Re: The Hole in my proposal

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>om>, yakov@watson.i
bm.com writes:
> 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.


I think this is along the lines of some of the thinking expressed in
the past.  For a topology that is constrained such that there are no
multihomed networks not directly connects, NHRP is fine since there is
no opportunity for loops.  If there are multihomed networks behind a
node, that node must run a routing protocol.  This way all routers on
the topology with multihomed networks behind them would still run a
routing protocol.  It would also help if all other nodes ran a true
routing protocol instead of a query response protocol, so that
suboptimal paths were not used to get to someplace smarter (but not
absolutely required).  Limiting the load on the latter group, making
it possible for hosts to run a routing protocol, is one purpose of the
routing information filters (RIFs).

Curtis