13 Jun
2015
13 Jun
'15
6:29 p.m.
On 6/13/15 6:09 PM, Don Fanning wrote:
You're subnet is your business. We are talking about the UCSD gw not being
able to reach anyone using BGP to announce their subnet to the global routing
table.
Now you're just being a jerk.
Spec is all that's needed. Code means we're developing something that's
non-standard, and means no router vendor will support it.
When I get a feature implemented in TiMOS there needs to be a business case
for it. Every vendor is like this, and unfortunately AMPRnet users have no
pull to get a protocol implemented.
73's W9CR
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
For someone who's on the ARDC technical committee,
you seem to be pretty
apt at shooting down solutions rather than implementing them.
If they are good ideas I'm open to consider them. EIGRP ties you to one
vendor (cisco), and frankly they suck :)
I'm not going to argue well established policies/BCPs.
>
You're proposing fixing broken routing using a non-standard protocol. IIRC
> EIGRP uses IP multicast for announcements (same as OSPF) so you'd need to
> run
> it over some sort of tunnel (gre) interface anyways.
>
>
Yes. And you're also not the boss of my subnet either. How else do you
proposed routing non-44net traffic into 44net without creating routing
loops and without breaking the current infrastructure on a global scale? > Tim
Osburn and myself (and others) had proposed standards based way to move
> the IPIP tunnels to a redundant gateway design a few years back. It's not
> hard, but there is no movement from ARDC to actually move forward with it.
> I'd be happy with a study of proposed ideas, at least it's forward
> movement.
>
Code or it didn't happen. Oh wait, spec isn't code.