Re: RIP over circuit switched media

[Art Berggreen <[e-mail]>]

>
>>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.

I see this approach as having a very different philosophy and different
mechanisms from most current DV routing protocols.

>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.

But it is certainly not directly interoperable with exisiting protocols,
making it a new protocol (albeit based on existing technology).

IMHO, we also should be exploring ways of making link state protocols
friendlier to WAN enviroments (because I consider them superior to DV
protocols).

>>From our point of view, we can see a strong need for support for
>>this kind of network infrastructure?!
>
>Thats my feeling as well.

It is clear that most of our existing routing protocols have evolved to
favor LANS and relatively high performace, dedicated WAN links.  Routing
protocols do need to evolve to deal with new technologies (e.g. Frame Relay),
and new constraints (i.e. bandwidth, economics and policy).

>    Gerry

Art