On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Bryan Fields Bryan@bryanfields.net wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ 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 :)
https://github.com/janovic/Quagga-EIGRP - you were saying?
I'm not going to argue well established policies/BCPs.
At least you'd be able to explain your position rather than be a lid about it all.
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.
And a solution for it. If you got a better one, by all means speak.
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.
You first.
Spec is all that's needed. Code means we're developing something that's non-standard, and means no router vendor will support it.
Yeah, and spec never stopped a developer from not following it or doing their own thing. Don't believe me? Ask Microsoft, Google or any other company. I don't have to cater to your chosen network vendor, I can create my own. Standards make sure that there is interoperability within guidelines. And as I recall, EIGRP is a standard.
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.
Which is why developers and system engineers every day develop around network issues. Just because you have good pipes, doesn't mean that you won't end up with shit on you. Websockets is a perfect example of getting around limitations of the network. P2P mesh was the invention of creating ad-hoc networks without centralized end points. Just because you don't have vendor support doesn't mean you should abandon something. It just means your original enough to build a solution for your needs.