Re: Another proposal to think about

smb@research.att.com Tue, 28 November 1989 21:40 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA14385; Tue, 28 Nov 89 13:40:13 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA07027; Tue, 28 Nov 89 13:39:47 -0800
From: smb@research.att.com
Message-Id: <8911282139.AA13844@hector.homer.nj.att.com>
Received: by hector.homer.nj.att.com id AA13844; Tue, 28 Nov 89 16:39:22 EST
To: mtudwg
Subject: Re: Another proposal to think about
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 89 16:39:21 EST
>From: hector!smb

Allowing routing protocols to carry the information won't work.  We're
moving more and more towards an environment where even routers use a
default route to some higher-level router.  For example, our link to
JVNCNET advertises ``default'' to us via RIP; none of our local routers
could glean any MTU information.  And that in turn means that an analog
to ICMP Redirect wouldn't work well.