco.com> <5551521E.9070804@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Michael Ackermann <MAckermann@bcbsm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Authenticated: philip_matthews - bas5-ottawa10-3096711390.dsl.bell.ca ([10.0.1.23]) [184.148.16.222]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mIQgHn8xpU3Ei2klcQiOtU5PQ5I>
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 02:04:01 -0000

Let me add a additional comment on this discussion as an author of the document.

From the perspective of updating the document, the fact that EIGRP is not standardized is not really a problem. The authors simply plan to gather data on how it is deployed. We didn't really "use" the fact that OSPF and ISIS are standardized when writing the current version of the draft.

So I think the only question is whether it is "appropriate" to include EIGRP in the document. I personally don't know of any IETF document that says "thou shall only discuss standardized protocols in IETF documents". But perhaps others do. Or perhaps this is something that can be left to "WG discretion". We certainly have a number of people with some heavy-duty IETF experience in on this thread.

- Philip


On 2015-05-11, at 21:06 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 12/05/2015 12:47, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> To put an even finer point on it, one of the big problems with EIGRP at this point is that although that are many interoperating implementations, they were implemented using a reference implementation, not a spec, so there is no spec that got the kind of interop testing that multiple independent implementations would have given us. Getting to that now would be very difficult, since there's no real incentive for anybody to do a complete new implementation now.  So while indeed it might be good to write down the spec for posterity and the benefit of sharing experience, I don't think it'd make a lot of sense as an IETF standard.
>> 
>> My point on RFC 6126 is that it’s not an IETF standard either, yet homenet appears to be deciding to standardize on it.
> 
> Well yes, but it's open source and there has been a serious discussion about moving
> it to the standards track, with Alia describing to the homenet WG what that would
> involve.
> 
> Again: I'm not against documenting reality, with reasonable justification.
> But it has to be carefully positioned vs standardised solutions. That's why
> I suggested an appendix. So we'd end up with something like
> 
> 2.3.1.  IGP Choice
> 
>   One of the main decisions for an IPv6 implementer is the choice of
>   IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) within the network.  The primary
>   options are OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] or IS-IS [RFC5120] [RFC5308],
>   though some operators may consider RIP [RFC2080] or non-standardized
>   protocols.  Here we limit our discussion to the pros and cons of OSPF
>   vs. IS-IS. Appendix A discusses the widely used non-standardized
>   EIGRP protocol.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>> 
>> I don’t know the status of Donnie Savage’s draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-savage-eigrp/). However, the EIGRP data formats are well known, the algorithms are well known, and if the vector metric patent and the DUAL patent haven’t expired, they're about to. As you say, there are multiple implementations around. What I’m looking at is a request for commentary in a draft making comments on the operational use of routing protocols.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops