The Hole in my proposal

yakov@watson.ibm.com Fri, 03 February 1995 16:24 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04962; 3 Feb 95 11:24 EST
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04937; 3 Feb 95 11:24 EST
Received: from watson.ibm.com (watson.ibm.com [129.34.139.4]) by maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.9/ACTON-MAIN-1.2) with SMTP id LAA08448 for <rolc@maelstrom.timeplex.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 1995 11:16:30 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: yakov@watson.ibm.com
Message-Id: <199502031616.LAA08448@maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com>
Received: from YKTVMV by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2321; Fri, 03 Feb 95 11:17:35 EST
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 11:17:35 EST
To: jhalpern@newbridge.com, rolc@maelstrom.timeplex.com
Subject: The Hole in my proposal

Ref:  Your note of Fri, 3 Feb 1995 09:33:08 +0500


Joel,

>There are a couple of possible solutions:

Here is another one:

(a) give up on "one size fits all" paradigm, (b) assume that the
solution will depend on the protocols the routers participate in, and
then  (c) develop PROTOCOL SPECIFIC solutions.

E.g. there may be one solution when the routers are BGP, and another
when the routers are just intra-area routers within a single OSPF domain.

Yakov.