On 6/13/15 6:43 PM, Don Fanning wrote:
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?
That's not a router vendor.
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.
I have, but one must be willing to listen. The problem with the UCSD gateway routing not working with more specific announcements.
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.
Are we really arguing about EIRGP being an open standard?
No it's not a standard. It's an informational draft, not an standards track RFC. The draft is dead at the IETF. Cisco retains full control over it, and the patents surrounding DUAL. Secondly its not a full implementation of EIGRP, stub areas are not documented.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-savage-eigrp-02.txt
I have on good authority the companies you cited are not re-inventing the wheel. They may develop standards and then ask that we (network vendors) support them, but they don't make their own one off protocols. Case in point, segment routing.
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.
*plonk* I'm out.