Re: minutes of RIPv2 meeting in Amsterdam

[Gilbert Moineau <[e-mail]>]

A problem I can see with "b" is for IPX, according RFC1356, to send your 
Netware SAP/RIP packet to the same VC as the router traffic, you would need 
the NULL encapsulation or you have to use another VC with the UDF to 0xCC 
just for the Netware SAP/RIP traffic.
 ----------
From: ietf-rip-request
To: ariel; ietf-rip
Cc: gerry
Subject: Re: minutes of RIPv2 meeting in Amsterdam
Date: 20 July, 1993 15:30


>Gerry Meyer's Demand Routing proposal was discussed at length.  It was
>agreed that it performed a useful function.  However, Robert Ullman
>pointed out that it simulated many of the functions of TCP and that RAP
>used TCP.  Robert and Gerry will continue the discussion after Gerry
>has had an opportunity to read the RAP RFC.  The slides from Gerry's
>presentation are included in these Proceedings.

Like all other current routing protocols, RAP (experimental RFC 1476)
currently does not address the problem of running a routing protocol on
a switched network.  It is also IP-specific in its current form.
I feel RAP is a red-herring in this discussion.

The real issue is what is the most appropriate method to operate on demand
circuits with RIP protocol variants (IP, Novell, Apple etc):

(a) an appropriate unreliable service (UDP-IP, IPX etc) which is what we
    currently use and is proposed in the Internet Draft.

(b) over a single reliable transport (TCP, encapsulating Novell RIP etc),

(c) the 'appropriate' reliable transport (TCP for IP, NCP or SPX for Novell
    etc).

I think the 'best' method depends on where you are coming from.  I rule
out (c) immediately as requiring transports not otherwise required in a
multi-protocol router.

How I intend to proceed is to sketch through case (b) for myself to see
what functionality it can provide.   I will then mail a list of pros and
cons for the two methods for a discussion on the mailing list.

    Gerry