IETF Logo Mail Archive

minutes of RIPv2 meeting in Amsterdam

Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com> Wed, 04 August 1993 17:17 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10386; 4 Aug 93 13:17 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10381; 4 Aug 93 13:16 EDT
Received: from atlas.xylogics.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17485; 4 Aug 93 13:16 EDT
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA17619 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930726); Wed, 4 Aug 1993 13:17:55 -0400
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA04808 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930726); Wed, 4 Aug 1993 13:17:16 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1993 13:17:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4808.199308041717@atlas.xylogics.com>
To: kls@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
Cc: ietf-rip@xylogics.com
In-Reply-To: Karl L. Swartz's message of 03 Aug 1993 22:03:03 -0700 (PDT) <9308040503.AA05044@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: minutes of RIPv2 meeting in Amsterdam

> If it's only minorly different, why no go all the way and make it not
> different at all.  Then it's consistent with the OSPF MIB, and also
> seems to be a bit less of a hack than using 0.0.0.ifIndex.

Just because OSPF did it one way, doesn't mean we can't do it another
way.  Especially if our way is advantageous to us.  Unless someone
can show that the OSPF way is significantly superior, I think we
should stick with the current proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Malkin                                          Cheap, Fast, Good
(617) 272-8140                                       Pick two!

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email