Tony, > We are all painfully aware of the true challenges of interoperability. Is there really some point to beating on this decades-dead horse?
IMHO the magnitude of those will exponentially increase with flex-algo if it really takes off. Will it be manageable in some networks - perhaps. But the question is - Can we do a bit better and help to standardize most useful flex-algos to make their deployment easier cross vendor ? That's all. Best, R On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:32 PM Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > 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
