Subject: Re: mboned: BGMP & DVMRP status Q.

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:37:39 -0800

>I was wondering what kind of discussion has preceeded these
>decisions, as and what the large group of people is that is in
>agreement with it.

The BGMP status was a bug in the presentation; it is indeed planning
to go to Informational (although the only feedback on the BGMP WG
mailing list was that it should go Experimental instead).

The DVMRP status discussion happened on the IDMR WG list.  As far as
I know, nothing has changed about DVMRP being an acceptable routing
protocol for small networks.  It achieves not insignificant optimization
by combining tree buidling and route dissemination.

  Bill

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:20:41 -0800

>> mailing list was that it should go Experimental instead).

	Ok, thanks. I thought I remembered something
	different (and the minutes are a little light on this
	topic). 

	Dave

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:31:43 -0800

>I can not find an applicability statement outlining that
>DVMRP is only considered to be acceptable for small networks because
>of both flood & prune behavior, non-modular protocol design and
>non-scalable RPF routing protocol. Can you point me to that statement
>in the draft ?

I would suggest reading the DVMRP applicability statement draft.
It has statements about scalability of broadcast and prune and the
route exchange.  It also mentions that DVMRP can avoid duplicates by
precomputing broadcast trees, as well as the state disadvantages of
precomputing trees.

draft-ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as-00.txt is expired, but you can find
a copy at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/draft-ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as-00.txt

  Bill

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:20:41 -0800

Dave

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:31:43 -0800

Bill

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:49:38 -0800

> a copy at http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/draft-ietf-idmr-dvmrp-v3-as-00.txt

Thanks !

Now if we could persuade the IETF that 100GB hard disk space to hold
all historical documents on a known public place then this stupid timeout
thing would hit me over and over again *mumble*

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:49:38 -0800

Thanks !

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:22:25 -0800

> mailing list was that it should go Experimental instead).

Ok.

Thanks
	Toerless

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:22:25 -0800

Ok.

Thanks
	Toerless

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:31:49 +0000

www.watersprings.org is your friend.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:49:38PM -0800, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> _______________________________________________________________
> user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
> web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:31:49 +0000