Re: nhrp-05 ????? - Destination Prefix Extension

[Bruce Cole <[e-mail]>]

Let me answer the two issues separately...

> > 6. Proposal to add prefix mask to purge packet
> 
> The consensus on item #6 follows:
> Allow the destination prefix extension to be sent in Purge packets.

I saw no disagreement to this proposal, and it seems like a sensible
compromise.  Objections?

> Add two flags to the destination prefix extension that define which
> packet types that it supports for the destination prefix extension.

Here, you must be referring to the R and P bits that you proposed to
add to the destination prefix extension.  I saw no response to that
proposal, but...

Personally, I think it makes *NO* sense.  Why would a client indicate
that it does not support this extension in purge packets, and why
would the responding station care to know this?

Firstly, for the client to be able to parse the NHRP purge packet in
the first place, it would have to be conforming to the newer draft of
the NHRP protocol.  So there is no need to worry about backwards
compatibility here...  Secondly, this extension is already defined as
"Discretionary = 1", so implementations are already aware that the
extension may not be handled by the receiving station.