Re: autosys to a PS

Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se> Tue, 14 March 1995 16:48 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04350; 14 Mar 95 11:48 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04346; 14 Mar 95 11:48 EST
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08378; 14 Mar 95 11:48 EST
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA20140 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for iwg-out@ans.net); Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:37:12 -0500
Message-Id: <199503141637.AA20140@interlock.ans.net>
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-2); Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:37:12 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Protected-side Proxy Mail Agent-1); Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:37:12 -0500
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:35:40 MET
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>
To: Tony Bates <Tony.Bates@mci.net>
Cc: yakov@watson.ibm.com, bmanning@isi.edu, bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: autosys to a PS
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:21:55 -0500

> To quote from the minutes:
> 
> ...
> Concern was expressed relative to this document and its lack of text on
> where AS numbers should be used, so that less knowledgeable service
> providers do not read this draft the wrong way and try to stop using AS
> numbers in their networks.  Peter Lothberg will write some text.
> 
> The goal is to have a new version of this document by 14 January 1995.
> The consensus of the working group was to advance it as a Proposed
> Standard.
> ...
> 
> Can we not go with as is and then move to a new documnet if enough
> discussion comes out of the Danvers meeting. There are several people
> wanting to reference the document now and asking why the decisions at
> San Jose are not being followed through.


My question is very simple, what routing protocol do we use between
two administrative domains?

I can't understand why we are so hot on promoting really bad
engineering in the Internet?

-Peter