On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 08:36:04AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 07:37:12AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > > ahh - not necessarily -- particularly if it fixes a major interop issue > > (which is the point of standards after all). > > Well if you could fix the interop by changing a setting away from its > current default, at least you have a workaround. And I would think the > other value for the setting exists for a reason too. > > > So are you arguing this point theoretically, or do you believe there's a > > real issue with *this* change. Said another way, do you really think > > there are operators using an max link cost in normal/stable day to day > > operations (and not just as a maintenance tool)? > > I don't recall what this change is, so no idea. I am just saying in > general changing defaults in a program that doesn't keep default values > in the config file is hazardous. > > link-detect is still not on by default (and while I certainly always > want it on, I would not suggest changing the existing default behaviour.)
The link-detect comparison keeps coming up, yet there's a major difference: When I argued for the "slow" link-detect migration, I was personally aware of 2 installations that would've been broken by the change, one of them /my own network/. Paul (or anyone else), is there an actual user installation you're aware of that would be broken by this change? If yes, could you please describe it? (If no, a realistic application scenario maybe?) -David _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list Quagga-dev@lists.quagga.net https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
