Re: draft-meyer-demandrouting-02.txt

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Gerry:

Looking at your recent draft, it looks like the changes are:

In section 2.7, under TRIGGERED RESPONSE, and then later under various RIP
equivalents, you added the statement:

>              A triggered response message MUST be sent in response to a
>              triggered request message even if there are no routes to
>              propagate.  This would be the case for a host which had a
>              WAN interface only, but which wished to run the triggered
>              update protocol.

Under section 9, "Security Considerations", you removed the statement:

< The circuit manager MAY enforce additional security by not accepting
< incoming calls.

(I guess it wouldn't have occurred to me either to put that statement in or
to take it out; I don't care if I MAY or MAY NOT, my customers are going to
require me to screen calls - and if I'm screening your calls out, what
happens in your version of the routing protocol is of no consequence to
me.)

I saw a few editorial changes ("a" -> "an", etc) also. Have I missed anything?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Some questions:

what is the relationship between this approach and AURP? Would you
recommend building an RTMP version of Demand Routing (because it relies
only on AppleTalk connectivity), or should we lean on somebody to submit
the latest AURP documentation as an Info RFC?

How about Xerox/3COM and UB RIP (IDP)? Vines? DECNET IV?

Bridge BPDUs? (he ducks the barrage of aging tomatos...)
=============================================================================
Don't blame ACC; they think I'm nuts too!