Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!TWG.COM!dcrocker
From: dcrocker@TWG.COM (Dave Crocker)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re:  Wollongong's PC router
Message-ID: <8808251404.aa18860@Louie.UDEL.EDU>
Date: 25 Aug 88 17:59:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21

Bob Morgan is correct that our current product does not support dynamic
routing information exchanges.  That is slated for the next revision to the
product.  For the initial customer base, this does not appear to be a major
problem, since the product is being used in simple networks, with few
subnets.  At the worst, use of a "default" next-hop is adequate.  (This is
a common mechanism, to simplify routing tables for leaf sub-nets, but is
generally viewed as a poor, if not dangerous, long-term mechanism, which is
why we are using it only for the short-term.

Bob's suggestion of having a fake router which spoofs one sub-nets membership
as part of another is clever but, it seems to me, frought with danger.

One of the simplest concerns is that every new type of mechanism that is
added to the architecture of a network alters the complexity and, therefore,
predictability, of the architecture.  For example, what does this scheme do
to network security?  Does it really make the network simpler to manage? ...

This would be a convenient moment to step onto a soapbox to cite the
excessive excitement people have about Level 2 (or MAC or Learning) Bridge
technology, but that probably is for a different discussion group.

Dave