[Old-standards] Example web page...

[James Carlson]

Pekka Savola writes:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, James Carlson wrote:
> > I believe that RFCs 1377 (OSINLCP) and 1378 (ATCP) are also in use,
> > though, arguably, AppleTalk is going away faster.  You need RFC 1377
> > if you're going to run IS-IS over PPP links.
> 
> Is 1377 needed for example on SDH/SONET circuits (I think you run PPP 
> over those, but not 100% sure)?

It was back when I worked on such equipment.  That was a quite a while
ago, though.

> > RFC 1663 is fairly widely implemented, though I have no idea how
> > important is.  RFCs 1968 and 1973 are also implemented, but, again I'm
> > not sure how important they are for the future.
> 
> Good questions.  Maybe folks more intimate with PPP deployments could 
> comment.

I'll pose the question to the pppext list.

> > RFC 1256 (router discovery) is widely implemented and used.
> 
> I don't know about usage, but I've seen it implemented, yes.

Our entire internal network at Sun uses it, and (as far as I can tell)
many of our customers use it inside data centers.  It's also in Vern
Schryver's "routed," used on *BSD systems.

I agree that it's a stunningly poor excuse for a routing protocol (and
that, incidentally, it's a shame that v6 went that direction as well
-- see section 4.2 of RFC 2461), but it seems to be popular.  (At a
guess, it's popular among some groups of administrators because it
serves the purpose of delivering the bare minimum of functionality to
stub 'host' nodes while hiding behind the fig leaf that it's "not a
routing protocol," and thus not to be feared.)  (No accounting for
taste, I guess.)

If we were to declare 1256 Historic, it seems to me that we might want
to tweak RFC 2002 a bit, as the Mobile IP discovery mechanism depends
on RFC 1256 Router Discovery.

Eliot Lear writes:
> > I believe that RFCs 1377 (OSINLCP) and 1378 (ATCP) are also in use,
> > though, arguably, AppleTalk is going away faster.  You need RFC 1377
> > if you're going to run IS-IS over PPP links.
> 
> I've removed RFC 1377, and I would prefer a more authoritative statement 
> about RFC 1378.  Should I remove it or not?

OK, leave it on the list.  It certainly has multiple implementations,
but I suppose someone else can complain instead.

> > I don't know what the value of RFCs 1471-1474 (PPP MIBs) might be, but
> > they're they only MIBs that exist for PPP.
> 
> Are they implemented and widely deployed?

That's a really good question.  The only implementations that I knew
about were never widely deployed.  (Most likely because, unlike
private MIBs, they don't cover enough of the functionality to be
genuinely useful.  Hence the "don't know" comment.)

I'll ask the list.

> > RFC 1256 (router discovery) is widely implemented and used.
> 
> As I am acting as an editor only right now, I've removed RFC 1256, but 
> as a mailing list member, this is one I'd like to come back to later. 
> Is it really widely used?  For what?  By whom?  Anyway...

For acquiring default routes on "simple hosts" by Sun, and (I suspect)
likely other non-router vendors.

-- 
James Carlson, IP Systems Group?               <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.234W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.497N   Fax +1 781 442 1677