IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] EIGRP and the Design Choices draft

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 00:30 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 263961B2ABA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:30:51 -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 56N_zrOR_yw2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:30:50 -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 35FB61B2AB5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 17:30:50 -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 CED33DA006F; Tue, 12 May 2015 00:30:49 +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 17:30:49 -0700
References: <555112D8.3000008@gmail.com> <1592568679.113935.1431386263763.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <1592568679.113935.1431386263763.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <41D8A9FE-0324-4DDF-8868-5187F122F9A7@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 20:30:47 -0400
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Originating-IP: [67.184.177.30]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/uhD9ONyIUJuVo-1fAaWVKS5UYaI>
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 00:30:51 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email