On 6/13/15 6:09 PM, Don Fanning wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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