The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

[Mark Laubach <laubach@terra.com21.com>]

> I still don't understand the need for a son-of-1577 spec to *mandate* that a
> server implement both ATMARP and NHRP: isn't it sufficient to state
> that there exist two protocols and that servers may come across clients
> implementing both. This is the approach that IETF specs have always taken in 
> the past and implementors decide what makes sense in their products. I don't 
> believe this approach would lead to many "wrong" choices in this case.

The "son-of-1577" spec mandate is based on the consensus decision(s) made at 
the Danver's meeting in the joint rolc & ip-atm session.
 
It is still the same ATMARP from the clients perspective, please call it
the same. 
 
> I agree. But in addition, I think that the 1577v2 client behaviour
> should not mention ATMARPv1. It only needs to mention ATMARPv2. A 1577v2
> client implementor should not need to go back and refer to 1577 itself.

Especially since RFC1577++ obsoletes RFC1577.

> This is an entirely seperate issue from whether a ATMARPv2 server has to 
> understand ATMARPv1 which I think is an implementation choice.

It goes without saying that I disagree with this 100%.  Backward
compatibility is very important.  This is only an update to RFC1577
really, not a replacement. 

Mark