Draft of RIPE81++

Cengiz Alaettinoglu writes

 * Jean-Michel Jouanigot (jimi at dxcoms.cern.ch) on September  6:
 * > Elise, I agree with you, there's no need to register  information
 * > you don't need, it's more difficult to manage, but as Tony points
 * > out, why would anybody need this detailed information unless  you
 * > really  want to configure a box with it, in which case you *need*
 * > the local and remote addresses. 
 * 
 * You have a point. But the boxes are now getting more complicated:-)
 * One such box is the Routing Arbiter Route Server. RS peers with many
 * border routers. Hence, someone who peers with an RS may not (and does
 * not need to) know addresses of other border routers.

Huh? Why would you in any case want to know addresses of border
routers you do not peer with? An RS model is no different, and even
the NEXT_HOP feauture does not change that. I cannot believe there is
one example where you can configure a peering session without
knowing both ends of the session.....

Mind you, I personally do not really care whether we have one or two
border routers from a purely syntactical point of view. I just want
something that we can explain, and that people will use correctly and
keep up to date. And in my view, anything that is optional makes it
easier to make mistakes, or leave information out which would really
be needed.

The reason I am arguing is because in my view I have not read any
convincing reason to make it optional. The only real reason for me
would be if one could configure a peering session with one or two
unknown addresses.

-Marten



-------- Logged at  Wed Sep 7 16:56:53 MET DST 1994  ---------