Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:29 -0400

Pedro,

I don't like your tone.  Just stating "I disagree" would suffice.  Please.
Thank you.

No argument is needed, it was clearly not the point.

Anyway, I'll assume (until Of have a chance to try it) that Juniper does
peer based on the default route.

But I still don't know why you are so angry???  Sorry.

Peace,
-Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Roque Marques [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:08 PM
To: Natale, Jonathan
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: using default route to reach peer

Natale, Jonathan writes:

> key word is "MAY" key concept is documenting existing behavior: "one 
> goal of the update is document existing practice" 
> --http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/idr-charter.html

Can i add to the spec 'an implementation MAY choose to calculate the first
100 prime numbers between generating 2 sets of update messages'... ?

> "The point specifically here is that an implementation must be able to 
> deal w/ potentially looping routes. i.e. a route which by being 
> installed in a routing table causes itself to be looping..." ...WRONG, 
> that is not the point.

Are you going to put forward any argument other than the capital letters ?

If that is not the point, do you mind giving us a rational for not peering
over the default route. Why is it such a good idea ?

The fact of the matter is that it works just fine when the apropriate safe
gurards against looping routes are in place, usually for applications other
than strictly internet routing.

  Pedro.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:26:29 -0400

> But I still don't know why you are so angry???  Sorry.

Although Pedro is a little cranky about this, I can somewhat sympathise.

Too often we are assuming that just because something is in a certain
$LARGE_ROUTER_VENDOR's implementation that it is a good thing,
and a necessary thing to implement for protocol completeness.

It is far more important that we think about "is this necessary for
things to work?" and "can we both interoperate if we disagree with
this detail?".

And sometimes, its worth thinking about whether or not a certain
$LARGE_ROUTER_VENDOR made the right choice in their implementation.
If they did, incorporate it into the spec.  If not... :-)

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies