Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ccv.bbn.COM!hinden
From: hinden@ccv.bbn.COM (Robert Hinden)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: talking of and to gateways and bridges
Message-ID: <8703222256.AA03443@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 22-Mar-87 17:40:03 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703222256.AA03443
Posted: Sun Mar 22 17:40:03 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Mar-87 01:29:55 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 17
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

Jon,

I don't think it OK for gateways to not do IP reassembly.  They should
be able to reassemble datagrams addressed directly to them.  We are
currently working to add this to the Butterfly and LSI-11 gateways.

In principal I agree with you that we should think about using a
transport protocol to carry our routing data.  The problem I see is
that most of our current protocols try very hard to deliver the old
data before the new data.  This is less than optimum for routing
data, where it is important the deliver the new data and
forget about delivering the old data.

I hope we will never get to the point where we send our routing
around by magtape like BITNET.

Bob