>> Brian, ever the pessimist, expects things to go wrong whenever they >> can. I happen to agree with Brian. >> >> (Which, by the way, is the reason why I think that the way networks >> containing both IS-IS and Homenet IS-IS will silently break is a major >> f*ck up. Section 6.3. Yeah, I was too tired to argue that point.)
> The user would have to go out of their way to configure their > non-homenet IS-IS router specifically to interoperate with the homenet > IS-IS. How would they know how to do this other than to be familiar with > the other requirements? It’s not like they would be able to accidentally > drop a non-homenet IS-IS router into their network and have it start > silently failing. It's 2017. There's an animated discussion on Stackoverflow about how to install IS-IS on an ordinary PC in order to get it to interoperate with Homenet. There are some people who point out that the Homenet variant of IS-IS is not interoperable with stock IS-IS, but they get voted down. ``Haters will hate, but I've been running it that way for three days and it works just fine''. I'm not asking for full interoperability, I just wish source-specific IS-IS would refuse to establish neighbour relationships with non-specific IS-IS. We'll pay for that mistake at some point. Ted once wrote that we cannot prevent people from being stupid. Ted is of course right, but I still think that we should strive to minimise the consequences of human stupidity. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
