Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!asylum.sf.ca.us!romkey
From: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us (John Romkey)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Default routes in PC/TCP
Message-ID: <9002161403.AA09127@asylum.sf.ca.us>
Date: 16 Feb 90 22:03:13 GMT
References: <9002161957.AA21926@alw.nih.gov>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 19

My personal feeling is that hosts eavesdropping on routing protocols
is a very bad thing. It should be possible to change the routing
substrate of the Internet without having to update all the host
software as well (updating the routing software is pain enough, isn't
it?). Which routing protocol do you eavesdrop on? RIP? OSPF? cisco's
IGRP? Suppose I come along an introduce my Whizzy Turbo Router Plus,
with proprietary routing protocols that give you great routing, and
you install them all over your network - then your host software, in
order to be able to route, has to know my proprietary routing
protocols...

I think the routing substrate ought to be as much of a black box to
the hosts as is possible, with communication between the hosts and
routers happening in a formalized way, say via a protocol.
Eavesdropping is leaving yourself open for a lot of problems in the
future.
			- john romkey
USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us	Internet: romkey@ftp.com
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed are kings.