[rbridge] [Pppext] TRILL, IS-IS, and System ID
carlsonj at workingcode.com
Wed Jun 1 07:54:03 PDT 2011
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Therefore, James is also wrong. This is not an operator issue. You
> should *NOT* put this burden on operators. It would really help for
> anybody with aspirations of designing protocols to have actually been an
> operator, and pay attention to discussions on the NANOG list!
It's worth noting that I said "implementor" not "operator." Perhaps the
language I'm using isn't clear. By "implementor," I mean the person who
designs the hardware and software components that will be sold as a
product claiming to support TRILL. I do not mean the person who buys
these products and installs them in a network.
Like you, I do not believe that it's appropriate or reasonable for
general-purpose TRILL implementations to require any sort of action on
the part of the person installing and using the equipment -- that is,
the "operator." I've never suggested that as a solution, so the straw
man doesn't work here. Nor do the ad-hominem jibes.
However, unlike you, I do not believe that the IETF must resolve this
potential system-level design issue. Instead, I still strongly prefer
to leave it up to the people designing and building systems. If they
can't resolve this relatively simple problem in a reasonable way then,
frankly, I have no faith that they can get any of the other million or
so complex system design decisions right.
Most importantly, I don't want to be dictating anything about IS-IS
design issues from within the PPP Extensions working group. It's just
not appropriate or even feasible. That's why I agree with the ideas
behind Stewart Bryant's text.
All that said, I don't really care. This is a tempest in a teapot. I
can mash together both texts if the Routing ADs are willing to accept a
passing reference here to a draft that, in their words, hasn't even been
considered by the IS-IS community.
James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carlsonj at workingcode.com>
More information about the rbridge