Subject: Re: Modifications to IP

From: "Kastenholz, Frank" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:17:51 -0400

At 11:21 AM 7/19/01 -0400, Russ White wrote:

>I see there is some recent discussion on list about concerns over
>modifying IP to interact with RPR, and the framework document. Is
>there any paragraph anyone can point to in the draft that
>indicates IP will not run over RPR as it sits today, with no
>modifications to IP at all? Is there any paragraph within the
>draft which suggests that IP needs to be changed to accomidate
>RPR?

Russ, 

Speaking as an IP weenie and veteran IETFer,
not as co-chair...

There are a couple of places in the draft that either 
say outright, or imply, that some modifications to ISIS, 
OSPF and BGP are desired/necessary. (I am already 
running late so can't dig them up right now). Perhaps
we're getting confused over terminology, but those
are included in "IP". The IETF deliberately makes it
very hard to change routing protocols -- so without
strong justification, it won't happen.

Frank Kastenholz
Internetwork-layer-weenie-and-IETF-veteran

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:37:14 -0400 (EDT)

I've just read through the text I proposed again. I don't see any
suggested changes to any layer 3 protocol. I see a section
detailing why a modified layer 3 protocol would want information
about its connected upstream and downstream neighbor, but I also
see something stating this is an example implementation only.

There are other drafts on proposals to change the routing
protocols, and there will probably be a draft (by someone, not
me, most likely, since I'm not a big mpls person) about making
traffic engineering work on this. But those things are outside
the scope of this working group.

The real question is: Do we want traffic engineering, of whatever
type, to work on rpr? Do we want traffic engineering to be able
to take advatnage of rpr's capabilities? If you think that rpr
should just look like ethernet to traffic engineering
applications, then I would suggest you might as well stop
spinning asic's and doing other work now, because no-one will
deploy it if it's just another ethernet.

Russ

> Internetwork-layer-weenie-and-IETF-veteran

_____________________________
[email-masked] <>< Grace Alone