Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!mtunx!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!kwe
From: kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England))
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: RIP vs. HELLO
Message-ID: <23228@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 8 Jun 88 23:18:11 GMT
References: <1041@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
Reply-To: kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England)
Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Organization: Boston Univ. Information Tech. Dept.
Lines: 19

In article <1041@sun.soe.clarkson.edu>
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
>Reading Comer's book, _Internetworking with TCP/IP_, I get the
>impression that RIP is a second son of the Internet protocol suite.  I
>also found out why I couldn't find any documentation on the "RIP
>Protocol".  Is there a move to HELLO afoot?  *Should* there be a move
>to HELLO?
>
	You can read all about RIP in IDEA0004-01.  As soon as Hedrick
gets it published as an RFC, we can all take our respective vendors to
task for any noncompliance, if there are still any implementations out
there that haven't done split horizon, holddowns, etc.

	HELLO seems to be becoming an orphan with the emergence this
summer of the "new NSFnet backbone".  Are there any other
implementations running, besides the "old NSFnet backbone"?  What
happens to the fuzzballs?  Should we start a networking corner at the
Boston Computer Museum?  Or do they all revert to Mills' possession?
:-)