Re: The Hole in my proposal

"j.garrett" <jwg@mare.att.com> Mon, 06 February 1995 17:26 UTC

Message-Id: <9502061723.AA05980@ig1.att.att.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "j.garrett" <jwg@mare.att.com>
Date: 6 Feb 95 12:23:00 -0500
Original-From: mare!jwg (j.garrett)
To: jhalpern@newbridge.com
Cc: curtis@ans.net, rolc@maelstrom.timeplex.com, yakov@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: The Hole in my proposal

In message <199502061406.JAA09568@maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com>om>,
yakov@watson.ibm.com writes:

> Joel,
> 
> (a) is already solved in BGP-4 (and in IDRP for IPv6) -- there is an AGGREGATOR
> attribute that provides all the information required by (a).
> 
> To accommodate (b) requires minor extensions to BGP-4 -- a router, when
> it peers with another router, should be able to specify to its peer the
> set of destinations the router is "interested in". This set can be defined
> in terms of Routing Information Filters (aka RIFs). RIFs can be passed
> either at BGP-4 peer establishment time (as a set of optional parameters
> in the OPEN message), or after the peering is established (via UPDATE
> messages). There is a document that Curtis, Kannan Varadhan and myself
> are planning to submit as an Internet Draft this week that describes RIFs,
> and how they are supported in BGP-4 and IDRP.
> 
> Yakov.

Since the aggregation issue is being worked by Yakov et. al., are there
other issues with the Directed ARP approach described in RFC1433?

John Garrett

The Hole in my proposal Joel Halpern
The Hole in my proposal yakov
Re: The Hole in my proposal Curtis Villamizar
Re: The Hole in my proposal j.garrett
Re: The Hole in my proposal Joel Halpern
The Hole in my proposal yakov
Re: The Hole in my proposal j.garrett
Re: The Hole in my proposal Curtis Villamizar
Re: The Hole in my proposal Curtis Villamizar
Re: The Hole in my proposal j.garrett
Re: The Hole in my proposal Curtis Villamizar