Re: IGPs in use

[Tony Li <tli () juniper net>]

smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran) writes:

> There are some drawbacks to IS-IS: its per-link metrics are not
> rich as currently defined, the LSP space is limited (but can be
> hacked at), and you are stuck with no more than 255 pseudonodes.
> All of these are likely to be hacked at and some seem pretty 
> fixable by locking Henk and Tony (and probably Dave Katz, who did
> a good public analysis of IGP scaling at NANOG in Phoenix and who
> has done even better private analyses and gripefests --:) ) in a
> room for a few hours.


In fact, I believe that it is not necessary to lock us in a room.  A
preferable alternative is if you lock others out, and throw in bandwidth,
cycles, pizza, Scotch, diet Coke, and cash.  ;-) ;-) ;-)


> Frankly, though, I'm hoping that rather than locking themselves
> in the room to "improve" IS-IS, the Obvious People lock themselves
> into a room and build something else instead (which they might simply
> call IS-IS, even if it isn't.  Been there, done that, called it BGP).


It's not clear that locking these people in a room would produce something
fundamentally different than IS-IS anyway... so....  I believe that a more
accurate modus operandi will be to extend IS-IS as much as possible within
the bounds of the existing protocol.  Then, when pressing problems drive us
beyond those borders, to do more major work on the protocol.  Whether that
final result is called IS-IS or not (or even OSPF ;-) is largely a
political question, not a technical one.

Tony