RIP over circuit switched media

Gerry Meyer <gerry@spider.co.uk> Fri, 04 June 1993 10:50 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01373; 4 Jun 93 6:50 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01369; 4 Jun 93 6:50 EDT
Received: from atlas.xylogics.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05486; 4 Jun 93 6:50 EDT
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA13977 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930202); Fri, 4 Jun 1993 06:48:37 -0400
Received: from ben.uknet.ac.uk by atlas.xylogics.com with SMTP id AA21995 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930202); Fri, 4 Jun 1993 06:48:25 -0400
Received: from castle.ed.ac.uk by ben.uknet.ac.uk via JANET with NIFTP (PP) id <sg.03772-0@ben.uknet.ac.uk>; Fri, 4 Jun 1993 11:47:34 +0100
Received: from spider.co.uk by castle.ed.ac.uk id aa16791; 4 Jun 93 11:47 WET DST
Received: by widow.spider.co.uk; Fri, 4 Jun 93 11:55:07 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Gerry Meyer <gerry@spider.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 11:44:24 +0100
Message-Id: <15161.9306041044@orbweb.spider.co.uk>
Received: by orbweb.spider.co.uk; Fri, 4 Jun 93 11:44:24 +0100
To: ietf-rip@xylogics.com, okorf@netcs.com
Subject: RIP over circuit switched media
Cc: gerry@spider.co.uk

>Can anybody comment the draft about RIP over curcuit switched media?
>Is it considered too different compared to the RIP I, II as yet known?

Firstly Gary and I are working out a schedule for it to be handled in the
work group (which should be posted as an updated charter shortly) - so all
will get a chance to comment on it.

As far as being different from RIP I/II.   What can I say - it is only
different in a localised way.

It is designed to co-exist TRANSPARENTLY with 'standard' RIP I/RIP II
implementations on the LAN.   They will NOT know that another router
with a WAN interface happens to be talking a slightly modified variant
on the WAN.  The routing information on the WAN is the same - the method
of propagating the information is just a bit different.

>From our point of view, we can see a strong need for support for
>this kind of network infrastructure?!

Thats my feeling as well.

    Gerry