Subject: RE: (ION) Last Call for draft-ietf-ion-r2r-nhrp-01.txt

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:39:11 -0500

Yakov,
   The preliminary analysis is the informal efforts I and others went
through to re-create Curtis' original looping scenario.  In doing so,
one observes certain properties that appear to be necessary and
sufficient for causing the loop.  Specifically, loss of metric
significance.  Further examination (of an informal, not mathematical
nature) indicates that all border cases where metric significance can be
lost are described and covered in the document.  
    It is always possible that we missed something.  That is why the
document does not attempt to portray this as a formal proof.  But there
is reason to believe that it will work.  If you have some concrete
reason to believe it won't work, I would like to see it.  Otherwise, I
think we should leave it as it stands.
    Yours,
    Joel M. Halpern

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 1999 12:15 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: (ION) Last Call for draft-ietf-ion-r2r-nhrp-01.txt 

Andy,

> As per Joel's request, this begins WG last call for
> draft-ietf-ion-r2r-nhrp-01.txt, to last until April 5.  As always,
> comments to the list.

From Section 10 (third paragraph):

   This document doesn't have a proof that the mechanisms described here
   result in loop-free steady state forwarding when NHRP is used to
   establish shortcuts among routers. Preliminary analysis indicates
   that the mechanisms herein are sufficient.  

As one of the co-authors, I am not aware of the "preliminary analysis"
(referred in the last sentence). So, before advancing this document to
a Proposed Standard I would like either (a) to have this "preliminary
analysis" shared (and approved) with the working group, or (b) to take
the last sentence out.

Yakov.
X-Info: To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
X-Info: 'unsubscribe ion' in the body of the message.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:30:06 -0800

Joel,
 
>     It is always possible that we missed something.  

I agree with you that it is always possible that your analysis missed
something.  And that is precisely why I am asking you to share this
analysis with the rest of us. By allowing more people to review the
analysis, there will be less likelyhood that the analysis would "missed
something".

>                                                        That is why the
> is reason to believe that it will work.  

So, please share this reason with the rest of us.

Yakov.