Subject: Re: FYI: New ID submission- GRP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:49:57 -0500

draft-giacalone-grp-00.txt:
>   GRP operation on routers includes:
>        -Responding to GRP queries sent to the Zero Configuration GRP
>         router address.
>        -Originating GRP keepalive messages
>        -Properly handling the GRP keepalive messages originated by
>         other routers.
>        -Interoperation with NAT

>Points 1-3 are covered by RFC 1256.  Point 4 is neither a requirement nor
>desirable.

I think most of thing has become a debate of NAT, which is infortunate. I
think GRP has some advantages of 1256, but that's my opinion.

>What you are hearing on the list is that
>the rough consensus is that this is a *VERY BAD IDEA.*

I'm not sure how 4 people become a rough concensus, but okay..

>Please read draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-02.txt.

I did. I think your quote is open to interpretation, as I have argued.

Spence

---

From: Josh Graessley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:18:31 -0800

> think GRP has some advantages of 1256, but that's my opinion.

I think many of us dislike NAT, but that has nothing to do with the
arguments against GRP. It just doesn't seem to fall into the spirit/scope of
linklocal.

> I'm not sure how 4 people become a rough concensus, but okay..

Just because only 4 have spoken, doesn't mean those are the only 4 who think
this is a "*VERY BAD IDEA*". I myself, agree with the arguments against GRP
but have nothing more to add.

-Josh