Hi,
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> hummmm ... do you meant
>
> "Here is a patch for the management of the bad/good checksum for ISIS
> (like TCP/UDP/IP).
>
> support added for :
> - booleans hf_isis_lsp_checksum_good, hf_isis_lsp_checksum_bad in the tree,
> - information in the info column if bad checksum,
> - expert info for bad checksum,
> - color filters update"
That is what he meant.
> Read in this context, it seems clear to me. At least it is clear that I
> haven't updated a rule for OSPF which indicates that a new SPT has been
> computed.
Very clear.
> Anyway, as I said I don't care whether this rule is released ... I am
> just a little bit circumspect about the reasons and tried to know more.
Thats cool.
> Regards,
>
> Sebastien Tandel
>
> Joerg Mayer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 02:52:21PM +0100, Sebastien Tandel wrote:
> >
> >> I am not defending anything here (cause as you said I can change this
> >> preference rule) but I don't get to the point. CDP is only implemented
> >> on Cisco routers but there are also Juniper, Hitachi, Alcatel, Nortel,
> >> 6wind etc... Having Cisco routers does not imply you'll configure CDP.
> >> Furthermore, you clearly won't if there are others vendors routers in
> >> your network. Last but not least, CDP does not seem to support IPv6. Do
> >> you really think it's the best option?
> >>
> >
> > Quite a few other vendors implement at least part of CDP. Also, I
> > consider it bad style to introduce a change to the existing behaviour
> > via a harmless reading changelog ("color filters update").
That's why we review patches before applying them, aren't we?
> >
> > ciao
> > Joerg
> >
Thanx,
Jaap