[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] 2 RRG drafts



Hi, Yakov.

Thank you for the corrections.

Trying to reconstruct history is an interesting pursuit and the historian sometimes gets it wrong! Maybe it is time I took a history degree!!

I would be interested to gather any more recollections of these early events, not necessarily for the draft, but maybe for a more detailed history in the future. Of current regular IETF attendees, I know that Sue Hares and Christian Huitema at the very least were closely involved.

Regards,
Elwyn

Yakov Rekhter wrote:

Avri,

Two IRTF RRG drafts that will be addressed in the upcoming meeting.

a.
---
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


        Title           : Analysis of IDR requirements and History
        Author(s)       : A. Doria, E. Davies
        Filename        : draft-irtf-routing-history-02.txt
        Pages           : 43
        Date            : 2005-10-26

This document analyses the current state of IDR routing with respect
   to RFC1026 and other IDR requirements and design efforts.  It is the
   companion document to "Requirements for Inter-Domain Routing"
   [I-D.irtf-routing-reqs], which is a discussion of requirements for
   the future routing architecture and future routing protocols.

Few more incorrect points in the draft:

From 3.2:

  The first version of the Border Gateway
  Protocol (BGP-1) [RFC1105]was developed as a replacement, but was
  specifically designed to work on a tree structured network (links are
  classified as upwards, downwards or sideways).

BGP-1 was *not* designed to work "on a tree structured network".
It was designed to work on a *hierarchically* structured network
as well as on a *non-hierarchically* structured network. In fact the
presence of "sideways" inter-AS link was specifically intended to
accommodate the latter.

With this mind I would suggest to replace the original text with
the following:

  The first version of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-1)
  [RFC1105]was developed as a replacement. It was designed to work
  on a hierarchically structured network as well as on a
  non-hierarchically structured network.

From 3.2:

  BGP version 1 [RFC1105] was the first real path-vector
  routing protocol (standardized in 1989) which was intended to relieve
  some of the scaling problems but it still assumed a tree structured
network.
Again, this is incorrect. BGP-1 (rfc1105) did *not* assume a tree
structured network. To the contrary, it assumes that a network
may not be a tree structured network, and that is why BGP-1
provided a mechanism to suppress routing information looping.

With this in mind I would suggest to delete" but it still assumed
a tree structured network".

Yakov.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg