The IP Over NBMA (ION) Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>]

In message <199606132155.QAA03357@suni15.tellabs.com>, kowens@tellabs.com write
s:
> > In message <199606131047.TAA16032@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, Masataka Oht
> a
> > writes:
> > > As the debate on CSRs in ION ML seems to have stablized, the
> > > below is an Internet Draft on why we must abandon NHRP.
> > > 
> > > Any counter proof or other comments?
> > > 
> > > Please reply to an appropriate mailing list.
> > > 
> > > 						Masataka Ohta
> > 
> > 
> > Rather than offer a counter argument I would like to point out that
> > the same argument had been made as far back as the introdcution of
> > NHRP to the ROLC WG wrt signalling implosion at a router serving a
> > major portion of the non-ATM or non-"the-same-NBMA" portion of the
> > Internet.  The problem was never resolved and I do not even remember
> > hearing a credible counter argument at all.  This problem was simply
> > ignored by the WG just as some tried to ignore route loop
> > possibilities.
> > Curtis
> > 
> 
> I thought I would compile a list of several other proofs that were stated and
> presented throughout part of history!


Do you plan to address the issue or just ridicule a technical argument
based mostly on past comical bad guesses of market acceptance of
technology?  Your ridicule won't make RIP work any better as a routing
protocol or bridging scale well or fix the NHRP implosion problems
just brought up.

If you've got this solved please let us know.  Even an argument of the
form "I don't think NHRP implosion is a problem because .." would be
constructive.

Cheers,

Curtis