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              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+