Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Fri, 15 September 1995 12:54 UTC

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 08:34:05 -0400
Message-Id: <9509151234.AA00955@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: fred@cisco.com
Subject: Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: craig@aland.bbn.com, rreq@isi.edu
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Fri Sep 15 08:33:59 1995]
Originating-Client: europa
Content-Length: 636

my recollection is the same as yours

 > which is to say, interpretation 1. My recollection was that there was major
 > debate here, with my current employer among those whose implementations
 > were of version 2 ("the end system is going to check it, and routing has
 > developed a spanning tree, so why should the router check it?") and that
 > interpretation lost.
 > 
 > Does anyone have other recollections or opinions?


--
Frank Kastenholz    "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
                     present... As our case is new, so we must think anew, and
                     act anew" - A. Lincoln

RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Craig Partridge
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Fred Baker
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Fred Baker
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Frank Kastenholz
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Frank Kastenholz
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 John Shriver
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Noel Chiappa
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 William Chops Westfield
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 Tony Li
Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5 braden