Re: Karl Fox's suggestion of rejecting MRRU

Dana Blair <dblair@cisco.com> Thu, 15 February 1996 19:41 UTC

Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:25:16 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dana Blair <dblair@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199602151921.LAA27217@stilton.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Karl Fox's suggestion of rejecting MRRU
To: Tom Coradetti <70761.1664@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:21:45 -0800
Cc: ietf-ppp@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <960215173720_70761.1664_EHM47-6@CompuServe.COM>; from "Tom Coradetti" at Feb 15, 96 12:37 pm
Resent-Message-ID: <"HJXsK3.0.Pq6.PYu8n"@merit.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-ppp@merit.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: ietf-ppp-request@merit.edu

> The question is: if a peer written to prior drafts received an ED reject what
> does it do?
> What problems result?
> It seemed to me it could do only one of three things:
> 
> (1) Remove the ED and retry. Then we still see an ED conflict but this time
> terminate since
>  there is no longer an ED to reject.
> (2) Keep the ED and retry. Then we reject again and the retry count runs out.
> Then someone
> will terminate.
> (3) Terminate. So much the better.
> 

The other possibility is that an implementation may rely only on
Authentication to determine the end point and reject the ED option.

In this case the link should not terminate.

Dana Blair

Re: Karl Fox's suggestion of rejecting MRRU Karl Fox
Re: Karl Fox's suggestion of rejecting MRRU Dana Blair