[807] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: IETF questions -- Internet growth
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (little@ctt.bellcore.com)
Mon Jun 3 13:40:57 1991
To: tsuchiya@thumper.bellcore.com (Paul Tsuchiya)
Cc: brian@napa.telebit.com, little@ctt.bellcore.com, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jun 91 10:03:37 EDT."
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 13:38:58 -0400
From: little@ctt.bellcore.com
I always feel uneasy when the mail system generates replies before I
get the original posting. Makes for interesting dynamics.
This could be grist for a group behavior study, hmmm.....
>Mike,
>
>Isn't the question of masks with IDPR irrelevant, since IDPR
>uses path setup?
>
>PT
Paul,
If strict IS destination to IS destination path setup is utilized
then the concept of a mask doesn't apply. However, such strictness
is not necessary and one could specify a path of networks rather than
intermediate systems (ISs), in which case a mask would be desirable.
Certain properties are gained and lost with each approach. Even so,
you are correct for the current direction of IDPR - it is not relevant.
(I use IS here to refer to those systems which are intermediate to
the routing domain perspective - eg border gateways).
>
>Can you point me to the approprate RFC's? Thanks.
>
>Brian Lloyd
Brian,
Only BGP is currently documented by an RFC (1163 is the latest I
believe). You may also want to look into its submission to ANSI as
IDRP. IDPR (to be confused with IDRP) is currently only documented
by internet draft(s). The other two are documented outside of the
IETF publications. One within the ECMA and ANSI communities and the
other from the government (and its associated contractor). I can
personally be blamed for not producing one of these RFCs in my
copious spare time :) and :(
-Mike
