[ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Sun Jul 24 18:23:11 CEST 2011
On 7/24/11 12:32 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote: > If the equipment doesn't support IS-IS, then you can't expect it to > support IS-IS MT ;) ;) > > Anyway, making IS-IS mandatory makes absolutely no sense; it's rarely > used in Enterprise environments. > > What we could do is to change the current requirement into "If the > equipment supports IS-IS routing protocol, it MUST support IS-IS MT > ..." (don’t cut/paste, use the wording from the document ;) hmm... I think we should not say "If equipment supports", as *we* are writing document defining what equipment must and should support. ;) Probably it would be a good thing to say something like: "If IS-IS [RFC5308] is requested, then IS-IS MT must be supported" or maybe we just move from optional to mandatory this section: "When IS-IS routing protocol is requested, the equipment SHOULD support "M-ISIS: Multi-Topology (MT) Routing in Intermediate System to Intermediate Systems (IS-ISs)" [RFC 5120] (highly recommended)" ...change the first word "When" to "If" and remove "(highly recommended)" :) What do you guys think? /jan
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] next version of RIPE-501, v.2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]