Re: Application Statement
"Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks" <jbuffum@pobox.wellfleet.com> Fri, 03 March 1995 19:29 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08978;
3 Mar 95 14:29 EST
Received: from maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
id aa08974; 3 Mar 95 14:29 EST
Received: from lobster.wellfleet.com (lobster.wellfleet.com [192.32.253.3]) by
maelstrom.acton.timeplex.com (8.6.9/ACTON-MAIN-1.2) with SMTP id OAA16232 for
<rolc@acton.timeplex.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 1995 14:21:55 -0500
Received: from redhook.wellfleet (redhook.wellfleet.com) by
lobster.wellfleet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA08811; Fri, 3 Mar 95 14:21:06 EST
Received: by redhook.wellfleet (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA09136; Fri, 3 Mar 95 14:20:36 EST
Message-Id: <9503031920.AA09136@redhook.wellfleet>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5 11/22/94
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: rolc@acton.timeplex.com
Subject: Re: Application Statement
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 Mar 1995 12:12:31 EST."
<199503031712.MAA00515@curtis.ansremote.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 14:20:35 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks" <jbuffum@pobox.wellfleet.com>
Curtis, > The application statement MUST document situations in which the > protocol is NOT applicable. You fail to do this. There has been > considerable discussion of route loops and conclusion that NHRP has no > way to avoid them. There is an application disclaimer in NHRP itself > in section 8.1 (Router to Router operation). This topic is also > treated in the informational RFC-1620. > > A statement of the limitations belongs in the key features section. I agree. > The statement "For the purpose [of] loop prevention, it is advisable [to] > avoid the non-NBMA paths between the routers where NHRP is being run." > is total nonsense. What you are stating is that if the Internet > deploys an ATM network where multiple Internet service providers > attach, those Internet service providers should never use routes > learned from other media. This is an unworkable attempt to whitewash > the problem. > > NHRP can only safely do address resolution. You are trying to > perpetuate the already disproven claim that NHRP is a viable > replacement for routing. While NHRP is certainly not a panacea for all the worlds routing problems, to lobby for language whose only purpose is to denegrate this solution as unworthy of deployment is, in my opinion, excessive. There are a great many cases where NHRP would be very effective and where the routing loop problem would not arise. My opinion. Enough said. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jeffrey Buffum Phone: 508-436-8565 | | R&D Alliances Internet: jbuffum@baynetworks.com | | Bay Networks Fax: 508-670-8154 | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
- Application Statement dhc2
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Application Statement dhc2
- Re: Application Statement Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Re: Application Statement Juha Heinanen
- Re: Application Statement Jeffrey A. Buffum - Bay Networks
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Application Statement yakov
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Bruce Cole
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Bruce Cole
- Re: Application Statement Bruce Cole
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Application Statement j.garrett
- Re: Application Statement Curtis Villamizar
- Application Statement yakov
- Application Statement yakov
- Re: Application Statement Ross Callon
- Re: Application Statement Ted Matsumura
- Application Statement dhc2