Dear Gentlebeings,
> I was more expressing an option about cross vendor support of various metrics > and constraints as part of a given flexible algorithm. I think putting a hard > line that perhaps very useful set of constraints and metrics - documented as > IETF informational doc - even if still using Dijkstra for SPT can not have a > unique IANA assigned type is a bit too coarse, That's all. We are all painfully aware of the true challenges of interoperability. Is there really some point to beating on this decades-dead horse? Assigning some type (from what namespace?) to some subset of the features doesn’t seem helpful in this regard. There will always need to be site-specific details about the constraints for a specific algorithm and topology. And there will always be implementation issues and restrictions. If you really want to regress to the point where we had unanimous interoperability, I’m afraid that you’ll have to go back to running RIP on the FDDI. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
