Re: RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems
Fred Baker <fbaker@acc.com> Tue, 23 March 1993 14:01 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04273;
23 Mar 93 9:01 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04269;
23 Mar 93 9:01 EST
Received: from atlas.xylogics.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01903;
23 Mar 93 9:01 EST
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA08400 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930202);
Tue, 23 Mar 1993 09:03:10 -0500
Received: from SAFFRON.ACC.COM by atlas.xylogics.com with SMTP
id AA23634 (5.65c/UK-2.1-930202); Tue, 23 Mar 1993 09:03:00 -0500
Received: by saffron.acc.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA19562; Tue, 23 Mar 93 05:58:33 PST
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 05:58:33 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Baker <fbaker@acc.com>
Message-Id: <9303231358.AA19562@saffron.acc.com>
To: ietf-rip@xylogics.com, jch@nr-tech.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems
I asked during the working group meetings if we wanted to address unnumbered links in RIP-II, and the group seemed to feel that was "beyond scope." Like you, I have implemented RIP over unnumbered links in the past and feel that it is a solvable problem given the right information. The address of the routing neighbor is not sufficient to identify an unnumbered link, for two reasons. First, it is possible to have two links to the same neighbor; this would not distinbguish them. Second, it is possible to have an interface with no active neighbor at all. In that case, it is not possible to configure the interface. It is not possible to turn it on since, wityhout an active neighbor, it has no name. For this reason, if unnumberedd interfaces are in view, I would suggest simply numbering them.
- RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems Jeffrey C Honig
- Re: RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems Fred Baker
- Re: RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems Jeffrey C Honig
- Re: RIP-2 Addresses Links and MIB problems Fred Baker