On 2008-02-26 19:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>> One MUST that the NIST IPv6 Profile introduced was mandating of OSPFv3
>> as the routing protocol. Is this because RIPng is not beiong adopted in
>> practice? Small networks should do well with RIPng, I would think,
>> unless RIPng is never used in practice. And in principle, there could be
>> a case made for static routing tables in special cases. I'm not sure why
>> the routing protocol mandate for all Government nets.
>
> IS-IS is currently probably more widely used for IPv6 routing than
> OSPFv3.
>
> Given that there are multiple good options that any reasonable
> network could deploy, I don't see why the IETF should make a
> recommendation in this space.
Yes, it's hard to see a "MUST implement" interoperability requirement
in this space. However, there is value to a reader in listing
the IGPs that are standardised and should be considered for
implementation.
>
> NIST's goal was probably, "some implementations on the field just
> support static and maybe RIPng. We want to mandate something more
> scalable, and OSPFv3 is as good an option as any".
And this illustrates the difference in purpose between the NIST/DISA
profiles, which are operational and RFP requirements, and the IETF
profile, which is presumably aimed at a minimal implementation
rqeuirement. The IETF can (as Fred has said) profitably learn from
the NIST/DISA reasoning, but our concerns are broader.
Brian
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
